Nationalization: Oil Industry and Nuclear Industry

This year is the 100^th anniversary of oil extraction in Iran. This calls for much more discussions on oil. We must think of what has happened to Iran and its oil, and think why such a phenomenon that can create opportunities for every country has sometimes turned into a threat for Iran.

 

What has happened that we today, have come to believe that the dysfunctionality of our social institutions is a result of oil's prevalence in all aspects of our life? What have been the threats and problems? How can we retain the opportunities and avoid the damages?

 

In the 100^th anniversary of oil extraction in Iran, we must also go back to nationalization of oil industry and talk more of Dr. Mosaddeq and his companions' great achievement. Reducing this historic event to slogans with domestic propagandistic usage is not fair.

 

What Dr. Mosaddeq did, was in essence part of the social and political developments which took place within the second half of the 20^th century; the anti-colonialist movements of that era. And what makes his move historic, is the influence it had on the anti-imperialism movement of the Iranian nation.

 

At those days, the general belief was that there was a latent imperialism embedded in oil contracts rules the nation and by nationalization of oil industry the foreigners hand will be cut off this resource. With this dream coming true, the Iranian nation found the opportunity to determine its own fate, free from foreigners' interference.

 

By taking the oil industry out of the hands of foreigners, Dr. Mosaddeq did a great work in a difficult situation, with minimum costs. With his perfect, effective diplomacy he achieved a success that became a prodigy of international relations. It substantially effected the succeeding movements in developing countries.

 

Not only it became a model to release national assets from the unfair monopoly of imperialistic companies across the world, but also it forced the multinational companies to change their behavior from the previous imperialistic trend towards one based on "mutual interests".

 

With the victory of Iran's diplomacy in nationalizing oil industry, the imperialist companies found out that they may face similar problems if they don't revise their behavior. Of course I don't mean that they changed substantially afterwards, but the truth is that after nationalization of oil industry in Iran, we have seen significant changes and more acceptable relations between developing and developed countries in the international economic relations. The victory of Iranian nation could be a cause of this change.

 

Nationalization per se is a topic worth of discussion. It is not comparable with any other phenomenon in Iran's contemporary history. We have had many instances of nationalization after the revolution; however, not only they didn't have the same effect, but also they had negative effects on economy of the country.

 

Nationalization of assets in today's world has lost its meaning and what counts for development in a global economy, is countries' ability to attract investments and run joint economic plans.

 

Today, countries try to attract investment through different ways such as passing laws that secure foreign investment and signing bonds with other countries to show them that they do not wish to nationalize foreign assets. Countries believe that measures that encourage foreign investment are not against their sovereignty and national interests, other wise, they create national opportunities.

 

Nationalization of oil industry can neither be compared with other similar policies in Iran, nor can it be considered an appropriate model to be imitated now. However, the global trend towards further interaction among economies doesn't imply downplaying the importance of what Dr. Mosaddeq and his companions did by nationalizing oil industry and extricating it free from foreigners' monopoly. Lets' not forget that international relations and investment in countries that have control over their assets can't be compared with the age of imperialism in pre-nationalization Iran.

 

What is strange here is coining "nationalization of nuclear industry" and drawing a match-up between the nuclear program and nationalization of oil industry. Seemingly it has been tried to bring some association with Dr. Mosaddeq's achievement, and bring some sanctity for Iran's nuclear industries, and this doesn't seem so appropriate.

 

No entity other than the Iranian government has ever held control of the nuclear industries and no one has ever had any claims over the ownership of nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfehan, Arak etc. These industries have never been controlled by foreigners and no one other than the government has held any responsibilities about them.

 

So it is meaningless to use "nationalization of oil industry", that means the ownership has been taken from foreigners or a non-governmental entity and conferred to the government.

 

Of course I don't want to downplay the achievements of our nuclear industry. Development in any industry is an honor and can be celebrated, but self-reliance is another issue. This concept has lost its meaning in the economic world; however, if it means innovation and production it is definitely valuable.

 

The Chinese Prime Minister held a national celebration when CSIC company started constructing the first 300,000-tons oil tanker for Iran. If we view our nuclear industry through this window, celebrating for nuclear energy is justified. But if any celebration had to be held, 2002 would be a much more appropriate occasion, when Iran managed to run centrifuges manufactured by its own technicians.

 

Definitely China has constructed other 300-000 tons oil tankers later, but no more celebrations have been held. On the same basis, propagating after expanding the centrifuge production line seems baseless, unless the government has some propagandistic purposes that make the story different.

 

It could be meaningful to celebrate after we had managed to launch Esfehan's nuclear site and manufacture centrifuges, despite United States' opposition and non-willingness of some other countries. However, the Reform Government didn't believe in publicizing such achievements, whatever the extent of success. Otherwise, it sought to reduce the concerns of the world over these achievements.

