page 6

The Shark of Persia

Early last year a funny little news item went through the press, largely unnoticed: a group of twelve authors of children's books, illustrators and film makers were to be honoured for their distinguished work. They had decided to appear at the prize giving ceremony both as passive recipients and as active participators, by way of filming the procedure.

In a true Hitchcock manner, this was the funny part, they had hidden a gun of some kind inside the camera, with which they hoped to 'shoot' the gentleman who was going to award the prizes.

As it was, one of the 12 squealed, and another little news item later that year, passing equally unnoticed, briefly reported the execution/life imprisonment of a group of twelve would-be assassins.

Who was this man that brought about such imaginative attempts at his own assassination, what sort of man could stimulate such hatred among authors of children's books?

It was none other than the Shah of Persia, who has just visited New Zealand.

With the outbreak of the oil crisis (a term, incidentally, that is back packing a heavy ideological load, smoke-veiling rather than explaining the issue at hand — thus allowing the crisis of capitalism to pass its rattling hooping cough on to a harmless fossile substance) the western press, including that of such western fringe societies as New Zealand, staged a massive anti-Arabic propaganda. Joining the chorus was one Middle Eastern despot, the Supreme Commander of Troops, the Love of the Aryans, His Majesty, Shah-en-Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi — our friend, the Shah.

In return for his "prudent" and "far-sighted" utterances the press was only too willing to credit him with "superior statesmanship" and contrasted him sharply with the Arab blackmailers and oil desperadoes.

Since then, the Shah has managed to take advantage of this situation and pull off some major trade stunts with Western European countries, particularly France and West Germany, and the United States, firmly entrenching Persia (or The Iran, as it is correctly called) economically and militarily as the most powerful nation in the region.

For the democratic public around the world the question is raised: why should the Shah have extended a helping hand to the Israeli aggressors and their western friends, when for the first time the Arab countries began to utilise oil as a political weapon against this aggression? This question can only be answered adequately if one considers it in the context of Persian politics, both foreign and internal.

A programme of reform measures was introduced some 10 years ago, which western bourgeois propaganda designed to liberate the peasantry from feudal serfdom and lead the country to a secure future.

These reforms, with a nucleus of land reforms, were first introduced in 1961 as the Principles of the White Revolution. They first consisted of twelve points and were later expanded and explained in greater detail in a booklet called The White Revolution, published in 1966 and bearing the name of His Majesty as its author.

The colour employed to characterize this "revolution", white, was supposed to indicate such qualities as innocence, purity, lacking of bloodshed, good, and, of course, in contrast to such qualities as associated with the colour red, a non-communist revolution, i.e. a capitalist revolution. The essence of it, as characterised in the booklet, was the following.

1)	"Ours is a basic and comprehensive revolution which will, with one great leap, rid the country of all social antagonisms and all factors of injustice." (An interesting admission, at any rate, of their actual existence.)
2)	"Our revolution is not an imported commodity as our national pride would not tolerate that. We will not adorn ourselves with foreign feathers."
3)	"This revolution is essentially an Iranian revolution, in accordance with the spirit and tradition of our country."
4)	"It is directed against no one, but guarantees the well-being of everybody."
5)	"One of the most prominent necessities and characterisitics is the realization of the principles of a democratic economy. Essentially political democracy is absurdity without a concordant economic democracy. In this country there shall be no factor of exploitation, be it through the state, individuals or groups."

These quotes are of the kind that have served as guidelines in the propaganda battle of the apologists of the regime over the last few years.

The mass media in Persia have been hammering it into the brains of the population that under the guidance of His Majesty a "bloodless revolution" is being conducted "with Iranian hand and Iranian thought". Not only that, this revolution also purports to be a "permanent" one, which is giving the right answer to the country's basic needs and will enable Persia to reach the standards of a "great civilization" within the shortest time. For this reason class harmony and conciliation are being preached and for this reason deviating opinions are suppressed with bestial brutality.

But what is the real face of this revolution, inspired by "the philosophies of His Majesty" — and what are its consequences?

