| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran's American Treasurer |
| 2016-08-21 |
| History may not repeat itself, but it sure paraphrases a lot. Long before Iranian revolutionaries named America the “Great Satan” in 1979, another Iranian revolutionary government looked to America for help in its struggle to secure its independence. In 1911, the government of Persia – as outsiders then knew Iran – invited William Morgan Shuster, an American lawyer and civil servant, to become the country’s treasurer general. Shuster arrived at a pivotal moment in Iran’s history, just as a fragile new democracy was struggling to survive. Only five years earlier, Iranians had carried out a “constitutional revolution,” forcing the reigning monarch, Mozzafer ad-Din Shah, to accept a constitution and a parliament, or majles. Supporters of the new government counted on the majles to end the corruption of successive monarchs who had exploited Iran’s resources for personal gain, and allowed Russia and Britain to dominate the country’s economy. But the constitutional movement had powerful enemies. In January 1907, Mozzafer ad-Din died, and his son Muhammad Ali, a friend of Russia, became shah. Russia opposed the constitutional movement and jealously guarded its influence in northern Iran. In 1908, after surviving an assassination attempt, Muhammad Ali’s Russian-backed forces besieged the majles, arresting and executing prominent constitutionalists. The following year, constitutional forces deposed Mohammad Ali and sent him into exile. But by then, Iran was almost bankrupt. Europeans and corrupt local elites conspired to drain the national purse, even as Russia sought to undermine the government. To secure control of Iran, the government needed to root out corruption and centralize its tax system. That was Shuster’s mission. Shuster knew from the moment he arrived that Russia, the friend of Muhammad Ali Shah, was especially displeased with his presence. Russia had pulled its weight with “certain persuasive and notorious members of the Parliament” to try and keep him away, and had even complained to the US State Department. Russia, says Amanat, faced its own revolutionary situation in the Caucasus Mountains and resented its loss of influence in Azerbaijan to the constitutionalists. Even so, Russia claimed to respect Iran’s sovereignty and stopped short of publicly objecting to the employment of a US citizen by the Persian government. Britain reluctantly assented to Shuster’s project as well. Both countries expected him to visit their legations upon his arrival and sent constant messages to that effect. But Shuster gave them the cold shoulder. He argued that, as an official of the Persian government, he was under no obligation to pay “first calls” to anyone. At the heart of the foreign embassies’ worries was Shuster’s “financial law,” which he was preparing to put before the majles. Once it passed, Shuster would control the disbursement of all government funds, and would have the power to examine all requests for payment, including those from foreign powers. As far as Shuster was concerned, most of the foreign diplomatic corps in Tehran, along with the coterie of foreign experts whose countries they represented, were driving Iran ever closer to bankruptcy. When Iranians saw how Shuster behaved toward the other westerners, he later wrote with no little self-regard, they “rubbed their eyes a few times and then commenced to have a new sensation. ‘Inshallah, we have a faranghi [foreigner] among us who takes not his orders from the foreign legations. Let us help him.’” Parts Two and Three here. |
| Posted by:Pappy |