Republicans and Foreign Policy
Published: October 17, 2011
For a while, we were concerned that the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination were not saying much about national security and foreign affairs. Now that a few have started, maybe they were better off before.
Related in Opinion
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Certainly, the Republican hopefuls have put to rest any lingering notion that their party is the one to trust with the nation’s security. The United States is involved in two wars with more than 100,000 troops overseas. China is rising, relations with Pakistan are plummeting, Iran and North Korea are advancing their nuclear programs. The Middle East is in turmoil. Yet the candidates offer largely bad analysis and worse solutions, nothing that suggests real understanding or new ideas.
Some made weak attempts to resurrect Reagan-era ideas about American leadership that make no sense today. Accusing President Obama of being weak or refusing to lead is ludicrous when you consider all he has done to repair the damage his predecessor did to America’s standing in the world. Then there was that small matter of assassinating Osama bin Laden. The Republican hopefuls seem to know that their main talking point is to criticize Mr. Obama, but, when it comes to global affairs, they are not quite sure how or why.
How else to describe the answer from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at a recent debate when asked what he would do if the Taliban took control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? He jumbled up names and facts and ended up accusing Washington of refusing to sell F-16s to India, which actually had declined to buy the combat planes.
But even that was better than Herman Cain announcing that “a leader” does not need to know the names of people who run places like “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.” Mr. Cain should know President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. He is an autocrat with an appalling human rights record, and Uzbekistan is an important supply route for American forces in Afghanistan.
Recently, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. have delivered foreign policy speeches and issued white papers. But they are pretty thin, with few new ideas and many unanswered questions. Among Mr. Romney’s more specific proposals: increase defense spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product. Even if that were good policy, we’d like to know where Mr. Romney plans to get the money to pay for it.
Mr. Huntsman wants the troops out of Afghanistan quickly, and former Senator Rick Santorum advocates an aggressive push to win — whatever that means. Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry are somewhere in the muddled middle, with ambiguous statements that, so far, make it impossible to know when or even if they might withdraw troops.
Mr. Romney said proudly that he would consult the military commanders on Afghanistan — which is exactly what Mr. Obama did. Most Republican candidates support Israel and oppose Iran getting a nuclear weapon — without any good ideas for how to save the first and prevent the second. As for the use of military force, in a speech in August, Mr. Perry called for “taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home.” He also rejected “military adventurism.” So when exactly would he use military force? No one knows.
Would these candidates work with China or confront it? What must the United States do to ensure the Arab Spring leads to democratic change? Can relations with Pakistan be made productive? American voters deserve thoughtful answers. They’re not getting them.
Some made weak attempts to resurrect Reagan-era ideas about American leadership that make no sense today. Accusing President Obama of being weak or refusing to lead is ludicrous when you consider all he has done to repair the damage his predecessor did to America’s standing in the world. Then there was that small matter of assassinating Osama bin Laden. The Republican hopefuls seem to know that their main talking point is to criticize Mr. Obama, but, when it comes to global affairs, they are not quite sure how or why.
How else to describe the answer from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas at a recent debate when asked what he would do if the Taliban took control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? He jumbled up names and facts and ended up accusing Washington of refusing to sell F-16s to India, which actually had declined to buy the combat planes.
But even that was better than Herman Cain announcing that “a leader” does not need to know the names of people who run places like “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.” Mr. Cain should know President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. He is an autocrat with an appalling human rights record, and Uzbekistan is an important supply route for American forces in Afghanistan.
Recently, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. have delivered foreign policy speeches and issued white papers. But they are pretty thin, with few new ideas and many unanswered questions. Among Mr. Romney’s more specific proposals: increase defense spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product. Even if that were good policy, we’d like to know where Mr. Romney plans to get the money to pay for it.
Mr. Huntsman wants the troops out of Afghanistan quickly, and former Senator Rick Santorum advocates an aggressive push to win — whatever that means. Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry are somewhere in the muddled middle, with ambiguous statements that, so far, make it impossible to know when or even if they might withdraw troops.
Mr. Romney said proudly that he would consult the military commanders on Afghanistan — which is exactly what Mr. Obama did. Most Republican candidates support Israel and oppose Iran getting a nuclear weapon — without any good ideas for how to save the first and prevent the second. As for the use of military force, in a speech in August, Mr. Perry called for “taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home.” He also rejected “military adventurism.” So when exactly would he use military force? No one knows.
Would these candidates work with China or confront it? What must the United States do to ensure the Arab Spring leads to democratic change? Can relations with Pakistan be made productive? American voters deserve thoughtful answers. They’re not getting them.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 18, 2011, on page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Republicans and Foreign Policy.
Readers' Comments
Republicans and Foreign PolicyBack to Article »
After a silence from the Republican presidential candidates on national security, they are now offering largely bad analysis and worse solutions.Comments are no longer being accepted.
14 of 173 Readers' Comments
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
How is it that people who consider themselves can be so ignorant of history, and who and what it is they are proposing to fight, defeat, replace, or democratize?None of them, and that goes for both parties of congress seem to have any idea what and who they are trying to work with, and why their efforts do not seem to work.
This is the Islamic world, and their view of history is far different than what we westerners have been taught about it. The Islamic world sees the west as having lorded it over them for centuries. The British told the Egyptians how much they would get from the Suez Canal, and that they, the British would run it. The British told the Iranians what and who they could sell their oil to, and when the democratically elected president of Iran said he would nationalize it, President Eisenhower helped engineer the overthrow of this president, and a puppet, the Shah, was put in his place. Even Afghanistan which was moving toward a more democratic government was stopped by the British.
The Afghanistan and Pakistan borders are artificial lines made by the British which divided the Pashtunes separating members of the same tribes. Islam, which was at one time, the leading force of learning, scholarship, and medicine became a fundamentalist militant religion, due to forces from the west.
The Islamic world does not trust us, it does not believe us, it wants to be able to make its own destiny, not what the west wants it to do.
I would suspect not one of these "candidates" has read, "Destiny Disrupted" by: Tamim Ansary. You may not agree with the Islamic view of their history, but that is the way they see it, and they have good reason to do so.
This is the Islamic world, and their view of history is far different than what we westerners have been taught about it. The Islamic world sees the west as having lorded it over them for centuries. The British told the Egyptians how much they would get from the Suez Canal, and that they, the British would run it. The British told the Iranians what and who they could sell their oil to, and when the democratically elected president of Iran said he would nationalize it, President Eisenhower helped engineer the overthrow of this president, and a puppet, the Shah, was put in his place. Even Afghanistan which was moving toward a more democratic government was stopped by the British.
The Afghanistan and Pakistan borders are artificial lines made by the British which divided the Pashtunes separating members of the same tribes. Islam, which was at one time, the leading force of learning, scholarship, and medicine became a fundamentalist militant religion, due to forces from the west.
The Islamic world does not trust us, it does not believe us, it wants to be able to make its own destiny, not what the west wants it to do.
I would suspect not one of these "candidates" has read, "Destiny Disrupted" by: Tamim Ansary. You may not agree with the Islamic view of their history, but that is the way they see it, and they have good reason to do so.
Recommend Recommended by 151 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
George G.
Santa Fe NM
October 18th, 2011
8:18 am
Uh, isn't Ron Paul a Republican candidate for president? He has a very different Foreign Policy and the others, but he does not get a mention. Why?
Recommend Recommended by 96 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
sthomas1957
Salt Lake City, UT
October 18th, 2011
9:03 am
This isn't about national security, it's about who gets to spend all that budget money and on whose watch. Republicans have adopted a tactic -- in use for thirty years now -- that whenever they're in the White House, it's no holds barred for more defense spending. Being the good Keynesians that they are, they're acutely aware that spending government money on programs, even defense, means building a political constituency in Washington. And whenever the Democrats are in the White House, the Republican tactic is to call for gigantic cuts in spending, and even allowing for cuts in defense as long as the Democrats are the ones doing the cutting.They have been on this paradigm ever since Ronald Reagan started to massively spend money on the military, even though at the time the country wasn't even engaged in a hot war (sure, the Cold War was going on at the time, but military spending on Cold War spies doesn't garner near the budget boost nor the political constituency in Washington as building more tanks, submarines, and aircraft do).
