Iranian Revolution Blog Post

In my opinion, Shah Reza Khan's, and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's attempts to modernize Iran were legitimate, potentially-effective attempts at modernization. They were some of the few attempts to modernize in the revolutions that we have studied this year that were not harmful or destructive to the people of the country. In China, for example, during The Great Leap Forward, modernization attempts led to the starvation of millions of people, as well as the decline of the economy throughout China. Modernization, however, was effective but not worth the means of getting modernized.

The two Shah's reforms were not radical like the ones of The Great Leap Forward, but rather moderate so as to usher in modernization without causing harsh implications on the Iranian people. These reforms included changing the ancient name Persia to Iran, modeling the government like the modern European state, centralizing the government, collecting taxes, writing down laws and apointing judges. These reforms did not cause any deaths, and they increased modernization in Iran, although not on as large a scale as the modernization that took place during The Great Leap Forward.

^Starving woman during the Great Leap Forward

Why do you think violence allows for more modernization like such? I believe it does because it is easier to enforce rules with violence, though it is never the best way.

Egypt

In the revolution that is going on in Egypt this year, I find Egypt's relationship with the United States to be both puzzling and intriguing, for many reasons. For instance, I found it unbelievable and wrong that the government in Egypt was corrupt, in that fake elections were being held under Mubarak when he was in power, and yet the US still sided with him while he was president. Personally, I believe that it is wrong for the US to do so because they are holding a hypocritical standard for themselves by promoting democracy worldwide while also siding with Mubarak. As an upstanding democratic nation, we should have condemned anything other than democracy to the start, perhaps so that the Egyptian government would implement a change in government so that they can remain allies with us.

^Hosni Mubarak, 4th president of Egypt

However, considering the specifics of the relationship between the US and Egypt, I think that, although it is horrible and hypocritical for the US to support a corrupt government with a democracy like our own, it would be even worse for the US to break ties with Egypt, since they are an important ally. Firstly, Egypt and Israel are the United States most closely associated allies in the middle East. If the US broke ties with Egypt, and something were to happen in the Middle East that required the US to get involved, they would have no means of doing so other than through the small country of Israel. Secondly, Mubarak was one of very few leaders that supported Israel in the Middle East, so if the US broke condemned his non-democratic policies and removed him from office, the government would most likely be replaced with an anti-Israel leader or group. I believe that this would be bad because Israel, too is an important ally of the US, and if Egypt turned against them they would be completely surrounded by countries that were against it.

Do you side the the first paragraph's view that the US should not have supported the non-democratic government that was under Mubarak, because it would be hypocritical? Or do you side with the second paragraph's view that the benefits of keeping ties with Egypt outweigh the implications of hypocrisy that would be caused by supporting Egypt?

1989 and the Fall of Communism in Different Countries

For me, studying this unit was very interesting because I had previous insight from my spring research paper, which involved the fall of communism in East Germany. In the East German Revolution, also referred to as the peaceful revolution, the church was the key factor in maintaining non-violent protests, and civil reaction on the part of the government and military. Reading into other countries involved in the fall of communism in Europe in 1989, I further understood the factors that made countries such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, be carried out in a peaceful fashion as well. Poland in particular had a peaceful revolution that was led by the church.

^Monday Demonstrations in East Germany- led by the church

In the Polish revolution, the government banned religion, causing the Catholic church to go underground. Then, when Polish-raised Pope John Paul II became pope in the mist of revolution, the people returned to their ties with the Catholic church. The church then published underground fliers, pamphlets, communication devices, etc., to spread word of revolution. They, like in East Germany, had a peaceful revolution that was spearheaded by the church.

^1989 Protesting in the streets of Poland

I personally believe that the churches had such a significant impact on the 1989 revolutions because they placed value on morality before politics. Because the churches placed value on morality, the government and the government's enforcing regime had trouble inflicting suffering or violence upon people who had no intention of anything but peaceful protesting. Thus, the churches almost carried out a sort of Satyagraha campaign. The difference between this the Satyagraha campaign that took place in India (in which violence ensued regardless of the peaceful campaign) was that the church had roots in the European countries that were too deep to be ignored or suppressed, whereas in India the Satyagraha campaign was established and led by one man (Gandhi). Thus being, I do not believe that any other institution could have carried out the peace that was made possible by the church in the Polish and East German Revolutions.

Do you agree that the reason the church could carry out peace was because it has been promoting peace for hundreds of years? Do you think that any other institutions, perhaps that were not as deeply rooted as the church, could have carried out the peaceful protest that the churches in Poland and East Germany carried out?