The following is an interesting excerpt from a book I am reading at the moment entitled 'Modern Iran Since 1921: The Pahlavis and after'. It refers to US influence on and provision of aid to the country in the wake of WWII, the control over Iran fought over by Russia and the UK for so many years having just recently been finally broken. It is a quote WITHIN the book, i.e. I am quoting something said during that era that has been quoted within the book. Please forgive typos.
'Under the present bilateral approach creditor governments are diverted from governmental projects by military and political considerations ... Even if a recipient government became convinced in all good faith of the fairness of certain bilateral programs offered by another country, it would soon be condemned in the public mind. Opposition leaders will charge the government with selling out to the imperialists, and the public will believe those charges ... Bilateral aid poisons the relationship between nations, frustrates the donor, and causes revulsion in the recipient. Donor nations are obliged to channel aid throught the receiving country's officials whether they be qualified, honest, efficient or otherwise. Where the recipient government is corrupt, the donor government appears, in the judgement of the public, to support corruption ... The bilateral approach cannot bring about reform. Furthermore, government-to-government aid delays internal pressure toward reform be providing considerable material resources to corrupt regimes and by unwittingly fostering the fear that development aid will be stopped if the regime is overthrown. Under bilateral programs the lending government cannot impose a creditor's normal discipline for fear of jeopardising the entire fabric of international relations. I can think of no better summary of all the disadvantages and weaknesses of the bilateral system than the modern history of my own country. Not so very many years ago in Iran, the United States was loved and respected as no other country, and without having given a penny of aid. Now, after more than $1 billion of loans and grants, America is neither loved nor respected; she is distrusted by most people and hated by many.'
One should note that Iranians effectively lived under a quasi-dictatorship at this point and the national psyche was firmly entrenched in a 'no foreign influence' frame of mind (the goal of years having been to wrestle control of their oil back from the British and remove occupying Russian forces from the north).
I think it is an interesting opinion and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it...
'Under the present bilateral approach creditor governments are diverted from governmental projects by military and political considerations ... Even if a recipient government became convinced in all good faith of the fairness of certain bilateral programs offered by another country, it would soon be condemned in the public mind. Opposition leaders will charge the government with selling out to the imperialists, and the public will believe those charges ... Bilateral aid poisons the relationship between nations, frustrates the donor, and causes revulsion in the recipient. Donor nations are obliged to channel aid throught the receiving country's officials whether they be qualified, honest, efficient or otherwise. Where the recipient government is corrupt, the donor government appears, in the judgement of the public, to support corruption ... The bilateral approach cannot bring about reform. Furthermore, government-to-government aid delays internal pressure toward reform be providing considerable material resources to corrupt regimes and by unwittingly fostering the fear that development aid will be stopped if the regime is overthrown. Under bilateral programs the lending government cannot impose a creditor's normal discipline for fear of jeopardising the entire fabric of international relations. I can think of no better summary of all the disadvantages and weaknesses of the bilateral system than the modern history of my own country. Not so very many years ago in Iran, the United States was loved and respected as no other country, and without having given a penny of aid. Now, after more than $1 billion of loans and grants, America is neither loved nor respected; she is distrusted by most people and hated by many.'
One should note that Iranians effectively lived under a quasi-dictatorship at this point and the national psyche was firmly entrenched in a 'no foreign influence' frame of mind (the goal of years having been to wrestle control of their oil back from the British and remove occupying Russian forces from the north).
I think it is an interesting opinion and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-02 08:56:41)