So it is only natural now that all of those hawkish Republican members of Congress during the Bush years are now some of the biggest doves during the Obama presidency, some of them even outdoing Dennis Kucinich in calling for the withdrawal of troops from overseas activities. Irresponsible? Sure, but it's the Democrats who will take the blame if the national security situation turns perilous following a hasty withdrawal, and it in fact becomes the perfect pretext for advocating a huge buildup of the Pentagon's budget after a period of Democratic downsizing.
In the 1960's and 1970's, the Republican Party was largely accused of being the isolationist, dovish party of the two major parties. Democrats, in turn, controlled the Pentagon establishment. Since Reagan, however, that paradigm has shifted and now it is to the GOP that most beneficiaries who receive the lion's share of military spending owe their allegiance.
So it is only natural now that all of those hawkish Republican members of Congress during the Bush years are now some of the biggest doves during the Obama presidency, some of them even outdoing Dennis Kucinich in calling for the withdrawal of troops from overseas activities. Irresponsible? Sure, but it's the Democrats who will take the blame if the national security situation turns perilous following a hasty withdrawal, and it in fact becomes the perfect pretext for advocating a huge buildup of the Pentagon's budget after a period of Democratic downsizing.
In the 1960's and 1970's, the Republican Party was largely accused of being the isolationist, dovish party of the two major parties. Democrats, in turn, controlled the Pentagon establishment. Since Reagan, however, that paradigm has shifted and now it is to the GOP that most beneficiaries who receive the lion's share of military spending owe their allegiance.
Recommend Recommended by 82 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Jacques
New York
October 18th, 2011
10:43 am
I'm afraid this well-written piece points up the extraordinary ignorance not just of the Republican candidates for President but of the US people in general in terms of what is going on outside of the US. In terms of world news, entering the US is like entering a white-noise bubble. That these people are the Republican contenders for President of the world's largest foreign policy blundering machine says it all. At least they wear their bewildering ignorance on their sleeves.
Recommend Recommended by 95 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
J. Sweeney
West Chester, PA
October 18th, 2011
10:46 am
I agree with George G. (# 5). The NY Times is not being honest in failing to report a very different foreign policy proposed and championed by the Libertarian leaning Ron Paul.We have been bankrupting our country, killing our neighbors, and sacrificing our citizen soldiers in wars of aggression. If President Obama is unwilling to change our out of control foreign policy, then perhaps we should start supporting a very different kind of Republican.
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Steve M
Liverpool, UK
October 18th, 2011
11:12 am
US foreign policy is of significant interest to a great many folk over here in Britain because, irrespective of whether a Republican or Democrat sits in the White House, the UK government tends to support it. This is extremely unpopular at times, but I think many Brits appreciate this to be, mostly, the pragmatic course of action.However, when I read articles such as this, I shudder. In the UK, Rick Perry would be regarded as a fringe candidate at best, and at worst... well, let's just say that I don't want to be offensive. I suppose he's an improvement on Michelle Bachmann, though that really isn't saying much. It astonishes me that, given most of Americas current problems can be blamed on Republican policies, people such as this are still even part of the debate. Honestly, when I read Candidate Perry's ideas on Mexico, I cried into my tea and biscuits.
Given the competition, I suspect that Obama being voted out of office next year would be disastrous for the US. Please America, don't do it, as your folly would have consequences for us all!
Given the competition, I suspect that Obama being voted out of office next year would be disastrous for the US. Please America, don't do it, as your folly would have consequences for us all!
Recommend Recommended by 89 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
kwb
Cumming, GA
October 18th, 2011
11:13 am
When has presidential campaign rhetoric on foreign policy ever meant anything when the winner takes office? Presidents must of necessity deal with situations as they occur, which are usually quite different than during the electoral season.
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
AC
Upstate NY
October 18th, 2011
11:17 am
Mitt Romney seemed above the fray until I heard some of his hawkish comments. At the Citadel he said he "would take militaristic action against Iran" - not talk. Also, In a recent debate, Romney said he would "confront" China as a 'currency manipulator' - for under valuing its currency & hurting jobs. In this same debate, Huntsman cautioned that such tough tactics could lead to a trade war with China that would hurt small businesses.I don't doubt that Romney is an intelligent man, but his ideas sound like a chapter out of GWB's play book.
Recommend Recommended by 39 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Mike Edwards
Providence, RI
October 18th, 2011
11:18 am
“Would these candidates work with China or confront it?”Interesting question but one that will have little relevance on Election Day. On November 1st, 2012, how many Americans do you think will know the name of the President of the People’s Republic of China?
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Gerald
Portsmouth, NH
October 18th, 2011
11:18 am
Mitt Romney disqualified himself, in my view, as a presidential candidate during the New Hampshire debate when he referred to the Senate Bill aimed at punishing the Chinese for currency manipulation as "punishing cheaters." You don't need to know much about Chinese history and culture to know that the public use of such language will not be productive. Setting aside the fact that the Chinese already own such a large piece of our hide, a smart U.S. president would show respect, at least in public. Antagonizing the Chinese is probably the last thing we should do. Let's pass on Mitt Romney.
Recommend Recommended by 50 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Norman Dale
Cincinnati, OH
October 18th, 2011
12:13 pm
"American voters deserve thoughtful answers. They’re not getting them."American voters didn't get them from the current President when he campaigned in 2008. Consider the answers given in 2008 to questions such as, "Are you going to keep Guantanamo open?" or "Will you stop military tribunals for terror suspects?" or "Will you order military action in places like Libya without securing authorization from Congress?" when the President campaigned in 2008. Not very thoughtful, indeed.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Gus
UK
October 18th, 2011
12:53 pm
I recently returned from Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan at the end of my "insignificant states" tour of Europe. It's a wonderful country, but I'm glad to be home in Scoti-wotti-wot-land-land, another insignificant state though I suppose, right Mr. Cain?God help you all over there if people of this quality are all you have to choose from next year.
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
It can't be any worse than the Democrats foreign policy, which is "Bomb, Baby, Bomb".
The most significant idea came from Hermann Cain. "We spend our resources defending the borders of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Iraq".. Bring the troops home and defend own borders".
Makes sense to me.
The most significant idea came from Hermann Cain. "We spend our resources defending the borders of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Iraq".. Bring the troops home and defend own borders".
Makes sense to me.
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
What seems to be common to ALL Republican Presidential hopefuls is: For Israel and Against Iran and the Palestinans!
Which is really more of the same for the last two decades.
Where did that get the USA?
One answer would be the Arab Spring and a more militant Iran.
Is that really in the meduim and long term interest of the USA?
Which is really more of the same for the last two decades.
Where did that get the USA?
One answer would be the Arab Spring and a more militant Iran.
Is that really in the meduim and long term interest of the USA?
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
What's This? Sponsored Headlines
- SnagFilmsViolent Earth (Video)
- Kiplinger10 Tax-Unfriendly States for Retirees 2011
- Health.comCoffee, Alcohol, and More That Can Impact Your Health
- EarthTechlingNavy Tests Mean Green Killing Machine
Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics
| ||||||
23 articles in the past month
navanavonmilita
Advertisements
| Ads by Google | what's this? |
| Chromebooks have arrived Less loading. More surfing. Instant resume & 8 second startup. google.com/chromebook | |
Inside NYTimes.com
Opinion »Stanley Fish: Is Religion Above the Law?A case recently argued before the Supreme Court raises hard questions about the separation of church and state. | Opinion »Letters: The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ ProtestsReaders respond to recent coverage about the demonstrations against financial sector. | Opinion »Editorial Appreciation: Plaintiff for the PastElouise Cobell made a different future possible for American Indians with her tenacious advocacy. |
Iran – United Kingdom relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | |
 Iran |  United Kingdom |
Diplomatic relations between the two countries have considerably deteriorated in recent years, owing to the UK's criticism of Iran's political ideology and the worsening human rights situation in the country following the re-election of President Ahmadinejad.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] History of Anglo-Iranian relations
[edit] Safavid era
 | This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2009) |
South of the Moscow Trading Company Headquarters was the wealthy realm of the Safavid Empire. The company started sending envoys during the reign of Shah Tahmasp I during the first years in business. Anthony Jenkinson was one of the first leaders of these envoys. In total, there were six visits and the last one was in June 1579 during the reign of Shah Mohammad Khodabandeh led by Arthur Edwards. But at the time the company's envoys reached the royal court in Qazvin, the Shah was busy protecting his borders from Osmani (Ottoman) attacks. In order to attain the wealth of the country, the company penetrated successfully into the bazaars and dispatched more envoys.
