Give Iran's sorry president no apologies

The following letters are in response to this letter.

The De-historicization and De-contextualization of Past US-Iran Relations

Mr. John Silber’s piece titled "Give Iran’s Sorry President no Apologies" (September 25) was a true disappointment in light of the advances made by the Clinton and Khatami administrations toward mutual understanding and dialogue. His article obfuscates historical developments, and its tone expresses disdain for fairness and "the other."

Twelve paragraphs of his 14-paragraph piece discuss the 1980 hostage event; yet, only one sentence refers to the CIA engineered coup of 1953 that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran. Even that one phrase is false and misleading. By hiding behind the word "’alleged’ U.S. involvement" he intends to cast a doubt in the mind of the reader. Mr. Silber may not be aware of the recently released CIA documents about the Coup against Premier Mosaddegh, authored by Donald Wilber, one of the architects of the destabilization program and coup d’etat.

These documents released in April by The New York Times discuss how the U.S. Government agents bribed corrupt politicians, and formed a network of journalists (BEDMAN) and street toughs, and planned kidnapping and bombing to undermine a legitimate independent government with aspirations of self-determination. When all failed, CIA agents (as field directors) along with rogue Iranian army officers moved in militarily and illegally installed the Shah’s regime. That repressive-client-regime suppressed all forms of political expression and damaged the civil society for a quarter of a century. Mr. Silber’s montage memory conveniently skips all that, and jumps to the hostage event of 1980.

IranianTimes, a major Internet magazine, conducted a poll in January to ascertain who the public perceived to be the most influential personality of the 20th Century; the participants selected the late Premier Mosaddegh. The issue of apology has to do with the collective memory of Iranians about their political history. It’s not for the benefit of an individual person or government. Hence, character assassination of President Khatami would not change that historical-reference-as-role-model, and the collective memory associated with it. The Reform discourse in Iran is such that anybody representing or negotiating on behalf of it owes it to the Iranians to demand redemption of the past. Khatami is living up to that responsibility.

Although, the political lineage of Iran’s present regime or Mr. Khatami is not directly connected to the pre-Coup democratic life of the Mosaddegh era, Khatami on a personal level is a reminder of the late Mosaddegh’s strong commitment to due process and democratic rights. He is no "sorry president" as Mr. Silber claims. In fact, during his recent trip for the General Assembly he conveyed two major themes--"the dialogue of civilizations" and "apology as atonement"--and, walking the halls of the UN buildings, Khatami seemed ten feet tall. The "court of world opinion" does not have an elastic historic-memory.

Formal regrets and apologies are not unprecedented. In his recent trip to Central America, "President Clinton apologized for United States support of right-wing governments in Guatemala that killed thousands of rebels and Mayan Indians in a 36-year civil war." (John M. Broder, "Clinton Offers His Apologies to Guatemala," The New York Times, March 11, 1999) And, again, while visiting Greece, "President Clinton acknowledged that the U.S. was misguided in backing a rightist military coup in 1967." (Charles Babington, "Clinton Words Cheer Greeks," Washington Post, November 21, 1999)

At this crossroad in US-Iran relations, a less hostile and provocative language than Mr. Silber’s would be welcomed.

Fareed Marjaee
daavar@hotmail.com

Dear Dr. Silber:

As an expert in ethics, You should have written a more balanced article about president Khatami's demand for an apology from the united states. One must not brush aside the essence of a fair and proper request because the person who makes it is not of our liking or approval. So let us focus on the coup d'etat itself and consider the demand for an apology not from the president but from the victims of that coup though I thoroughly disagree with your characterization of him. A coup that imprisoned, tortured and killed the flower of the Iranian nation, that destroyed the secular political institutions of the Iranian society and brought to a bloody halt the emerging democratic movement of the Iranian people. After the coup all the independent newspapers were closed down, thugs paid and organized by the CIA roamed the streets, systematicly every expression of free thought, every sign of dissent was wiped out. From our dear and gracious foreign minister Fatemi to young university students, activists were shot. The great leader of the Iranian people was hauled before the world to answer for his "crimes". All was lost. After the coup the Iranian Majlis was nothing more than a hand picked collection of the regime's yes men. Iranians' second attempt in the century to attain democracy in an independent state was crushed. Where was the "rule of law" then? Hidden behind the legitimacy of a reluctant young monarch marched the selfish criminal imperial British and the American machinery of oppression. The British wounded by the Iranian people's successful resistance were back at it with a vengeance literally. Fatemi was its first victim. Gone was our people's hope for reform. Gone was the civility by which Mossadeg had approached Truman and had requested his support for the Iranian democracy as the leader of the American republic in the same spirit that decades earlier the head of the American council had fought and died with the Mujahedin in Tabriz rather than see it fall to the forces of another Shah.

The intelligentsia then concluded that an armed struggle was the only way to go. Simply put: the U.S. did not want to deal with the civil and gentle Mossadeg and so the Iranian people decided not to deal with the Shah and the U.S. gently. Revolutions bring about great excesses and ours was no exception but the rule of law modern or ancient cannot be the common measure when one side decides to define or apply it selectively. I am sure the British crown did not consider the "rebels" and "mobs" who had taken up arms against it on the British "soil" more than criminals engaged in high treason. I am sure you will not argue that the Jewish "terrorists", one of whom later became the prime minister of Israel were upholding the international law or the British law while blowing their way up toward Zion. Then too, the more powerful people and the states they embodied cried out in the name of the law, theirs.

What happened after the storming of the U.S. embassy by the university students? The staff were held and then freed. No great change had taken place in the course of the American republic yet the U.S. exacted ample disproportionate and collective revenge by its support of Saddam's genocidal war machine. You got your war; it was just not declared. It seems neither of us had learned to stop trying to get even.

As a man whose roots are embedded in this century's great holocaust, you surely understand why the future generations of every nation must carry the burden of the ones before. Their burden and not their guilt. Not because the victims need the apology to heal but because we must remember the wrong doings of our fathers so that we do not repeat them. Let the united states of America never again justify supporting oppression in the name of its national interests! and let no angry Iranian "mob" storm the American embassy ever again to advance a political cause. Though I was too young to recall all the details of those events I apologize to you and the American people and from you I expect the same.

Vahid Reza Ramezani
College Park Maryland
rvahid@Glue.umd.edu

I am writing in relation to the article by Mr.John Silber, printed in the Boston Herald.com, dated Monday September 25 2000. In this article Mr. Silber states "There is a long-established principle in the common law that one who seeks justice must not come into court with dirty hands. " I would like to point out that this statement is wrong. The statement should read "one who seeks equity must not come into court with dirty hands. "

Indeed seeking justice from a court of law is a fundamental right. It would be ludicrous if a person, guilty or not was denied justice in a court of law.

It is regrettable that such a distinguished gentleman is allowed to make such a fundamental mistake in an edited publication.

Yours: Shamir.