Hajminator

Thanks Hajminator Jan

For your insightful analysis. I agree the demands made of Iran regarding its nuclear programme are hypocritical and likely to be excuses to keep the military options open. If Iran nuclear activities were a big problem, It all could have been solved with some sort of a deal with very little real cost except that of strategic change by the west in 2003 when Khatami made that faithful offer..

Khaleh jan,

For reminder: the Iranian nuclear program dates back to the 50s. Since 1955, Iran is one of the signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Three states (Israel, Pakistan and India) possessing nuclear armaments haven’t signed this treaty yet.

After the withdrawn of the Shah, our country had an important contract with the German Siemens to build the Bushehr nuclear power. Shah had also been involved in many European nuclear programs like the French experimental reactor Phenix in which he had loaned near 1 billion dollar to France. The money hasn’t been returned yet, and I don’t think that it will one day.

After the revolution, Khomeini stopped the Iranian nuclear program and super-powers didn’t wish to pursue it any why. When the nuclear program has been picked up again, Iran’s partner was mostly Russia. Russians didn’t bother themselves to over-tax the country and held up the construction of the Bushehr nuclear plant as much as they could. For example, the plant was expected to be finished in 2000.

Iran has the nuclear knowledge now and has over-paid every country to acquire this know. It’s not fair that after more than half a century of tributes our country doesn’t get what so many people worked hard for its possession. In the other hand, every country of more than 50 000 000 residents that you see have either a nuclear protection or is protected by a nuclear power. The threats in the ME are high. Look at Pakistan, Talibans live mostly their and the state is unsteady. Talibans enemy number one in the region is Iran. Imagine that these guys take the power one day... If they employ nuclear bombs, the first part of the plant which will blow up is Iran. The Pakistani threats are so high that Barack recently said that Israel has to fear Pakistan more than Iran.

I’m the one who says that we have to live in a non-nuclear world. Most People haven’t ideological problems with each other and they aspire to tranquillity. But, we don’t live in Alice imaginary world. And, we don't have to support foreign double-standards.

Uranium Enrichment

Thanks Dear Hajminator in raising this pertinent point and the historical background has been very interesting for me. 

The burning question in my mind relating to this blog's title is to do with Iran's right as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to enrich Uranium. 

Should Iran (or IRI more accurately) forgo this as it is demanded to do?

شازدهء عزیزم

‫از لطفت متشکرم. منتظر بقیه داستان شما هستم، خیلی جالب شده اند. اگر به گفتهء من برای کتاب کردنشان عمل کنی حتماً پر فروش خواهند شد و من از شما رُایالتی نمیگیرم.

‫عید نوروز را به شما و همهء همبستگان محترم تبریک میگویم.

هجمینتر جان: خیلی‌ ممنون از این مقاله مفید

امیدوارم که خوش و سلامت باشی، ونوروز بر تو مبارک باد !

Dear Qioumars

Thank you and har roozetan messleh Norooz bad.

So we are friends ...

I looked back to books I have on the subject and it came that the term existed before Khomeini and goes back to Shah Abbas. Khomeini relived it as Capitulation didn’t exist in Iran after its abolition by Reza Shah.

The term Hagueh Tavahosh, was how Iranians qualified this right since its introduction in Iran. The term was used by us, and I’m really sorry that the reality is so hard for you to be accepted.

Why Iranians called Capitulation, Hagueh tavahosh?

It’s because they felt despised. The fact to give super-rights to foreigners who had the possibility to steal, rape and do other crimes and then be immunized by these rights created a great sense of injustice. “So are they humans and we barbarians for giving them rights we’ll never have?” was at the origin of the term.

You nor anyone else can change History by his/her good willing.

These articles have been removed from the constitution after the revolution.

Dear Hajminator

Thank you for your post, it is very educational. Eide shoma ham mobarak.

Good Job Haji

Keep evading the question and attack me instead, as well as change your story. you are hardly an authority on growing up.

Once again, what laws are Russian, North Korean, Chinese engineers
and scientists in Iran subject to? Or is this just "gard o ghobar" and
noise whenever you would rather not answer an inconvenient question?

First you say Khoemeini invented the term haghe tavahosh. Now you say Shah Abbas's advisors invented it and he just repeated it. Make up your mind. You are busy manufacturing reality for us as we speak.

Capitulation does NOT equal Haghe Tavahosh, which means "Barbarian Rights". Capitulation is a fact of world history in general, and to use it to characterize specific agreements between the Shah's government and US government is debatable. But NOBODY in any agreement used the term "Barbarian Rights".

-FAIR

‫رد واین عزیز،

‫از محبتت متشکر. دوستان خانه تکانی میکنند، گرد و غبار بلند میشه، عادیست. عید شما و همهء دوستان را تبریک میگویم.

...

مطلب به خوبي ادا شده است.كج خلقي بعضي از دوستان رو نميفهمم.

ممنون حاجي جان.

Dear Mona,

Thank you for your interest. It was the Ottoman Empire which abolished the regime at its late years in 1914 just before WWI. Here is a short text describing these events.

//www.osmanli700.gen.tr/english/sultans/10cap...