In 1597, as Abbas I of Safavid sought to strengthen his dominance in eastern Khorasan against rebellious Uzbeks, he received Robert Shirley, Anthony Shirley, and a group of 26 English envoys in Qazvin. The English delegation sought to convert Persia into an English ally against the Ottoman threat. Shah Abbas warmly received the delegation and took them as his guests with him to Isfahan, his new capital.
Soon, the Shirley brothers were appointed by the Shah to organize the royal cavalry and train the army. Many events followed, including the debut of the British East India Company into Persia, and establishment of trade routes for silk though Jask in the Strait of Hormuz in 1616. It was from here where the likes of Sir John Malcolm later gained influence into the Qajarid throne.
[edit] Qajar era
Plagued with internal politics and incompetency, the Qajarid government found itself incapable of rising to the numerous complex foreign political challenges at the doorsteps of Persia.
A weakened and bankrupted royal court under Fath Ali Shah was forced to sign the notorious Treaty of Gulistan in 1813, followed by the Treaty of Turkmenchay after efforts by Abbas Mirza failed to secure Persia's northern front against Imperial Russia. The treaties were prepared by the notorious[citation needed] Sir Gore Ouseley with the aid of the British Foreign Office in London. Sir Gore Ouseley was the younger brother of the British orientalist William Ouseley, who served as secretary to the British ambassador in Persia.
In fact, Iran's current southern and eastern boundaries were determined by none other than the British during the Anglo-Persian War (1856 to 1857). After defeating Nasereddin Shah in Herat in 1857, the British government assigned Frederic John Goldsmid of the Indo-European Telegraph Department to determine the borders between Persia and India during the 1860s.[2]
In 1872, the Shah signed an agreement with Baron Julius de Reuter, which George Nathaniel Curzon (who was one of the greatest statesmen of his day) called "The most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has ever been dreamed of".[3]
The Reuter Concession was immediately denounced by all ranks of businessmen, clergy, and nationalists of Persia, and the concession was quickly forced into cancellation.
Similarly, the "Tobacco fatwa", decreed by Grand Ayatollah Mirza Hassan Shirazi was an incident which raised popular resentment against the British presence in Persia in lieu of a diplomatically decapitated and apathetic Qajar throne. Concessions such as this and the 70 year contract of Persian railways to be operated by British businessmen such as Baron de Reuter became increasingly visible. The visibility became particularly pronounced after the discovery of oil in Masjed Soleiman in 1909 and the establishment of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the "D'Arcy Concession".
By the end of the 19th century, Britain's dominance became so pronounced that Khuzestan, Bushehr, and a host of other cities in southern Persia were occupied by Great Britain, and the central government in Tehran was left with no power to even select its own ministers without the approval of the Anglo-Russian consulates. Morgan Shuster, for example, had to resign under tremendous British and Russian pressure on the royal court. Shuster's book The Strangling of Persia is a recount of the details of these events, a harsh criticism of Britain and Imperial Russia.
[edit] Pahlavi era
Of the public outcry against the inability of the Persian throne to maintain its political and economic independence against Great Britain and Imperial Russia in the face of events such as the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 and "the 1919 treaty", one result was the Persian Constitutional Revolution, which eventually resulted in the fall of the Qajar dynasty.[citation needed]The great tremor of the Persian political landscape occurred when the involvement of General Edmund Ironside eventually led to the rise of Reza Pahlavi in the 1920s. The popular view that the British were involved in the 1921 coup was noted as early as March 1921 by the American embassy and relayed to the Iran desk at the Foreign Office[4] A British Embassy report from 1932 concedes that the British put Reza Shah "on the throne".[5]
After his establishing of power and strengthening of the central government, Reza Khan quickly put an end to the autonomous activities of the British backed Sheikh Khazal in the south. London withdrew its support of Khaz'al in favor of Reza Pahlavi. However, Reza Pahlavi was removed from power just as quickly during the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during World War II.
A novel chapter in Anglo-Iranian relations had begun when Iran cancelled its capitulation agreements with foreign powers in 1928. Iran's success in revoking the capitulation treaties, and the failure of the Anglo-Iranian Agreement of 1919 earlier, led to intense diplomatic efforts by the British government to regularize relations between the two countries on a treaty basis. On the Iranian side negotiations on the widest range of issues were conducted by Abdolhossein Teymourtash, the Minister of Court from 1925 to 1932, and Iran's nominal Minister of Foreign Affairs during the period.
The ire of the British Government was raised, however, by Persian diplomatic claims to the oil rich regions of the Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands, Abu Musa and Bahrain in the Persian Gulf region. On the economic front, on the other hand, Iran's pressures to rescind the monopoly rights of the British-owned Imperial Bank of Persia to issue banknotes in Iran, the Iranian Trade Monopoly Law of 1928, and prohibitions whereby the British Government and Anglo-Persian Oil Company ("APOC") were no longer permitted to enter into direct agreements with their client tribes, as had been the case in the past, did little to satisfy British expectations. The cumulative impact of these demands on the British Government was well expressed by Sir Robert Clive, Britain's Minister to Tehran, who in 1931 noted in a report to the Foreign Office "There are indications, indeed that their present policy is to see how far they can push us in the way of concessions, and I feel we shall never re-establish our waning prestige or even be able to treat the Persian government on equal terms, until we are in a position to call a halt".
Despite the enormous volume of correspondence and protracted negotiations that took place between the two countries on the widest array of issues, on the Iranian side Teymourtash conducted these negotiations single-handedly “without so much as a secretary to keep his papers in order”, according to one scholar. Resolution of all outstanding differences eluded a speedy resolution, however, given the reality that on the British side progress proved tedious due to the need to consult many government departments with differing interests and jurisdictions.
The most intractable challenge, however, proved to be Iran's assiduous efforts to revise the terms whereby the APOC retained near monopoly control over the oil industry in Iran as a result of the concession granted to William Knox D'Arcy in 1901 by the Qajar King of the period. "What Persians felt", Teymourtash would explain to his British counterparts in 1928, "was that an industry had been developed on their own soil in which they had no real share".
Complicating matters further, and ensuring that such demands would in due course set Iran on a collision course with the British Government was the reality that pursuant to a 1914 Act of the British Parliament, an initiative championed by Winston Churchill in his capacity as First Lord of the Admiralty, led the British Government to be granted a majority fifty-three percent ownership of the shares of APOC. The decision was adopted during World War I to ensure the British Government would gain a critical foothold in Iranian affairs so as to protect the flow of oil Iran from Iran due to its critical importance to the operation of the Royal Navy during the war effort. By the 1920s APOC's extensive installations and pipelines in Khuzestan and its refinery in Abadan meant that the company's operations in Iran had led to the creation of the greatest industrial complex in the Middle East.
The attempt to revise the terms of the oil concession on a more favourable basis for Iran led to protracted negotiations that took place in Tehran, Lausanne, London and Paris between Teymourtash and the Chairman of APOC, Sir John Cadman, spanning the years from 1928 to 1932. The overarching argument for revisiting the terms of the D'Arcy Agreement on the Iranian side was that its national wealth was being squandered by a concession that was granted in 1901 by a previous non-constitutional government forced to agree to inequitable terms under duress.
However, despite much progress, Reza Shah Pahlavi was soon to assert his authority by dramatically inserting himself in to the negotiations. The Monarch attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers in November 1932, and after publicly rebuking Teymourtash for his failure to secure an agreement, dictated a letter to cabinet cancelling the D'Arcy Agreement. The Iranian Government notified APOC that it would cease further negotiations and demanded cancellation of the D'Arcy concession. Rejecting the cancellation, the British government espoused the claim on behalf of APOC and brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, asserting that it regarded itself "as entitled to take all such measures as the situation may demand for the Company's protection." At this point, Hassan Taqizadeh, the new Iranian minister to have been entrusted the task of assuming responsibility for the oil dossier, was to intimate to the British that the cancellation was simply meant to expedite negotiations and that it would constitute political suicide for Iran to withdraw from negotiations.
