Time To Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 2

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 2 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

During World War I, an increased number of Czarist Russian army troops occupied Iran in the north, while an increased number of UK troops occupied Iran in the south. Following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, Russian troops were soon withdrawn from Iran. But in 1918, British imperialist troops occupied all of Iran, created a puppet Vosugh al-Dauleh government on August 6, 1918 and forced the puppet government to sign an even more exploitative Anglo-Iranian Treaty than the ones that previous feudalist Iranian governments had signed.

In reaction to these moves by UK imperialism in Iran, Iranian tribes in rural Iran, predictably, began an uprising between 1918 and 1922 in which they attacked British occupying troops. By early 1919 the anti-imperialist Iranian mass uprising had forced the Iranian puppet regime to revoke its Anglo-Iranian Treaty; and by 1920 some Iranians had even formed the country’s first communist party.

After the now-deceased Shah of Iran’s father, Reza Khan, pulled a coup in February 1921 that overthrew the previous puppet government of UK imperialism in Iran, the anti-imperialist revolt in Iran began to wind down. A constituent assembly in Iran was then established and, by December 12, 1925, Iran’s constituent assembly had stripped the Qajar royal dynasty members of their royal family privileges. Reza Khan was, instead, then proclaimed “Shah of Iran” and renamed “Reza Shah Pahlavi.”

Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled Iran between 1925 and 1941. During his reign, workers and peasant movements were persecuted and, in the 1930s, strikes of Iranian workers at the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s refineries were suppressed by his regime. After Soviet Union troops and British government troops both marched into Iran during World War II in August 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi was compelled to abdicate because of his previous expressions of support for a Nazi Germany military victory. His son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (who wasn’t considered as pro-Nazi), however, was allowed to replace him as the new Shah of Iran. For most of the years between 1941 and early 1979, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would rule Iran as a dictator, with the bipartisan support of the U.S. White Corporate Male Power Structure’s government. (end of part 2)

Time to Revisit `A People's History of Iran' Again: Part 1

(All the 2012 GOP and Democratic presidential candidates in the USA—except for Ron Paul—apparently support the U.S. government’s current policy of waging economic warfare and covert war against people in Iran and threatening people in Iran with an overt US/Israeli military attack in 2012. Yet most people in the United States know little about the history of people in Iran since foreign imperialist powers began undemocratically and illegally intervening in its internal political and economic affairs in the late 1800s. But here's part 1 of "A People's History of Iran," from a few years ago--bf).

By the early 1900s, Iran (which was then more commonly known as “Persia”) was pretty much a semi-colony of the UK and Czarist Russia. A government controlled by the Qajar royal dynasty of Iranian feudal landowners had handed out telegraphy, railroad and other commercial concessions to British and Russian business people during the late 1800s, after the British imperialists opened the Shahanshah Bank in 1889 and the Russian imperialists opened the Discount-Loan Bank in 1890.

In the early 20th century the British imperialists received what would turn out to be its most valuable concession from the Qajar dynasty’s government: a concession for the exploitation of Iranian oil. By 1909, the British company that exercised a special influence in Iranian society for much of the 20th century, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, had been founded. By the early 1900s, foreign advisers had also been put in charge of Iranian customs and finances by the subservient feudalist Iranian government. The southern part of Iran was by then dominated by UK imperialist interests and the northern part of Iran by Russian imperialist interests.

Not surprisingly, in reaction to increased domination by foreign imperialist economic interests, nationalist consciousness began to grow in Iran in the late 19th century and various secret anti-government societies were formed by Iranian intellectuals who sought democratic reforms and an end to Iran’s semi-colonial status. By 1905, the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911 had begun.