To answer these questions, one must first understand the factors that made this "revolution" absolutely unavoidable.

1)	The basic and comprehensive crisis of the Iranian society, caused by an encrusted and obsolete semi-feudal ruling clique.
2)	A Persian tradition of struggle for freedom and independence.
3)	The ruling clique's fear of a social explosion inside the country.
4)	Worldwide revolutionary changes, especially in the Middle East, that would not fail to have repercussions in Persia.

Under these circumstances the Persian reactionary clique and its imperialist allies were faced with two possible roads of development: either to maintain the old order or to balance the growing antagonisms through certain measures and thus to stabilize conditions and guarantee a continuation of its rule.

It was the second road that was taken, not the least reason being some substantial prodding from the US.

The most important reform measure was the land reform which essentially was aimed at breaking up semi- feudal conditions in favour of laying the ground for capitalist expansion.

According to official figures, out of a total of 20 million acres of arable land, 8.75 million acres were made available for purchase to the small time farmers, who received, on average, a proud 3.5 acres of land, enough to keep a few goats and sheep. The remaining 11.25 million acres of land continued to remain in the possession of the feudal land lords and of the state.

The law permits landowners to hold unlimited areas of land, provided they employ technologically sophisticated means of agriculture. In practice this means that the feudal landowners have kept 3.5 million acres of the most fertile land, and are running a few tractors around.

The most important means of establishing capitalist conditions in the villages are: agricultural public companies, agricultural and industrial entities, large privately owned units for animal breeding and agriculture, and agricultural cooperatives.

The public companies comprise among their shareholders both peasants and farmers and large scale landowners. They receive every kind of state subsidisation and favouritism. The policy and legislation of the regime is aimed at concentration of the land in the hands of the rich farmers and land owners and at the financial ruin of the small peasants.

As far as the agricultural and industrial entities are concerned, the most fertile land closest to the great dams and irrigation schemes is handed over to national and international big capital holders, who also receive preferential treatment as far as their water and power supplies are concerned, rare commodities in Persia, and much needed by the entire population.

The regime leaves them to do business, and their business is the exploitation of local labour. So far, seven of these companies have been founded, with American, British, French and Danish capital. Others are being hatched and will mushroom forth in the future.

Mister H. Naraghi, a Persian capitalist who prefers to reside permanently in the US, founded the first one of these companies. His American representative in Persia claimed that the export of animal fodder alone brough his company a net profit of 22 million dollars annually.

Large privately owned units for cattle breeding and agricultural development are supported in every possible way by the regime; not surprisingly, the owners are the Shah's family, high civilian and military officials, merchants and land owners.

The agricultural cooperatives are rarely production units, they generally but not generously hand out grants. As these are only given to land owning peasants, roughly half of the country's 2.5 million peasants can harvest the fruits of the land reform.

The less fortunate half may be forced to take out grants at up to 40 percent interest; this, added to substantial rate payments and the low productivity lead to an accelerated ruin of the poor peasants, and the ensuing concentration of land in the hands of the rich members of these cooperatives.

Under the influence of this land reform and parallel to the expansion of capitalist conditions, run obvious changes in the villages: the establishment of a village bourgeoisie and an increase in the proletariat and semi-proletariat becomes manifest. The following years will only aggravate this process and lead to a greater number of jobless ex-peasants who will drift to the cities in order to join the slum dwellers there.

The land reform, however, is only one part of the White Revolution The other is industrialisation. The main tendency here is to build up small industries and assembly plants, in cooperation with foreign monopoly capital, In order to speed up capitalistic page 7 conditions with private ownership of the means of production, the regime sells large portions of state- owned industrial compounds at cut-rate prices to the former feudal landlords.

If one considers how in all developing countries the government-owned sector of industry forms the backbone of economic development and a stronghold against political interference of monopoly capital with internal policies, the regime's inherent hostility toward the Iranian "people becomes apparent. This is to say, the Iranian people, as a whole do not benefit from this "re-privatization" of key economic sectors such as industry, banks, trade, public service or agriculture

International imperialism has adopted a neo-colonialist policy toward Persia as a developing nation. The old colonial powers are at work again, but they are using new methods. Persia has been of old a romping playground for imperialism, because of its great economic and geopolitical importance.

