A History Lesson for William Hague

William Hague is worried about Iran. So worried, in fact, that he declared his intention in The Guardian to add to EU sanctions against Iran. He is “determined”, no matter what “Iran may hope”, not to be distracted from its nuclear programme, and not to be so “naive” as to give it “the benefit of the doubt”. Strong words. I agree on at least one point: Iran’s plans for further uranium enrichment do “rightly prompt questions”.

But Mr. Hague’s article also prompts questions. Like, for instance, why is it that he makes no mention of the history of the Iranian nuclear programme, which is intimately tied to the Foreign Office?

In the very first line of his article, Hague relates an announcement by Fereydoun Abbasi Davani, the current head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). He neglects to mention, however, just how the AEOI came into existence. On August 19th 1953, the United Kingdom and the United States overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohamed Mossadeq, in a coup charmingly named ‘Operation Boot’. We then proceeded to reinstall the Shah – Mohammad Reza Pahlavi – a vicious dictator who controlled one of the worst secret police forces in history (SAVAK), but happened to be willing to subordinate himself to Western influence. In 1967, the Shah founded Iran’s first nuclear research centre in Tehran, run by the AEOI, and equipped with a US nuclear reactor. Worse still, the Shah openly admitted that he was planning to obtain nuclear weapons. No protest from Washington or London.

Throughout the 1970s plans for over twenty nuclear reactors were drawn up (all with US support), and in 1975 the German Company Siemens AG signed a contract for the Bushehr nuclear plant. Again no protest.

Then came the 1979 Islamic revolution that brought Iran’s current ruling establishment to power. Ayatollah Khomeini – of Salman Rushdie fatwa fame – immediately moved to shut down the nuclear programme that the Western backed dictator had established. Why then does Iran still have nuclear power plants, and, if Mr. Hague is correct, a weapons programme? In September 1980, Iraq began a UK backed invasion of Iran, that was to become an eight year conflict. Millions were killed, and large amounts of chemical weapons were used, particularly on Iranian infantry. Reluctantly, the Iranian leadership restarted its nuclear programme.

Mr. Hague doesn’t say this, and the reason is clear. The UK government has overthrown a legitimate Iranian leader, installed a brutal dictator in his place, and helped him to establish a nuclear programme. Then, after the Iranians overthrew the dictator, it supported an invasion of Iran that prompted them to restart the nuclear programme they so disliked. During that time, the UK and US have committed numerous acts of aggression in the Middle East. For a UK government minister to call Iran a danger to the region, especially because of its nuclear programme, is staggeringly hypocritical.

Needless to say, there is much more to this issue. What of the US and Israel, both of whom have huge nuclear arsenals and extensive records of aggression? If Hague cared about peace in the Middle East as he says, he would not be silent on these threats.

The fact that he parrots back the Washington narrative we’ve become so familiar with this past decade, of a rogue Iran bent on acquiring nuclear weapons to wreak havoc on the world, is telling. It tells us that he wants to present this issue without the historical context that is so important; to scare us with stories of a demon in the East, and subvert the brighter image of the region that the Arab Spring is building. After all, you have to justify a huge military budget and multiple war-zones somehow.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-stevenson/a-history-lesson-for-will_b_897732.html

The Truth About the Moroccan Referendum

In a small hotel, within Marrakech’s Medina, I talk with my host and friend Yousuf. Over the past two days he has been, very patiently, helping me to refine my impoverished and diminutive knowledge of Arabic. We discuss pronunciation and, of course, dialect. Arabic is perhaps more diverse than any other major language, so much so that an Arabic speaker from Syria may struggle to understand Arabic dialect in Algeria. During the conversation Yousuf pauses to tell me that he has ‘his own language’, in addition to Arabic. His eyes change; he is unmistakeably proud. Berber, he says, contributes considerably to Moroccan dialect Arabic, but is also a language in its own right. Berber is Yousuf’s ‘own language’.