Iranians nationalized the oil under the leadership of democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. This caused a lot of tension between Iran and the UK.
According to the book All the Shah's Men, the British tried to convince Harry S. Truman to join their campaign against Iran. However it was only when Dwight Eisenhower became the president that British succeeded in convincing U.S. to join their plot. In order to convince the Eisenhower administration Woodhouse shaped his appeal around the rhetoric of anti-communism. They pointed out the Tudeh party could take control of Iran. Eventually British and CIA created a plan code named Operation Ajax to overthrow the democratically elected Mosaddegh. The coup was performed by Central Intelligence Agency field commander Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (grandson of Theodore Roosevelt).
The end of World War II brought the start of American dominance in Iran's political arena, and with an anti-Soviet Cold War brewing, the United States quickly moved to convert Iran into an anti-communist bloc, thus considerably diminishing Britain's influence on Iran for years to come. Operation Ajax and the fall of Prime Minister Mosaddegh was perhaps the last of the large British involvements in Iranian politics in the Pahlavi era.
HIM the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi paid a state visit to the United Kingdom in May 1959.[6] HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom paid a state visit to Iran in March 1961.[7]
[edit] The Islamic Republic
On 30 April 1980, the Iranian Embassy was overtaken by six-man terrorist team held the building for six days until the hostages were rescued by a raid by the SAS. After the Revolution of Iran in 1979, Britain suspended all diplomatic relations with Iran. Britain did not have an embassy until it was reopened in 1988.During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein acquired metal tubes from firms in the United Kingdom, intended for the Project Babylon supergun. All were intercepted by customs and excise and none ever reached Iraq. The suppliers were under the impression that their tubes would have been used in a pipeline project.
A year after the re-establishment of the British embassy in Tehran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued the infamous Rushdie fatwa, ordering Muslims across the world to kill British author Salman Rushdie. Diplomatic ties with London were broken off only to be resumed at a chargé d'affaires level in 1990.
Relations normalised in 1998 during President Mohammad Khatami's reformist administration, and Jack Straw became the first high ranking British politician to visit Tehran in 2001 since the revolution.
Relations suffered a setback in 2002 when David Reddaway was rejected by Tehran as London's ambassador, on charges of being a spy, and further deteriorated when Iran seized eight British sailors after their vessel possibly strayed into Iranian waters near the border with Iraq. They were released later.
[edit] Current relations
[edit] Trade
The first Persian Ambassador to The United Kingdom was Mirza Albohassan Khan Ilchi Kabir.
[edit] Political tension
However, the rigidity of Tehran-London ties remains to be seen as Iran's new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has put forth a hardline government in power, in line with the revolutionary ideals of Ayatollah Khomeini .The confrontation between the United States-European Union pact on one side and Iran on the other over Iran's nuclear program also continues to develop, remaining a serious obstacle in the improvement of Tehran-London ties.
A confidential letter by UK diplomat John Sawers to French, German and US diplomats, dated 16 March 2006, twice referred to the intention to have the United Nations Security Council refer to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter in order to put pressure on Iran. Chapter VII describes the Security Council's power to authorize economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions, as well as the use of military force, to resolve disputes.
The Sunday Telegraph reported that a secret, high-level meeting would take place on 3 April 2006 between the UK government and military chiefs regarding plans to attack Iran.[10] The Telegraph cited "a senior Foreign Office source" saying that "The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable. There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed." The BBC reported a denial that the meeting would take place, but no denial of the alleged themes of the meeting, by the UK Ministry of Defence, and that "there is well sourced and persistent speculation that American covert activities aimed at Iran are already underway".[11]
[edit] 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
For more details on this topic, see 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel.
On 23 March 2007 fifteen Royal Navy personnel were seized by the naval forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for allegedly having strayed into Iranian waters. Eight sailors and seven Royal Marines on two boats from HMS Cornwall were detained at 10:30 local time by six Guard boats of the IRGC Navy. They were subsequently taken to Tehran. Iran reported that the sailors are well. About 200 students targeted the British Embassy on 1 April 2007 calling for the expulsion of the country's ambassador because of the standoff over Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines. The protesters chanted "Death to Britain" and "Death to America".[12] Speculation on the Iranians' motivations for this action ran rampant; with the Iranians under tremendous pressure on a number of fronts from the United States, the Revolutionary Guard Corps could have been responding to any one of a number of perceived threats.On 3 April 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair advised that "the next 48 hours will be critical" in defusing the crisis. At approximately 1:20 PM GMT, Iran's president announced that the 8 sailors would be 'pardoned'. The following day, he announced all 15 British personnel would be released immediately "in celebration of the Prophet's birthday and Easter."
[edit] Arms sales
Despite the political pressure and sanctions, a probe by customs officers suggests that at least seven British arms dealers have been supplying the Iranian air force, its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the country's controversial nuclear ambitions. A UK businessman was caught smuggling components for use in guided missiles through a front company that proved to be the Iranian Ministry of Defence. Another case involves a group that included several Britons which, investigators alleged, attempted to export components intended to enhance the performance of Iranian aircraft. Other examples involve a British millionaire arms dealer caught trading machine-guns used by the SAS and capable of firing 800 rounds a minute with a Tehran-based weapons supplier.[13]See also: Arms control
[edit] Gholhak
In 2006 a dispute about the ownership of a substantial (and exceedingly valuable) compound in Gholhak in northern Tehran was raised in the Iranian Parliament when 162 MPs wrote to the speaker.[14] The British Embassy have occupied the site since at least 1934 and assert that they have legal ownership but the issue was raised again in 2007 when a group of MPs claimed that the ownership papers for the site were unlawful under the laws extant in 1934.[15] In July 2007 a conference was held to discuss the ownership of the compound but was not attended by the British side.[edit] Asylum
On 14 March 2008, Britain said it would reconsider the asylum application of a gay Iranian teenager who claims he will be persecuted if he is returned home. He had fled to the Netherlands and sought asylum there; however, the Dutch government turned him down, saying the case should be dealt with in Britain, where he first applied.[16][edit] Escalating war talk
As talk of strikes and counter-strikes in relation to war talk between the United States-Israel-Iran trio heated up in 2008, a senior Iranian official suggested his regime should target London to deter such an attack. The head of the Europe and US Department in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Wahid Karimi, said an attack on London could deter the US from attacking Tehran. He said: "The most appropriate means of deterrence that Iran has, in addition to a retaliatory operation in the [Persian Gulf] region, is to take action against London." He also suggested a propensity to attack could arise from a "usually adventuresome" second term presidency. He said: "US presidents are usually adventuresome in their second terms... [Richard] Nixon, disgraced by the Watergate scandal; [Ronald] Reagan, with the 'Irangate' adventure; [and Bill] Clinton, with Monica Lewinsky - and perhaps George Bush, the sitting president, will create a scandal connected to Iran's legitimate nuclear activity so as not to be left behind." His speculation led him to suggest a clash could occur between the 2008 U.S. presidential elections and by the time the new president enters office in January 2009. "In the worst-case scenario, George Bush may perhaps persuade the president-elect to carry out an ill-conceived operation against Iran, prior to January 20, 2009 - that is, before the regime is handed over and he ends his presence in the White House. The next president of the US will have to deal with the consequences."[17][edit] 2009 Iranian election controversy