The demands of the revolutionary movement were anti-imperialist and anti-feudalist; and, during this revolutionary period, there was an uprising in the Iranian city of Tabriz in 1909. But both the Czarist Russian government and the UK government decided that their special imperialist economic interests were threatened by the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911. So at the end of 1911, the Czarist Russian troops and the British troops that were stationed in Iran united with their reactionary Iranian domestic allies and suppressed by force the Iranian Revolution of 1905-1911. (end of part 1)

Australian Anti-War Activist Joan Coxsedge's Summation of 2011

In a November 27, 2011 letter from Australia, long-time Australian anti-war activist and writer Joan Coxsedge (who’s also a former elected anti-war member of the Victoria State parliament in Australia and a long-time Latin American solidarity activist) summarized 2011, from an anti-war and anti-imperialist left perspective, in the following way

"Christmas is coming. It always does. And 2011 is nearly over. In some ways the quicker the better, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and fly in/fly out visits of foreign leaders like Barack Obama, treated like a hero when he’s anything but, gearing up to bomb Iran using bodgie UN and IAEA reports. Hypocrisy on steroids. The US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons – the only country to use them – and Israel has over 300, both with a long history of invading and occupying other countries. Iran has no such history. But we suck up to Obama, who treats us like mugs, using us to help contain China. A ‘special relationship’? Don’t make me laugh. More marines and more US snooping. Let’s not forget 1975 or Malcolm Fraser’s role in it.

"So eat your pud, put on a party hat and for a brief time forget the mess we’re in where big money is pulling our strings. The bigger the money, the bigger the crime, the bigger the corruption. Despite the clowns in parliament yelling abuse at each other, we’ve seen a convergence of the two party system where a new economic extremism has come into play regardless of party label. Today we’re all customers and clients in the ‘market’ and the lack of alternative policies and useless media have left us sleepwalking into economic mayhem. Few understand that Wall Street deliberately planned the housing bubble, spending billions on advertising campaigns to con people into taking second mortgages, forking out money they simply didn’t have. The bubble burst and the state galloped to the rescue. Socialism for the rich.

"The crisis spread to Europe and rules were flushed down the toilet. The EU stepped in to impose austerity measures and save the banking systems, but not the people. The Greek elite was blackmailed into total submission, bringing the country to the edge of chaos. Greece should have defaulted, quit the Euro zone, re-introduced the drachma and organised from the ground up, Tariq Ali writes. It didn’t default and Italy was next. In recent months, three other highly indebted countries - Ireland, Portugal and Spain – have either gone through or are on the verge of changing government. Germany is now in the queue. Each time, the push has come from big business. Papandreou and Berlusconi were forced from office – without any democratic legitimacy - and replaced with unelected technocrats and hedge fund shysters who get their orders from the European Central Bank and the IMF, with barely a yawn from our media. Apparently not interested that two elected governments were overthrown in what are virtual coup d’etats, ignoring that what ultimately toppled Berlusconi was not moral outrage but international finance capital.

"`To save the euro we had to destroy Europe’, said one leading US financier, which translates to ‘the reign of banks requires the end of democracy’, which is why there’s a growing feeling that major policy decisions are being made in secret by a cabal of immensely powerful people who are by-passing elected governments. Heavily involved is Goldman Sachs, referred to as Wall Street’s secret society. Former employees now head the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the US Treasury and work in the White House. Mario Monti, the unelected replacement for Berlusconi is on Goldman’s board of international advisers, Lucas Papademos who replaces Papandreou is a member of the Trilateral Commission and much else and the European Central Bank’s new boss, Mario Draghi, is also former managing Director at Goldman Sachs and a lot more. At this year’s highly secretive Bilderberg meeting for global high-flyers - Hilary Clinton was there - topics included modifying the public mind to accept a world without borders, fast-tracking austerity measures and extending the influence of transnationals and banks over Western politicians. These are the creeps who will use their power to smash the lives of ordinary people. Out unions, out the welfare state and out public assets, all of which will intensify the slump, shrink government revenues, increase unemployment and foment social unrest. Peaceful protests will turn into pitched battles as working people fight to have their voices heard. A situation all too reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s that paved the way for a Nazi takeover. Opposition is growing but lacks a clear perspective. Strikes and protests are important but not enough. This life-and-death struggle requires a clear socialist perspective and programme.