The next day I travel across Morocco by taxi. It is a long and fascinating journey, but its defining feature is the police checkpoints. Every 20 miles there are policemen stopping motorists. My first thought is that they must be monitoring long distance travel within Morocco, as part of a surveillance program aimed at keeping tabs on the Polisario. In 1975 Western Sahara was finally decolonized, and as soon as the Spanish left, Morocco and Mauritania immediately invaded. By 1979 Morocco had established administrative control of the country, but the Polisario – a Sahrawi resistance movement – were both strong and popular. I ask the driver why there are so many checkpoints, are they monitoring the Polisario? He replies only to tell me that he was ‘a policeman for five years’.

 

“That 98.5% of Moroccans agree on such a complex and important question is extremely unlikely.”

As we drive on another possibility presents itself. A convoy of about 20 cars is driving slowly down the main road, accompanied by the sound of honking horns. On this point, our driver is far more amenable. The cars are draped in hand written signs that are, he says, canvassing the ‘Yes’ vote in the upcoming Referendum. In response to the wave of protests and popular political organization that has gripped Morocco just as strongly as the rest of the Arab world, King Muhammad VI had offered a referendum on a new constitution. The new regulations would involve the King renouncing a modest amount of power, make the prime minister the head of the government, grant women ‘social equality’ with men, and – strikingly – acknowledge Berber as an official state language along with Arabic. The ‘Yes’ convoy is unobstructed by the police. Is the referendum the reason for the quantity of checkpoints?

It is the 30th of June. Throughout my travels King Muhammad VI has been there. In every hotel, restaurant, shop, café, and even in the souks of Marrakech, there are portraits of the King. His ubiquity is a stark reminder of Egypt in 2009, when Hosni Mubarak’s face was plastered even onto the make-shift walls of Cairo’s shanty town. I am in the coastal town of Essaouira, and in the central square there is a large rally. A stage is erected, and the sky is strewn with ‘Yes’ fliers. The ‘Yes’ campaign is undoubtedly well funded. The town is, however, divided. The ‘Yes’ camp are louder, they dance, and their microphones ring through the streets. Their supporters clutch the same portraits of King Muhammad that have become so familiar. But there is a considerable group of protesters calling for a boycott of the referendum, and though there is no sign of any violence, they are completely contained within a police cordon. Is this Moroccan Kettling? Are the police merely pre-empting clashes, or are they sending a message?

Though they are not insignificant, the reforms are not those that the protest movements want. The February 20th movement has been vehemently arguing for a political system based on the separation of powers, foreign policy decided democratically, and for something to be done about Morocco’s increasing youth unemployment, which currently stands at nearly 40 percent. The referendum, it is widely agreed, is as much a vote on King Muhammad as it is on his minor reforms. If that is true, it follows that the referendum was not a vote the King could afford to lose.

The result comes in: 98.5% have voted yes. The UK government has decisively moved to support not only the new constitution but this result, and therefore there are some points that need to be made. The first is hardly necessary to emphasize; the proportion of support is scarcely believable. That 98.5% of Moroccans agree on such a complex and important question is extremely unlikely. The second is that the opposition and popular movements have pushed for boycott, rather than a ‘no’ vote; this alone at least partially invalidates the result. There are also questions that remain unanswered. What effect has the police presence and its noticeable yet measured action around the referendum had? And how many people, proud like Yousuf of a sense of distinct Berber identity, have supported the reforms because of the King’s addition of the official language change?

King Muhammad VI has been shrewd. His referendum is ostensibly a victory, and a weapon against those who will argue for more radical democratic changes. It is also an excuse for Western governments like our own to oppose Arab democracy, as they always do. Scratch the surface and you find the reality is more complicated. Though Morocco is not Libya, or Egypt, the protest movements will not be perturbed by this.

I learned much about language in Morocco. The truth about the referendum is that it was not a loud clear shout of support for the King’s continued power. The reform movements are alive and well, and will continue to voice their desire for a more democratic Morocco, in both Arabic and Berber.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-stevenson/the-truth-about-the-moroc_b_894379.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.