 | Wikinews has related news: Iran and Britain expel diplomats after Iranian presidential election |
Four days later it was reported that Iranian authorities had arrested a number of British embassy staff in Tehran citing their "considerable role" in the recent unrest.[22] After this event, the UK Government responded strongly demanding that the Iranian authorities release the British staff immediately as it stated that Iran's accusations are baseless without evidence. After the arrest of UK staff, the European Union (EU) has also demanded that UK staff be released in Iran under international law and if the UK staff are not released then the EU threatens a 'strong response'.[23] On Tuesday the 29th, Britain was warned by the Iranian Foreign Minister to state "Britain will get slapped in the mouth if it does not stop its nonsense."[24]
The Queen's College, Oxford established the Neda Agha-Soltan Graduate Scholarship in 2009, named after Neda Agha-Soltan, who died in the protests that followed the election. This led to a letter of protest to the college from the Iranian embassy in London, signed by the deputy ambassador, Safarali Eslamian. The letter disputed the circumstances of her death, and said that there was "supporting evidence indicating a pre-made scenario".[25] Eslamain wrote, "It seems that the University of Oxford has stepped up involvement in a politically motivated campaign which is not only in sharp contract with its academic objectives, but also is linked with a chain of events in post-Iranian presidential elections blamed for British interference both at home and abroad".[26] The letter also said that the "decision to abuse Neda's case to establish a graduate scholarship will highly politicise your academic institution, undermining your scientific credibility – along with British press which made exceptionally a lot of hue and cry on Neda's death – will make Oxford at odd [sic] with the rest of the world's academic institutions."[26] Eslamain asked for the university's governing board to be informed of "the Iranian views", and finished by saying, "Surely, your steps to achieve your attractions through non-politically supported programmes can better heal the wounds of her family and her nation."[26] Following publication of the Iranian letter, The Times was told by UK diplomatic sources, speaking anonymously, that the scholarship had put "another nail into the coffin" of relations between Britain and Iran.[27] If the government had been asked, the sources were reported as saying, it would have advised against the move, because it was felt that Iran would see it as an act of provocation, and because it would interfere with efforts to free Iranians working for the British Embassy in Tehran who had been detained for alleging participating in the post-election protests.[27] A college spokesman said that the scholarship had not been set up as part of a political decision, and if the initial donations had been refused, this would have been interpreted as a political decision too.[27]
[edit] 2009 international arbitration court ruling
In April 2009 the British government lost its final appeal in the arbitration court of the International Chamber of Commerce at The Hague against a payment of $650 million to Iran.[28] The money is compensation for an arms deal dating from the 1970s which then did not come about due to the occurrence of the Iranian Revolution.[29][30] The Shah's government had ordered 1,500 Chieftain tanks and 250 Chieftain armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs)in a contract worth £650 million, but only 185 vehicles had been delivered before the revolution occurred.[31] The contract also covered the provision of training to the Iranian army and the construction of a factory near Isfahan to build tank parts and ammunition.[28] In order to recover some of the costs 279 of the Chieftains were sold to Jordan and 29 of the ARVs to Iraq, who used them against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.[28][31] The UK continued to deliver tank parts to Iran after the revolution but finally stopped following the outbreak of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.[28]The British government has itself confirmed it has to pay the money and the ruling, which originated in The Hague, received coverage in The Independent.[29][30][32] Britain had already placed £486 million with the court in 2002 to pay for any ruling against it. The settlement is worth £390 million that will come out of this fund.[31] Iran has yet to officially apply to receive the money but when it does so will not receive it, instead it will join £976 million of Iranian assets frozen by the UK due to EU sanctions.[31]
[edit] Further reading
- Kazemzadeh Firuz, Russia and Britain in Persia 1864-1914, A study in Imperialism, 1968, Yale University Press.
- Morgan Shuster, The Strangling of Persia: Story of the European Diplomacy and Oriental Intrigue That Resulted in the Denationalization of Twelve Million Mohammedans. ISBN 0-934211-06-X
- Ingram, Edward. Britain’s Persian Connection 1798-1828: Prelude to the Great Game in Asia. 1993. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-820243-1
- Bonakdarian, Mansour. Britain and the Iranian Constitutional Revolution 1906-1911. Syracuse University Press in association with the Iran Heritage Foundation. 2006. ISBN 0-8156-3042-5
[edit] See also
- Iranians in the United Kingdom
- 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
- Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907
- Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran
- Foreign relations of Iran
- Foreign relations of the United Kingdom
- Imperial Bank of Persia, a British-owned bank established in 1889.
[edit] References
- ^ Patrick Clawson. Eternal Iran. Palgrave 2005 ISBN 1-4039-6276-6, p.25
- ^ Frederic John Goldsmid's Eastern Persia: An account of the journeys of the Persian Boundary Commission. 1870–1871–1872. London. Macmillan and Co. 1876.
- ^ Persia and the Persian question, Vol.I London. Frank Cass and Co. Ltd. 1966. p.480
- ^ Zirinsky M.P. "Imperial Power and dictatorship: Britain and the rise of Reza Shah 1921–1926". International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 24, 1992. p.646.
- ^Sources:
- FO 371 16077 E2844 dated 8 June 1932.
- The Memoirs of Anthony Eden are also explicit about Britain's role in putting Reza Khan in power.
- Ansari, Ali M. Modern Iran since 1921. Longman. 2003 ISBN 0-582-35685-7 pp.26–31.
- ^ "Ceremonies: State visits". Official web site of the British Monarchy. Retrieved 2008-11-28.
- ^ "OUTWARD STATE VISITS MADE BY THE QUEEN SINCE 1952". Official web site of the British Monarchy. Retrieved 2008-11-28.
- ^ Hint of Iran sanctions tugs at trade ties, Judy Dempsey, 22 January 2006, International Herald Tribune
- ^ "Over $1.6 bn of Iranian assets frozen in Britain", PressTV.com, June 18, 2009
- ^ Government in secret talks about strike against Iran, Sean Rayment, Sunday Telegraph, 2 April 2006
- ^ MoD denies Iran military meeting, BBC, 2 April 2006
- ^ Protest in Iran targets British Embassy, China Daily, 1 April 2007
- ^ Townsend, Mark (20 April 2008). "British dealers supply arms to Iran". The Guardian (London).
- ^ Tait, Robert (18 July 2007). "Iranian militants demand return of British diplomatic compound". The Guardian (London).
- ^ افزایش تلاش ها برای بازپس گیری باغ قلهک. BBC Persian. January 21, 2007
- ^ "Gay Iranian given hope by the UK's U-turn". CNN. 14 March 2008.
- ^ http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017624184&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
- ^ "Protest at Iran's 'evil UK' claim". BBC News. 2009-06-19. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
- ^ a b Booth, Jenny (2009-06-23). "UK expels Iran diplomats in tit-for-tat protest row". London: The Times. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
- ^ "UK expels two Iranian diplomats". BBC News. 2009-06-23. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
- ^ "Iran considering downgrading ties with Britain". The Associated Press. 2009-06-24. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
- ^ "UK fury as staff arrested in Iran". BBC News. 2009-06-28. Retrieved 2009-06-28.
- ^ "Iran 'must free UK embassy staff'". BBC News. 2009-06-28. Retrieved 2009-06-28.
- ^ "Iran Issues 'Slap' Warning". BBC News. 2009-12-29. Retrieved 2009-12-29.
- ^ Fletcher, Martin; Hurst, Greg (11 November 2009). "Oxford’s tribute to student Neda Soltan denounced by Iran". The Times (London). Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- ^ a b c "Letter from Iranian Embassy to Professor Paul Madden". London: The Times. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- ^ a b c Kerbaj, Richard (28 November 2009). "Diplomats uneasy at Neda Soltan being honoured by Queen’s College, Oxford". The Times (London). Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- ^ a b c d Milmo, Cahal; Dowson, Nick (24 April 2010). "The MoD, the arms deal and a 30-year-old bill for £400m". London: The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
- ^ a b "U.K. ordered to pay Iran $650m for canceled arms deal". Haaretz. 25 April 2010. Retrieved 25 April 2010.
- ^ a b "UK ordered to pay $650 mn to Iran". Press TV. 25 April 2010. Retrieved 25 April 2010.
- ^ a b c d Spencer, Richard (26 April 2010). "Britain to pay back Iran £400 million". London: The Telegraph. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
- ^ "UK ordered to pay Iran millions for arms deal". ABC News. 25 April 2010. Retrieved 25 April 2010.