"In the Middle East, Assad’s enemies are closing in for the kill and Syria’s fall will throw the entire region into turmoil, sowing the seeds of future conflicts, which seems to be the idea. No surprise that in NATO’s ‘New Libya’, terror is spreading via US, French and British SAS units, known locally as ‘disappearance squads’ where people associated with Qaddafi are being ‘disappeared’, just like the murderous years in El Salvador and Guatemala. Without a hint of irony, ‘New’ Libyan radio has reported that ‘one of the worst aspects of the Qaddafi era was his welfare state’, complaining that Libyan workers were ‘too coddled’ because they had job tenure, government subsidies of about $800 a month, petrol at about 60 cents a gallon and the highest standard of living in Africa. For NATO and its corporate mates, such prosperity for workers simply will not do. In our New World Order, workers must struggle and be dealt with by violence if they dare to fight back. And fight back we must. In big ways and small ways like helping us support Cuba. So come and join us on December 5 for our final fund-raiser for 2011! In the meantime, stay safe and enjoy time with friends and family. Viva!"

Stop Simon Properties Group's & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 12

Real estate developers like the Simon Properties Group [SPG] that have signed master leases with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or Department of Transportation that govern what kind of residential apartment buildings can or cannot be constructed on the Copley Place project’s public land site are usually required by the Attorney General of Massachusetts to abide by the use restrictions that determine what percentage of the rental units in Copley Place project residential apartment buildings “must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income.”

According to the March 27, 1985 "Cooperative Housing Area Notice of Sub-Sublease between Urban Investment & Development Co. and Copley Place Cooperative Corporation, "the premises" of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street, for example, are "subject to the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions dated March 27, 1985," which states in Section 7: Assumption of Certain Obligations:

"7.1. Obligation to Provide Housing.
"Reference is made to the obligation of Urban, pursuant to Schedule C of the Master Lease, to construct `at least 100 units of mixed income housing' and the requirement that `a minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income.' The term `low income' is further defined in the Master Lease.'...

"Urban, for itself and on behalf of the successors in title to the Rental Area, hereby agrees that the Rental Area should be used to provide 26 units of housing available for rent at all times throughout the terms of the Master Lease to persons and families of low income.

"The provisions of this paragraph may not be amended unless such provisions as amended are consistent with the requirements to provide housing set forth in Schedule C. of the Master Lease." (See Bk 11488/074 to 095 in registry of deeds).

Yet although 25% of the 104 residential units of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street are required, at all times, to be low-income rental units, according to the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (C.H.A.P.A.) Mass housing access web site none of the 26 rental units of The Residences At Copley Place at 16 Harcourt Street are currently low-income residential rental units, 3 of the 26 rental units are market rate residential units and 23 of the 26 rental units are moderate-income residential units.

So, ironically, it appears that the real estate developer that now wants to reconstruct the Copley Place project in 2012 to increase the percentage of luxury residential units on the public land (by building a 47-floor skyscraper on top of the Neiman Marcus anchor store) may already be violating the terms of both its Master Lease with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Section 7.1 of the March 27, 1985 Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions governing The Residences at Copley Place apartment building at 16 Harcourt Street.

Stop Simon Properties Group's & Neiman Marcus' ' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 11 (Mel King's Open Letter)

In November 2011, former Massachusetts State Representative and 1979/1983 Boston Mayoral Candidate Mel King explained why the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA], the Democratic Patrick Administration and the Democratic Menino Administration should not allow Simon Properties Group [SPG] to reconstruct and expand the Copley Place project (by building a 47-story skyscraper of mostly luxury residential units and an enclosed “winter garden” on the Copley Place project land in 2012) in the following “Open Letter to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Thomas Menino”:

“To the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Governor and the Mayor

“This is a request that you not be guilty of promoting a segregated housing program here at Copley Place . The Copley Expansion Project that is under consideration under your leadership should not be allowed to go forward. There are many reasons that have been raised by way of serious objections from the local community to the plans for The Copley Expansion. For me, the most crucial one, the one I believe causes the most harm, is the acceptance of a proposal that will; A) Allow segregated housing on public land and B) Create conditions that will further exacerbate the housing problems and the ability to exist in this neighborhood by folks of color and persons of lower income. The economic and social diversity of our community is threatened.