Imperialism has tried to lay a hold on Persia by various military and political treaties, through military and civilian advisors, by way of infiltrating remote controlled local marionettes into important positions. The Shah, and with him the entire ruling clique, make no effort at restraining the monster's greed. This is the source of Persia's anti-national politics.

The regime is interested in strengthening the position of international monopoly capital and instigates and invites investment, in an effort to intertwine national and international capital. These relations are harmonious ones, because all foreign capital must bow to the holder of the key to Persian power: he who controls the oil industry rules and exploits the country. The Shah-en-Shah, although he may not know it, is really only the frontman for American, British, French and Dutch oil monopolies which, cooperating in an international consortium, control the country's natural riches - despite the nationalization of the oil industry.

(It was nationalized in 1951 under Mossadegh; through a conspiracy between the Persian reactionary clique and the CIA, Mossadegh was ousted in 1953 and the Shah returned to his throne.)

The Shah controls the country, but international imperialism controls the Shah. It robs huge chunks of the national wealth and extracts the efforts of the Persian working class, translated into maximum profits, out of the country. Additional sources of exploitation are inequal trade, high interest rates, debts, speculation, and the sale of arms and weaponry to the Shah. (4.5 billion dollars worth in 1973.)

With the consequent instalment of capitalism, the class structure and social conditions have changed. The former disproportions seem now to be seen through a magnifying glass.

New problems are added to the old ones. There is only one solution for them: massive repression of the people. And an aggressive foreign policy to divert attention from interior problems.

The antidemocratic policy of the regime and its dictatorial methods find their concrete expression in the concentration of all executive powers in the hands of the Shah — despite an existing pro forma constitution and government. This is further manifested by the absolute rule and oppressive ubiquity of SAVAK, the Persian secret service, the army, another instrument of oppression of the people, the prohibition of the freedom of the press, the negation of the right of assembly and to non-conformist opinions, the suppression of minorities, and the infringement of the social and political rights of the population.

The main instrument in the process of suppression is SAVAK (pronounced savage); then there are military courts, with a largely random jurisprudence, prosecuting, arresting, deporting, torturing, or executing as they please. A few years ago the Shah was boasting to foreign correspondents about the perfection of psychological torture with a "high degree of efficiency". Small wonder, SAVAK has expert American and Israeli advisors.

The foreign policy of the regime is one of increasing aggressivity. Nixon saw Persia within the frame work of his Guam doctrine, as a stronghold of US imperialism at the Persian Gulf. The country's ever expanding militarization, therefore, while justified by the regime with a greater need for security (indeed, that's what the regime needs); but in reality this militarization serves the aggressive needs of imperialism and the reactionary ruling clique.

The Shah has supported the reactionary Ghabus-regime in Amman, supplying it with weaponry and soldiers for the suppression of the local Safare liberation movement; he has participated in the subversion of the Democratic Yemenite Republic; and employs a provocative policy to create artificial tensions with the Iraqui neighbour.

Flying high in his phantasmagorias of power the Shah purports not only to regulate political matters around the Persian gulf but also around the Indian Ocean. Unfortunate, if nothing else, was the echo from Peking, describing his expansionist politics as "necessary and understandable", and "reflecting the Persian need for security".

The Shah is indeed king, balancing between the world powers with an unerring sense for the most opportunistic political fool hardiness. The democratic and anti-imperialist groups within the country believe, that under the present historical conditions the capitalist way is not going to remove, but rather aggravate social and economic underdevelopment. They believe that a socialist way may be more apt to mobilize all material and mental reserves within the country, and guarantee a more harmonious social and economic development.

The man who visited our country is, frankly speaking, [unclear: a] civilized Idi Amin, a puppet of American imperialism, a political eccentric of the non-charming kind, and so forth. A warm welcome was the last thing he deserved.

— by Tom Appleton