[edit] External links
- British Relations with Iran: REALITE-EU
- Iran-UK relation timeline: BBC
- The British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce
- The Iran Society of London
- The Irano-British Chamber of Commerce
- Iran's Embassy in London
- The British Embassy in Tehran
- Videos
- Iran-UK relations Part I Part II Part III (2010 PressTV video)
- Iran-Britain relations (2011 PressTV video)
| [show]v · d · eIran–United Kingdom relations |
|---|
| |||
| |||
روابط ایران و بریتانیا
از ویکیپدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد
  | |
 | |
| بریتانیا | ایران |
محتویات[نهفتن] |
تاریخچه روابط [ویرایش]
اولین هیئت نمایندگی ثابت بریتانیا در تهران، در سال ۱۸۲۱ میلادی (۱۲۰۰ خورشیدی) در باغ الچی در تهران مستقر شد.در دوران صفویه [ویرایش]
از این روی، شاه عباس، به چارلز اول، پادشاه انگلستان، نامهای نوشت که در آن وی از پادشاه انگلستان میخواست تا ضمن اعزام نمایندگانش و برقراری روابط متقابل با ایران، با تاجران و بازرگانان ایرانی به خوبی رفتار کند. در ادامه روابط دوجانبه میان ایران و بریتانیا، شاه عباس با دریافت کمکهای نظامی از انگلستان، شامل توپ و کشتی جنگی توانست، جزیره هرمز در خلیج فارس را از پرتغالیها، رقیب دیرینه انگلیسیها، باز پس بگیرد.[۳]
در دوران قاجاریه [ویرایش]
در سال ۱۸۱۳ میلادی، و در زمان سلطنت فتحعلیشاه قاجار، معاهدهای صلحی در در قریه گلستان بین ایران و روسیه منعقد شد که در پی آن عهدنامه، مناطقی از خاک ایران جدا شده و به خاک روسیه ضمیمه شد. نوشتن این عهدنامه بر عهده سِر گور اوزلی، دیپلمات بریتانیایی و اولین سفیر بریتانیا در ایران بود.[۴]
هرچند مفاد امتیازنامه رویتر به دلیل مخالفت داخلی و همچنین مخالفت شدید روسیه، از روی کاغذ فراتر نرفت[۵]، اما ناصرالدین شاه قاجار با تاسیس بانک شاهنشاهی ایران، که بخشی از فصل سوم امتیازنامه رویتر بود، موافقت کرد و این بانک به عنوان اولین بانک در ایران، تاسیس شد.
در تاریخ ۲۸ مه ۱۹۰۱ میلادی (۱۲۸۰ خورشیدی)، مظفرالدینشاه قاجار، قراردادی را با ویلیام ناکس دارسی، از اتباع دولت بریتانیا، به امضا رساند که به امتیازنامه دارسی مشهور شد. بر اساس این امتیازنامه، دولت بریتانیا حق انحصاری اکتشاف و استخراج نفت در ایران را به دست آورد. این امتیازنامه نخستین قرارداد نفتی ایران بود.[۵]
در تاریخ ۳۰ اوت ۱۹۰۷ میلادی (۹ شهریور ۱۲۸۶ خورشیدی)، معاهدهٔ تاریخی «تقسیم ایران» بین روسیه تزاری تزاری و بریتانیا در منطقه سن پترزبورگ به امضا رسید. قرارداد سن پترزبورگ ۵ بند داشت و بدون آگاهی محمدعلی شاه قاجار و دولت وقت ایران و در زمان اوج جنبش مشروطه به امضاء رسید. قرارداد سن پترزبورگ، همچنین سرنوشت افغانستان و چند کشور دیگر را نیز تعیین میکرد.
قرارداد سن پترزبورگ، با مخالفت شدید مجلس شورای ملی ایران روبرو شد. نهایتا با پیروزی انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ روسیه، عملاً ملغی شد.
- بستنشینی مشروطهخواهان در سفارت بریتانیا در تهران
نقش مثبتی که سفارت بریتانیا در تهران در حمایت از آزادیخواهان مشروطهطلب ایفا کرد و بستنشینی مشروطهخواهان در سفارت، نام نیکی از پادشاهی متحده را در میان مردم تا پیش از قرارداد ۱۹۰۷ باقی گذاشت و مراوده و مکاتبه روحانیون ایرانی و رهبران مشروطه را با سفیر و سفارت، عادی و معمولی ساخت؛ کاری که به نوشته دنیس رایت، سفیر پیشین بریتانیا در تهران، «سرمایه بزرگ و جاودانهای برای دولت فخیمه فراهم آورد».[۷]
در دوران پهلوی [ویرایش]
- تاسیس بخش فارسی رادیو بیبیسی
در دوران جمهوری اسلامی [ویرایش]
در دوران حکومت سید روحالله خمینی [ویرایش]
پس از انقلاب ۱۳۵۷ در ایران، سفارت بریتانیا در تهران تحت محافظت کشور سوئد قرار گرفت. در سال ۱۹۸۷ میلادی و در خلال جنگ ایران و عراق، تمامی کارکنان سفارت در پی تیرگی روابط ایران و پادشاهی متحده به لندن فراخوانده شدند. در نوامبر ۱۹۸۸ میلادی، جفری هاو وزیر خارجه بریتانیا با علیاکبر ولایتی وزیر امور خارجه وقت ایران در مورد برقراری دوباره روابط دیپلماتیک به توافق رسید.[۶]در ۱۴ فوریه ۱۹۸۹ میلادی، آیتالله خمینی فتوایی برای قتل سلمان رشدی، نویسنده بریتانیایی و ناشر آثارش صادر کرد. دولت بریتانیا بار دیگر، تمامی کارکنان بریتانیایی را از ایران خارج نمود و سفارت به حالت نیمه تعطیل درآمد.[۶] ایران نیز در ۷ فوریه همان سال روابط خود را به حالت تعلیق درآورد. بریتانیا در ۲۸ آوریل ۱۹۹۴ در اعتراض به بهرسمیت شناختن ارتش جمهوریخواه ایرلند توسط ایران، تعدادی از دیپلماتهای خود را فراخواند. در ۱۸ مه ۱۹۹۹ روابط دو کشور مجدداً تا سطح فعالیت وزراتخانهها افزایش پیدا کرد.[۹]
شهرداری تهران در اقدامی سیاسی در سال ؟؟؟؟، نام «خیابان وینستون چرچیل» در جنب سفارت پادشاهی متحده در تهران را به نام «خیابان بابی ساندز»، تغییر نام داد.[۱۰] بابی ساندز، ملیگرای ایرلندی ضدانگلیسی و عضو ارتش جمهوریخواه ایرلند بود.
دانشگاه آکسفورد در اقدامی سیاسی اقدام به اعطای بورسیه تحصیلی ندا آقاسلطان به دانشجویان فلسفه این دانشگاه نمود. مقامات این دانشگاه اعلام کردهاند منابع مالی این بورسیهها بوسیله دو نفر تامین و در اختیار آنها قرار داده شده است.[۱۱]
در دوران حکومت سید علی خامنهای [ویرایش]
در پی انتخاب سید محمد خاتمی به ریاست جمهوری در ایران و آغاز دورانی جدید در روابط خارجی ایران، کشورهای عضو اتحادیه اروپا، سفرای خود را به ایران بازگرداندند. در سال ۱۹۹۹ میلادی و در جریان دیدار رابین کوک و کمال خرازی، وزرای امور خارجه وقت بریتانیا و ایران در حاشیه مجمع عمومی سازمان ملل، روابط سیاسی میان دو کشور، به سطح سفیر ارتقا پیدا کرد. سطح روابط از آن زمان تاکنون کاهش پیدا نکرده، اما چندین بار، بخصوص در مورد برنامه هستهای ایران بحرانی شدهاست.[۱۲]
با روی کار آمدن محمود احمدینژاد در ایران و اوجگیری اختلافات بر سر برنامه هستهای ایران، روابط سیاسی میان دو کشور تا حد زیادی دچار تنش شد. دولت بریتانیا در موضعی رسمی، برنامه هستهای ایران را تهدیدی برای منطقه خاورمیانه خواندهاست.[۱۳] در واکنش جمهوری اسلامی، برخورد بریتانیا را ««توطئه و اقدامات شیطنتآمیز انگلیس بر علیه نظام جمهوری اسلامی ایران» مینامد.