“I have spent a large part of my life dealing with segregation. What is the most egregious and one of the most serious aspects of this proposal, is how many people turn a blind eye to the kind of impact that projects based on segregation like this will have on individuals. I have heard the voices of the youth who clearly see that they are being pushed out of the South End. They understand far too clearly that the policies and practice are geared to the study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that says that in the next 20 years over thirty percent of the people who are living in Boston whose incomes are low will be living at least 25 miles from the center of the city. So when you understand that and you attend meetings where there is an indifference to these issues, it reminds me of the signs that I saw when I went South to college. So it is not a question for me of whether there will be 25 percent of the housing as affordable or not. I start with the fact that this is a project or process that one cannot trust.

“One of the things that we hear about The Copley Expansion Project is that they will create some jobs and therefore the scars that it places on people of color do not matter. This is part of the reason why it took so long to end the segregated systems both here and in the South. Yes, there were some people who stood because they understand injustice. The fact of the matter is that if the people themselves who were affected had not stood up and marched and did not face the cattle prods and the fire hoses and sometimes death; things to whatever extent would have not changed. I feel, and see, a similar thing that is necessary here. It is interesting that in the shadow of the Expansion Project there are folks who are involved in Occupations as a way to confront and expose the same kind of behavior which put profits before people’s humanity and dignity.

“You, as elected officials, and as members of the Boston Redevelopment Authority have a moral of responsibility and we do not want you to get sucked in with a policy that is geared to dehumanize. You have a chance to establish a policy of inclusion where all the tribes are welcome and all the gifts are shared. It’s time for you to step up and provide leadership based on justice. The issue of jobs and money is what allowed slavery to exist. Do not become advocates for a system that uses the public land to put greed before a person’s dignity, a community’s dignity and spiritual and mental health. Make it known that projects like this are not welcome.

“Mel King”

Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 10

Simon Properties Group (SPG) now wants to reconstruct the Copley Place project in 2012 by adding a 47-story skyscraper of 320 mostly luxury residential units that will reduce the percentage of low-income residential units on the Copley Place project’s public land to below 16 percent.

Yet the South End and Back Bay neighborhood community benefit that was incorporated into the April 30, 1980 UDAG application and the 1978/80/82 lease/amended lease/sub-lease for the Copley Place Project requires 25% of the residential units on the Copley Place public land to be affordable to low-income and minority tenants. And a Boston Globe article of 12/23/78 by Anthony J. Yudis originally described the planned residential portion of the Copley Place project as "a 150-unit low and moderate income housing development." Following is the complete text of the December 23, 1978 Boston Globe article:

"Gov. Michael Dukakis and the Massachustts Turnpike Authority yesterday signed a long-term lease agreement with a Chicago development firm which plans to build a $250 million residential-hotel-shopping center-office-garage complex in Copley square.

"The lease signing with Urban and Investment Development Co. (UIDC) of Chicago came after more than a year of negotiations by the Chicago firm, the state and representatives of surrounding neighborhoods and organizations.

"Gov. Dukakis, before the signing ceremony, termed the project, Copley Place, `a national model for successful citizens participation in the planning and design of large scale urban projects.'

"The project plans, which now will be going through reviews and negotiations with the city of Boston, would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike ramp network, a 9.5 acre open site bounded by Dartmouth and Harcourt streets, the Southwest Corridor abutting the South End, and Huntington avenue.

"The commitment calls for an 868-room Western International convention-oriented hotel; two and possibly three major department stores on a five level plan; some 400,000 square feet of smaller-retail shops on a three-level shopping mall; a 1400 to 1800-car garage; a 150-unit low and moderate income housing development and a 600,000 square foot office building.

"Frank Keefe, director of state planning who coordinated the year-and-a-half planning effort, said the lease signing represented a lot of `firsts.'

"He said they included provisions in the lease that commits the development firm to assure the employment of a minimum of 20 percent minority construction workers with `good faith' effor to exceed that figure.

"Kenneth Himmel, project director and vice president for UIDC--a subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance and Casualty Co.--estimated the project would provide 1300 to 1400 construction jobs during a three-year period.

"The lease also will require that 50 percent of the permanent jobs will go to Boston residents--50 percent of them women; 30 percent minorities and 17.2 percent residents of the immediate impacted area (including Chinatown, South End, Fenway, South Cove, and Back Bay). Himmel said that 6000 to 6500 permanent jobs would be available, depending if two or three department stores are built.