KavehV

The usage of the term Capitulation, employed by the European countries, in no-military – consular cases dates back to 1352. Its exact juridical meaning includes a series of law texts which warranty immunity to people from a country living in a more weak state. According to these texts, if people commit a crime in the foreign country they will be judged by their consulates and are immune from the local judiciary system.

This is how the treaty term appears in Wikipedia:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_(treaty)

"Capitulation" is the name given to an arrangement by which foreigners are withdrawn, for most civil and criminal purposes, from the jurisdiction of the state making the capitulation.

I haven’t invented the term and no one can say that it's false. It’s a part of the history; we have to accept it though painful.

When Reza Shah abolished the regime from our constitution around 1920, the employed term in the constitution was Capitulation.

40 years after, when the Shah was forced to establish these rights again, the term took another form. The Shah was proud of its abolition by its father. After 15 khordad, when the term came back to the constitution it was quasi impossible to use the original form Capitulation.

In fact, Khomeini hadn’t invented the term Hagueh tavahosh. He just spread among the population, the phrase which was employed by the opponents of the treaty that Shah Abbas signed with the Netherlands. At that time, most of the Shah Abbas advisors were against this agreement. But the Shah signed it in part because he was one of the fierce opponents of the Ottoman Empire. And Turks had already their Capitulation treaty with the French government.

People then liked to employ the term Hagueh tavahosh, as a means of expression to denote the injustice these law texts imposed to Iranians.

Dear Hajminator,

Thank you for your delightful blog. I knew about hageh tavahosh but ignored everything about its origins. Do you know when this regime ended in Turkey?

Hajminator

I do not dispute the events prior to Pahlavi dynasty regarding the so called "Capitulation". Capitulation, as you mentioned, is a military term and it means total surrender of the enemy forces as it happened to axis powers of WWII and Saddam Hossein in operation Desert Storm (not in Desert Shield in 1991), in our time.

The closest Iran has been to this was after Russian wars, and even then, it was not a total capitulation. It was a negotiated end to the war on, mostly, Russian terms.

Capitulation is the end result of a war and when used in the context of US-Iran relationship in 1960's and 1970's, it was not just an exaggeration, but it was false. US and Iran were not at war, nor had any history of hostility toward each other. Granting immunity to US military personnel in Iran who were there at the request of the Iranian government for training Iranian military personnel does NOT, in any way, constitute capitulation. The US military personnel were not occupation troops, they were welcomed by Iranian government to train Iranians on the latest US military hardware.

There is a reference to the status of forces bill passed by the Iranian parliament in October 1964 (link below), in which diplomatic immunity was extended to US military personnel. Unfortunately, there is no more details about the contents of this bill, but what harm did it ever bring to Iran ? At the time, US troops were almost everywhere in the world, including Italy, Germany, Japan and to some extent south Korea who had capitulated. The difference between these countries and savage charlatans of Islamic Iran is their intelligence and civility which is sorely lacking in Islamist Iran.

//www.parstimes.com/history/relations_64-68.h...

Diplomatic immunity is common among diplomatic staff of all embassies and all countries. Only the murderous Islamists have used these diplomatic privileges to murder and terrorize people out side Iran, all over Europe and Americas. This is the true "Hagheh Tavvahush" which is the unique trademark of Islamists and their savage followers.

Mehrban jan

Thank you for your support. I have to learn not to respond to jerks.

Fair

Out of scope as usual, grow up.

Masoud

What are your points in conflict with what I said? I wrote about the 15 khordad manifestation and the Capitulation instaured by the Shah in 1964 following these events. You say

Khomeini’s 15 Khordad is on June 3-4, 1963.
The Shah successfully suppresses the reactionary riots by June 8.
The immunity treaty was announced on October 13 and 25, 1964.

So, what's wrong about that?

If there was a ghalat-nameh in which people could just write Shah, ghalat kardim, maro bebaksh. How many lines would you write? I'm ready to write 30 million times this sentence.

This blog is not about the confrontation of Khomeini and the Shah. This blog is about a part of our history concerning the Capitulation.

In 1979, people blindy chanted "Marg bar Shah" and blindy supported Khomeini. If they knew more about the history, they wouldn't have probably done this.

I don't think that things are bit different now.

False accusations

Your inferences about the name of the blogger is at best a knee jerk reaction. To some of you who are running wild with anger, I suggest to hold your fire as you may be hitting a friend. 

Not in Haji's "reality"

For Haji, if Khomeini says it and he likes it, it is reality. And if we point out factual errors, we are "nitpicking" and "denying facts" (the ones he invented and wants to force on people).

Thank you Masoud for protecting history from the shameful revisionism that Haji and his likes are attempting.

And now for a question relevant to today:

If a Russian nuclear scientist or a North Korean missile engineer in Iran is caught stealing from a muslim, will their hands get cut off like if they were Iranian?

If they are caught doing adultery, will they get lashed in the streets like if they were Iranian?

And if one of their women is caught doing adultery, will she get stoned like if she were Iranian?

Or are they protected under some kind of agreement between the Islamic Republic and the Russian Federation/North Korea? And will we EVER know what is in such an agreement?