در تاریخ ۱۸ ژوئن ۲۰۰۹ میلادی، اعلام شد که دولت بریتانیا یک میلیارد و ۶۰۰ میلیون دلار از داراییهای ایران را در راستای تحریمهای بینالمللی علیه برنامههای هستهای ایران مسدود کردهاست.[۱۴]
در پی اعتراضات سراسری مردم ایران نسبت به نتایج دهمین دوره انتخابات ریاست جمهوری ایران، علی خامنهای در مراسم نماز جمعه تهران، انگلستان را «خبیثترین» دشمن کشور ایران خواند.[۱۵][۱۶] یک روز پس از سخنان علی خامنهای، وزارت امور خارجه ایران دو دیپلمات ارشد سفارت بریتانیا در تهران را اخراج کرد و در واکنش بریتانیا نیز، در تاریخ ۲۳ ژوئن ۲۰۰۹ میلادی، دو دیپلمات شاغل در سفارت ایران در لندن را از کشورش اخراج کرد.[۱۷]
در تاریخ ۲۸ ژوئن ۲۰۰۹ میلادی، نه تن از کارکنان ایرانی سفارت بریتانیا در تهران به اتهام «دستداشتن در شورشهای پس از انتخابات دهمین دوره ریاستجمهوری ایران»، توسط نیروهای امنیتی جمهوری اسلامی بازداشت شدند.[۱۸][۱۹][۲۰] در واکنش وزارت امور خارجه بریتانیا، اتهام «دستداشتن در ناآرامیهای ایران» را رد کرد.[۲۱] در تاریخ ۱۹ ژوئیه ۲۰۰۹ میلادی، آخرین کارمند ایرانی سفارت بریتانیا به نام حسین رسام، که به اتهام «اقدام علیه امنیت ملی» در زندان اوین تهران به سر میبُرد، با قید وثیقه آزاد شد.[۲۲][۲۳]
در تاریخ ۹ دسامبر ۲۰۱۰ میلادی، وبگاه سفارت بریتانیا در ایران، به مناسبت روز جهانی حقوق بشر[۲۴] یادداشت انتقادآمیزی در مورد وضع حقوق بشر در ایران را به قلم سایمون گَس، سفیر بریتانیا در تهران را منتشر کرد.[۲۵] در واکنش وزارت امور خارجه جمهوری اسلامی ایران، سایمون گَس را به وزارت امور خارجه ایران احضار کرد[۲۶] و نیز تظاهراتی در مقابل سفارت بریتانیا در تهران، از سوی «بسیج دانشجویی» انجام گرفت.[۲۷] همچنین شماری از مقامهای ایرانی و گروهی از نمایندگان مجلس شورای اسلامی خواستار «اخراج سفیر انگلیس از تهران و کاهش سطح روابط سیاسی» با این کشور شدند.[۲۸] کمیسیون امنیت ملی و سیاست خارجی مجلس شورای اسلامی نیز خواستار «تجدید نظر دولت محمود احمدینژاد در روابط با پادشاهی متحده و کاهش احتمالی سطح و حتی تعلیق این روابط شد.[۲۹]
جُستارهای وابسته [ویرایش]
منابع [ویرایش]
- ↑ Patrick Clawson. Eternal Iran. Palgrave 2005 ISBN 1-4039-6276-6, p.25
- ↑ نگاهی به روابط پر فراز و نشیب ایران و بریتانیا, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ ۳٫۰ ۳٫۱ شاه صفوی در لندن, رادیو زمانه
- ↑ Britain and Iran's fraught history, BBC News
- ↑ ۵٫۰ ۵٫۱ سرگذشت امتیازنامه دارسی؛ آغاز و انجام, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ ۶٫۰ ۶٫۱ ۶٫۲ ۶٫۳ تاریخچه سفارت بریتانیا در تهران, وبگاره رسمی سفارت بریتانیا در تهران
- ↑ قرارداد ۱۹۰۷: یک قرن ایران، بریتانیا و روسیه, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ ۸٫۰ ۸٫۱ ۶۲ سال بیبیسی فارسی: از این جا لندن است؛ تا سایت اینترنتی, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ Timeline: Relations between Britain and Iran. رویترز (در تاریخ ۴ نوامبر ۲۰۱۰). بازدید در تاریخ ۱۳ اکتبر ۲۰۱۱.
- ↑ Pedram Moallemian. “Naming Bobby Sands Street”. The Blanket. 24 February 2004. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
- ↑ دانشگاه آکسفورد بورسیه ندا آقا سلطان را تاسیس کرد. وبگاه بیبیسی فارسی (در تاریخ ۹ نوامبر ۲۰۰۹). بازدید در تاریخ ۱۳ اکتبر ۲۰۱۱.
- ↑ ایران: تعطیلی سفارت بریتانیا فعلاً در دستور کار نیست, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ میلیبند: برنامه اتمی ایران تهدیدی برای خاورمیانهاست, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ بریتانیا یک میلیارد و ۶۰۰ میلیون دلار از داراییهای ایران را مسدود کرد , رادیو فردا
- ↑ بریتانیا به جایگاه «شیطان بزرگ» ارتقا یافت, دویچه وله فارسی
- ↑ بریتانیا و ایران دیپلماتهای یکدیگر را اخراج کردند, رادیو فردا
- ↑ ایران و بریتانیا دیپلماتهای یکدیگر را اخراج میکنند, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ دستگیری نه کارمند ایرانی سفارت بریتانیا در تهران, رادیو بینالمللی فرانسه
- ↑ دستگیری کارکنان ایرانی سفارت بریتانیا در تهران, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ Iran Escalates Its Fight With Britain; New Clashes Erupt, The New York Times
- ↑ بریتانیا درباره اتهامهای ایران تحقیق میکند, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ کارمند سفارت بریتانیا در تهران آزاد شد, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ کارمند ایرانی سفارت بریتانیا با وثیقه ۱۰۰ میلیون تومانی آزاد شد, رادیو فردا
- ↑ درخواست اخراج سفیر و کاهش روابط با انگلیس, دویچه وله فارسی
- ↑ تظاهرات «بسیج دانشجویی» در مقابل سفارت بریتانیا در تهران, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ سفیر بریتانیا در تهران به وزرات امور خارجه ایران احضار شد, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ تظاهرات «بسیج دانشجویی» در مقابل سفارت بریتانیا در تهران, بیبیسی فارسی
- ↑ درخواست اخراج سفیر و کاهش روابط با انگلیس, دویچه وله فارسی
- ↑ جزئیات طرح قطع رابطه با انگلیس, عصر ایران
پیوند به بیرون [ویرایش]
- پرونده مسكوت مانده كاهش روابط با انگليس روزنامه سیاست روز
| |||||||||||||||||||
World War II -- 60 Years After: The Anglo-Soviet Invasion Of Iran And Washington-Tehran RelationsBy Bill SamiiOn the eve of World War II, many Iranians contrasted the United States with Great Britain and the Soviet Union, seeing it as the one international actor that could help Iran gain control of its future. Moreover, the American role in forcing Soviet invaders to leave Iranian Azerbaijan after the war reinforced this positive image. Using information from U.S. State Department documents that were published in the "Foreign Relations of the United States" series, books and articles by participants, and several scholarly works, this article describes events 60 years ago that seemed to portend a different path for U.S.-Iran relations. British and Soviet troops invaded Iran on 25 August 1941. At the time, and for many years afterward, the main reason given for this was that German influence in Iran at the start of World War II was pronounced. Reza Shah Pahlavi's reliance on German technology for his ambitious development plans worried the Allies, who feared the Germans might make Iran a base for operations against the Soviet Union. In addition, in the wake of the June 1941 German invasion of the USSR, the Allies needed Iran as a channel for supplies to the Soviet Union. Furthermore, London had the defense of India in mind, and it wanted to safeguard its oilfields and refineries in Iran. Research of the British intelligence archives in the 1980s, however, indicated that the degree of German influence in Iran might have been exaggerated to justify partially the Anglo-Soviet invasion. Reza Shah abdicated in September 1941 and three years later he died as an exile in South Africa. He was replaced by his 22-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, who was so eager to prove his reliability to the Allies, and perhaps ensure Iran's post-war position, that he offered volunteers to fight in Europe. In January 1942, Iran, the Soviet Union, and England signed the Tripartite Treaty, guaranteeing Iran's territorial sovereignty and political independence. Article 5 of the treaty stated: "The forces of the Allied powers shall be withdrawn from Iranian territory not later than six months after all hostilities between the Allied powers and Germany and her associates have been suspended." Even prior to the signing of the Tripartite Treaty, the Soviet Union was assisting separatist movements in northern Iran. This worried the United States, Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted in his memoirs. He therefore decided to give Iran diplomatic support to "prevent the development of a situation in which an open threat to Iranian integrity might be presented." In March 1942 Iran was declared eligible for the lend-lease program. The United States began sending advisory teams and missions to Iran, and in December 1943 U.S. troops of the Persian Gulf Service Command began arriving to facilitate supplying the Soviet Union. Personnel from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) were stationed in Iran, too, and they noted Soviet ambitions. Major E. M. Wright of the OSS reported in January 1944 that the Soviets saw the Mashhad-Tehran-Sanandaj line (from the northeast to the northwest) as protection against attack from the south, saw the northern region as a potential source of oil, and desired a malleable Iranian government. Wright warned that the Soviets would try to establish hegemony over northern Iran. Indications Of Soviet Ambitions There were continuing signs that Moscow would not comply with a 2 March 1946 deadline for the withdrawal of its troops. In January 1945 Soviet troops arrested an Iranian gendarmerie commander in Mazandaran and disarmed his troops, leading the OSS to warn that Moscow was trying to prevent the Iranian government or U.S. advisers from operating in northern Iran. Another indication of Soviet intentions was Moscow's support of independence and autonomy movements in