 

I have said this previously that if we want to specify a share for each government in Iran's nuclear progress, more than 25% belongs to pre-Reform governments, more than 60% to the Reform Government and 10% to 15% to the present government. But all the controversies and propaganda and all the costs are brought about by the current government.

 

The Reform Government never believed in propaganda, though it had attained great nuclear achievements. Instead of running a propaganda game on this sensitive topic, it tried to ease the world's concerns through effective diplomacy.

 

At any rate, we can definitely say that nationalization of oil industry in Iran has no relation to the propagandistic slogan "nationalization of nuclear industry". Using "nationalization" to portray the progress doesn’t match with any legal, political or economic rationale.

 

But about the nuclear developments, first we must find out what the problem is. Is it necessary to block all other routes of progress in favor of nuclear industry? Or is this a result of government's wrong policies?

 

At first we should clarify why the global community has become concerned about our nuclear progress. How did the Reform Government behave and what happened after that era?

 

After Soviet Union's dissolution, radical groups in the United States faced a crisis: they had no enemy. This meant that there were no longer any pretexts for ambitious and expansionist policies of U.S., which were based on exaggerate military threat of the Soviet Union.

 

Consequently, there were voices that since there was no major enemy, there's no need for NATO. As a result, United States' military budget was cut during Clinton's presidency, seriously protested by militarists and arms companies.

 

In those years, the current neo-con statesmen claimed that enemy still exists. They stated that there were still two dangerous enemies for the United States and global peace, that if collaborate, will threat the entire world: terrorism and nuclear weapons.

 

This group promoted a new strategy in NATO and public opinion of the Americans, that didn't aim a certain country, but was to confront those two ubiquitous phenomena. The 9/11 terrorist attack were of great help for promotion of this idea.

 

United States powerful diplomacy took advantage of this event, insisting that blind terrorists who have killed many a number of people, would have no doubt over using nuclear bomb if they found access to it.

 

Following these talks it was said that nuclear power will be highly dangerous if it falls in the hands of irresponsible countries. In such circumstances the Islamic Republic of Iran had managed to achieve peaceful nuclear industry independently and this had surprised the world. The truth was that Iran's progress in nuclear industry, as many other industries of the country, was the result of a trust-building diplomacy.

 

At a time China had withdrawn from Esfehan's UFC projects for gaining access to the multi-billion dollar U.S. market, Iran completed the project independently, without any problems.

 

And of course was accompanied with an effective foreign diplomacy which averted any crisis in foreign relations and assured everyone that Iran will follow its trust-building course. by following a Japanese model, and along with our progress, we eased concerns. Eventually, the Reform Government handed power when no pressure on economy or industry of the country was exerted.

 

But what about the present government? The production line launched by the previous government continued its activity and Iran's propaganda led to anti-Iran propaganda. An adventurous foreign policy and drawing controversial issues forward helped those who wanted to put Iran into problem.

 

What has been the outcome? For the first time, all powerful countries of the world have become unanimous against one country, unprecedented whether during the Cold War era or later. This can be known as the biggest defeat of Iran's foreign diplomacy after the Islamic Revolution, since for the first time our dossier was investigated in UN Security Council, in hands of an international court that had America as its chief justice.

 

This course has been problematic for the country. We [reformists] had repeatedly mentioned that if Iran's dossier is handed to UN Security Council, the only way the United States will close it is through Iran's withdrawal.

 

By adopting wrong strategies, instead of preventing an anti-Iran consensus, and extensive cooperation with other countries, the government chose controversial propaganda and felt pleased with the negative reaction of other countries. Consequently, it parted from powerful countries of the world and pushed them towards America.

 

Sanction resolutions against Iran are the primary results of these developments and their increasing speed will exert further pressures on our country. Neither European countries nor Russia and China will help Iran in these situations. Iran's case in UN Security Council will become increasingly; consequently moving beyond the nuclear program.

 

I have to say that Iran's diplomatic approach in both the nationalization of oil industry and the nuclear program will become historic cases. In both, the dossier was referred to the UN Security Council and in both cases powerful countries had allied against Iran. But Dr. Mosaddeq's approach brought the biggest victory for Iran and our defense against Britain's lawsuit in the Security Council and The Hague International Court of Justice became a precedent itself.

 

And the recent developments brought Iran the largest defeat, i.e. reference of the nuclear dossier to UN Security Council due to the consensus among powerful countries against Iran. While Iran overcame Britain during nationalization of oil industry, the present government had followed a policy that has left no way for other countries to support Iran in international organizations.