"Also, the state will commit state rent subsidies for 50 existing houses and families in the South End who might be impacted by rising rents as a result of the new project nearby.

"Keefe, mindful of dissent over the project plans from some organizations and neighborhood groups, despite the citizens' involvement, said every effort has been made to come up with a good plan.

"The project was endorsed by the Back Bay Federation for Community Development comprising representatives from the residential and institutional life of the Back Bay, and the Back Bay Assn. The endorsement was coupled with concerns for further refinement in areas of pedestrian access, environmental issues, scale and size, hotel tower location and continuation of the citizens review process. The latter also was made a part of the lease commitment.

"The Back Bay Neighborhood Assn. issued a separate statement, saying the organization supported a development over the turnpike but `does not support the proposed Copley Place project.'

"The organization objects to the size (3.8 million square feet, compared to 2.8 million square feet for the Park Plaza project in Park Square), traffic impact and air pollution.

"Himmel, asked about the unresolved neighborhood concerns, said: `During the first 9 days (1979) we plan to try to resolve our differences. There are some questions on our own minds and I think the direction we go in would be satisfactory.'

"He said there is a possibility of diminishing the size. He anticipated an agreement would be signed in February or March for the hotel with basic site work beginning during the summer.

"In September, work could start on the hotel, retail, office and housing elements, he said.

"Robert Ryan, head of the BRA, which will now inherit the planning process from the state, said he hopes that problems could be resolved in early 1979.

"Under terms of the Turnpike Authority lease, to run 40 years with renewal to 99 years, the Turnpike Authority would receive annual rent ranging from $140,000 in year one, to $920,000 in the 10th through 15th years, with increases after that determined by a formula based on the inflation rate. From the 30th to the 40th years, the rent would be about $2.7 million and after that year the rent schedule would be renegotiated.

"Mayor Kevin H. White's office issued a statement lauding the state's accomplishment. He said his administration is sure that the several remaining steps will be resolved. The jobs the development would bring are crucial to the city, he said. The city is negotiating with UIDC on a tax agreement covering the various buildings to be constructed.

"Also endorsing the program was Greater Boston Convention and Tourist Bureau, Inc., as `the most significant addition to Boston's convention facilities since the construction of the Prudential Center complex.'"

An article by William J. Lewis that appeared in the Boston Herald-American on December 23, 1978 also stated that "the agreement reserves 15,000-20,000 square feet of space for neighborhood-oriented businesses, half of which are to be minority-owned or community development corporations;" and "the development will include a 868-room convention-oriented hotel, two to three department stores, more than 100 shops and restaurants in an enclosed central mall, a 600,000 square foot office building, 1800-space parking garage and 150 units of mixed-income housing."

Judy Clark's Trial & Sixth Amendment Violations

As a recent New York Times article indicated, 1981 Brink's Case defendant Judy Clark still has not apparently been released by New York State authorities. Yet before a U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit trio of judges (that then included soon-to-be-named U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor) overturned a lower federal court decision in the Clark v. Perez case in early 2008, lower federal court Judge Scheindlin had issued the following ruling on September 22, 2006:

"...There were two separate violations of the Sixth Amendment during Clark's trial: 1) the court should not have granted leave for Clark to represent herself; and 2) in any event, her pro se status should have been terminated when it became clear that no one would be in the courtroom to represent her interests during the presentation of the prosecution's case. Both problems constitute structural defects in Clark's trial...

"...The core of the constitutional defect is found in one snapshot from Clark's trial. During the prosecutor's opening statement and during the government's entire direct case against defendants, which spanned at least seven trial days, no one was present in the courtroom to represent Clark's interests. Clark was without assistance of counsel for her defense, in clear abrogation of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel...The proceedings at issue, with no one sitting at the defense table during the prosecution's entire case would have appeared unfair to many people with knowledge of the constitutional right to counsel or a respect for our adversarial system of justice...

"The trial judge was obligated to procure standby counsel for Clark when her inability to proceed according to court rules and protocol led to the absence of any representation at all during vital portions of her trial...

"For the reasons set forth above, Clark's petition is hereby granted and her conviction is reversed. The State must conduct a new trial within ninety days of this Order or release Clark from confinement...SO ORDERED S.D.NY 2006"