northern Iran. The Soviets encouraged separatists in Iranian Azerbaijan, particularly the Firqeh-i Demokrat-i Azerbaijan (Democratic Party of Azerbaijan). This party was led by Jafar Pishevari -- a leader in the early days of Iran's Communist movement, a commissar in the 1920-21 Soviet Republic in Gilan Province, and a Comintern agent -- and his followers, members of the Communist Tudeh party, and Azerbaijani separatists. The Democrats demanded the use of the Azeri Turkish in the state schools and government offices, economic development of the region, and the establishment of provincial assemblies. They also began preparations for an armed uprising. Moscow also encouraged Kurdish separatists. At the end of 1941, the Soviets invited a group of 30 Kurdish tribal leaders to Baku, and in August 1943 a Kurdish independence organization called the Komala-yi Zhiyan-i Kurdistan (Committee of Kurdish Youth) was created. In September 1945, Qazi Mohammad and several other Kurdish leaders were taken to Baku, where the Soviets encouraged them in their quest for autonomy and suggested the Kurds join the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan. The premier of Soviet Azerbaijan, Jafar Bagirov, promised full Soviet support for the Kurdish claim to autonomy. The Soviets provided significant military equipment and training. Several alarming incidents occurred in December 1945, just three months before the scheduled Soviet withdrawal. The Soviets demanded an end to restrictions on the Tudeh; stopped the transportation of agricultural goods from Azerbaijan to the south; and prevented the entry of government troops into Azerbaijan. These obstructive measures coincided with the pronouncements of the Autonomous Government of Azerbaijan and the independent Republic of Kurdistan. The Jungle Party (Hezb-i Jangali) in the Caspian provinces was created around this time, too. The next month, the Soviet press and propaganda stressed the advantages to Iran of a rapprochement with the USSR and attacked the Iranian government. The Soviets attempted to influence public opinion through several Tehran newspapers that they owned and tried to curry favor with Iranian intellectuals by holding the First Congress of the Iranian Writers at the Soviet Embassy. The Long Telegram In February 1946 the American Charge in Moscow, George Kennan, sent a cable in which he cited Iran as an example of Soviet expansionism: "Whenever it is considered timely and promising, efforts will be made to advance official limits of Soviet power. For the moment, these efforts are restricted to certain neighboring points conceived of here as being of immediate strategic necessity, such as Northern Iran, Turkey, possibly Bornholm. However, other points may at any time come into question, if and as Soviet political power is extended to new areas. Thus a "friendly" Persian Government might be asked to grant Russia a port on the Persian Gulf." Kennan warned that the "inner central core" of other countries' Communist parties was made up of Comintern members, listing the northern Iranian regime as one whose "actual policies...[are] at disposal of USSR." Because Iran's government was seen as being unfriendly to the USSR, he wrote, "pressure will be brought for [its] removal from office." But perhaps the view that served to influence U.S. policies for so long was that the Soviet Union "can easily withdraw -- and usually does -- when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so." As if to challenge the United States and provide an occasion to test Kennan's theory, Moscow announced on 2 March 1946, the deadline for withdrawal of its troops from Iran, that only a partial withdrawal had taken place. Three days later, when Iranian Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam returned from Moscow, he reported that Soviet leader Josef Stalin refused to back down on autonomy for Azerbaijan, saying that Soviet "honor" was involved. Stalin cited the 1921 Irano-Soviet Treaty as justification for the retention of troops. Moscow also demanded an oil concession, to which Qavam replied that Iranian law forbids the granting of a concession as long as the country is occupied. On 5 April, Tehran and Moscow agreed that the Soviet troops would be withdrawn within six weeks of 24 March. An agreement for a joint Irano-Soviet oil venture was to be submitted to the legislature within seven months of 24 March. A new parliamentary election was approaching, and Qavam promised to pack the parliament with Tudeh representatives certain to vote for the agreement. The last Soviet troops left Iran by 5 May 1946. Despite the withdrawal, the situation in Azerbaijan deteriorated. Reports of Soviet penetration of the provincial government and Democrat Party continued, and the number of Soviet railroad personnel on the line from Soviet Azerbaijan to Tabriz tripled. The situation in the south was not much better. Moscow radio broadcasts criticized Anglo-Iranian Oil Company concessions in Khuzestan and accused British authorities of obstructing the Tudeh-dominated trade union. It took three weeks to resolve a May strike in the Agha Jari oilfield, and this encouraged other strikes. Perhaps the worst strike took place in mid-July in Abadan, after the Soviet Consul-General from Ahvaz visited the refinery. Tudeh agents encouraged hostilities between Iranians and local Arabs, resulting in a great deal of violence. Prime Minister Qavam decided in late November to send troops to Azerbaijan to supervise elections. Contrary to their expectations, the central government troops met very little resistance when they arrived in Azerbaijan. The Democrat regime just faded away, and locals suddenly became anti-Democrat and pro-American. Former OSS officer Bob Rossow described looting, armed men roving the city, and vengeful shootings. He wrote that a mob captured Mohammad Beria, who ran "a sort of goon squad known as the Society of Friends of Soviet Azerbaijan," then "dragged him behind a jeep back and forth over the city, finally leaving his unrecognizable body in the middle of the public square." Kurdish leader Qazi Muhammad, Sadr-i-Qazi, and Saif-i-Qazi surrendered to Iranian General Fazlollah Homayuni in December 1946. Some of the other Kurds fled to Iraq or the Soviet Union, but skirmishes with the Iranian Army continued in February and March 1947. By April most of the fugitives had reached Iraq, and the ones who had gone to the Soviet Union arrived in Iraqi territory by the late-1950s. The Qazi family was not so fortunate. On 23 January they were sentenced, in camera, to be shot. The Shah submitted to a plea by the U.S. ambassador to not have the Qazis shot, so on 31 March they were hanged. Looking Back Mohammad Reza Shah told U.S. Ambassador George Allen in December 1946 that a major factor in the rapid collapse of the Azerbaijan movement was the "conviction by all concerned (Soviets, Iranians, and Azerbaijanis) that the United States was solidly supporting Iranian sovereignty." Iranians were so happy about the outcome of the crisis, the monarch said, that they referred to Azerbaijan as the "Stalingrad of the Western democracies" and the "turn of the tides against Soviet aggression throughout the world." This may be hyperbole, but scholars of Iran agree that it was an important moment in the two countries' relationship. For example, Richard Cottam wrote that on the eve of the war, "Iranians held an idealized vision of the United States," and they expected Americans to "do what they could to allow Iranians to gain control of their own destiny." Referring to U.S. support for Iran during the Azerbaijan crisis, Cottam adds, "there was to be a surprising reinforcement of the Iranian image of the United States and, it follows, even greater expectations after World War II." Cottam notes that "Iranian disillusionment was inevitable." This may be so in retrospect, but bilateral relations at the time were overshadowed by the world war, the Cold War, and many other issues. Bill Samii is a regional analysis coordinator with RFE/RL Online and editor of the "RFE/RL Iran Report." He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge. His research articles have appeared in the "Middle East Journal," "Middle East Policy," and the "Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal." He has contributed to several books about the Middle East. Copyright (c) 2005. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org |
No comments:
Post a Comment