The biggest damage to Iran throughout our history has been done by those who LIE. If we care about our country Iran, we must stand up to LIARS.

-FAIR

Hajiminator, You are

Hajiminator,

You are WRONG.

The Shah announces the land reform referendum in January 1963. The female franchise in February 1963.

Khomeini’s 15 Khordad is on June 3-4, 1963.

The Shah successfully suppresses the reactionary riots by June 8.

The immunity treaty was announced on October 13 and 25, 1964.

Khomeini delivers a sermon condemning these.

There were no riots. Khomeini is arrested and exiled to Turkey immediately.

There is about 1 year, 5 months between June 4 1963 riots and the October 13-25, 1964 bill.

It is an ABSOLUTE LIE to say that Khomeini opposed the shah because of the immunity bill. In actual fact, Khomeini did not do one damn thing against the Shah from 1951 until 1961. ONLY after the land reform and female vote that Khomeini went ballistic and began opposing the Shah.

Khomeini was a charlatan. So, when his earlier uprising on June 4, 1963 failed, he looked for other things. The Oct 1964 immunity bill provided a convenient opportunity to attack the Shah.

The fundamentalist propagandists have been trying to deceive the people. We should expose fundamentalist lies with the TRUTH.

MK

Fair, KavehV and AnonymousX

So you google around and when you don’t find something it’s because the response doesn’t exist. Read books you’ll be surprised that the world doesn’t end to Google.

You search pointers and answers and when you don’t find them you label people as you want. That’s really cheap.

Capitulation is a military term, but when it was imposed to nations since the 6th century, it has been done in the forms of texts and by respective consulates. At least you learnt something from the internet.

You read my whole blog? If not just see the 2 clauses imposed by the Netherlands to Shah Abas. This text means that Dutchmen to rape or steal and then by taking refuge at their houses no one could say anything or if they were caught before, they had to be judged by their consul! That’s Capitulation imposed to us.

In 1964, the texts been changed but basically there were the same in nature. You want to know exactly what they dealt with, go and read for example these books.

Know Thine Enemy: A Spy's Journey into Revolutionary Iran, by Edward Shirley

The Soul of Iran: A Nation's Journey to Freedom by Afshin Molavi

Reality Deniers

Dear KavehV and AnonymousX,

Haji claims that "Haghe Tavahosh" (Barbarian Rights) is a reality, and that if you question it, it must be because you are not Iranian, and that we are "reality deniers".

Yet he ADMITS that it is a term invented by Khomeini, a man who openly himself told the entire world, he fells NOTHING for Iran.

Lying Hypocrites with a lot of nerve I must say.

-FAIR

Re: KavehV

Thank you so much for providing this valuable link. Khomeini and his men referred to this issue repeatitively to deceive the masses.

Today we know better.

And thank you Hajminator to provide another opportunity to clear the Shah's name from the lies of the past.

Lies which you still live under.

Indeed, lies and deception

and CONSULAR rights are definitely not BARBARIAN rights, as some have suggested we are obliged to accept as reality, just because Khomeini has coined the term.

Those who level such drastic accusations have the burden of proof for those accusations. So far they have none, and they just get mad and rude at those who question them.

Truth matters. To some people at least...

-FAIR

Islamist lies and deception

Consular Rights is not the same as Capitulation. Even the TurkamanChai and Golestan treaties were not complete capitulation (although close to it).

Before regurgitating Islamist nonsense and lies, why not provide us with the link, or the content of this 1960-64 "capitulation" agreement so we can judge by ourselves. The only agreement I find from that era is the 1955-1957 TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR
RIGHTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IRAN.

//www.parstimes.com/law/iran_us_treaty.html

Dear Mehrban

Yes, you are absolutely right. Also, I think that the right term in English is still Capitulation or Surrender.

In the events preceding the revolution, the capitulation was seen as a real contempt by most Iranians particularly that Reza Shah had banished this right in 1920 just 40 years before its second establishment. The Shah himself was very proud of this and was opposed to bringing back the law into the constitution, at least at the beginning. But Kennedy had decided something else, and our tragedy comes in part by this wrong hegemony policy that the US imposed to the region at that time (and still now).

If you look at what Capitulation really means, just the two articles 10 and 14 of what Shah Abass conceded to the Netherlands, you see that it's something really nauseating. I agree with the term Haghueh tavahosh, as we paid tribute and gave unthinkable advantages to foreigners to live in our country. Can you imagine that Americans accept one day to Capitulate as we did for 2 centuries long?

For the present, if we know where we come from and all these disdains endured by our ancestors, we should back and be proud of all good achievements made in Iran by patriots who accept to live under this regime and work hard for the progress of the country.

Dear Hajminator

Thank you for this historical analysis.  This is a very important issue as it may have been the single most important element in emotionally unifing most Iranians behind Ayatollah Khomeini initially.  Capitulation was extremely hard for Iranians of all walks to swallow.  

Is "Capitulation" in English a fair translation of the concept?

Ebi jan,

Ghorbanat, mokhlessim.

Hajminator aziz..

Sepaas

Ebi aka Haaji