Ahmadinejad: Speech And Debacle
In the wake of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's much fraught welcome at Columbia University yesterday, and in consideration of today's forum at United Nations, we're attempting to assemble the pieces of a tricky semantic puzzle. And we're not the only ones.
Salon's Juan Cole would argue that Ahmadinejad has been derided and condemned as part of a neo-conservative push for war with Iran. Andrew Sullivan, however, has some more immediately compelling fodder for his vitriol toward the visiting leader.
This interview between Simon Piel and Didier Billion suggests that our handling of Ahmadinejad's visit was a missed opportunity for a global step forward, both for the United States and Iran. When one takes into consideration the necessity of hosting adversarial leaders at the UN, that idea makes sense.
Clearly, Ahmadinejad's comments about the Holocaust and gays in Iran are reprehensible, ignorant, and hypocritical. But at Columbia's forum yesterday, it wasn't a situation of giving Ahmadinejad a rostrum for his rhetoric, but an opportunity for students to have him answer to them.
You tell us: Should he have been invited to Columbia? To the UN? Should he have been allowed to visit Ground Zero? What do you think will come of all this hoopla?
Posted on September 25, 2007 by - Patrick James
Like this article? Tell the world It's Good!
not yet rated
Yes
I think him being invited to Columbia was the right thing to do. Freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas (no matter how radical and idiotic they may seem) is one of the crutches of academia. Even if you don't agree with someone they still have a voice. I am in no way saying that he is a good man but he is the head of a nation with major sway in the Arab world.
I also think that denying him access to Ground Zero was ignorant. Since when did the US government decided that its only a place of mourning for Americans? Its an international site of mourning. From what I could tell he only had good intentions for visiting site. I highly doubt he would have gotten there and then spit on it or something along those lines. And if he did I bet a mob of people would have attacked him. We can not keep acting like 9/11 effected just us.
I hope that better relations with Iran will come of this. As someone about to enter the service the last thing I want to do is to go to Iran and fight. I hope Columbia takes him up his offer. As a student right now I would fight tooth and nail to be one of those students that gets to go to Iran to speak to the Universities.
Posted on September 25, 2007 — by turnitout
1 comment
2 votes
A bad guy, sure...
The outcry against Ahmadinejad coming to Columbia yesterday is disappointing. He's a bad guy (and a dangerous one), but when has shutting down avenues of communication and dialog ever resulted in anything other than escalated tension and misunderstanding? Yeah, he says some pretty awful stuff and holds some even worse beliefs - but this was not a soapbox, it was a forum. Telling someone to "shut up" may work for Bill O'Reilly, but it's hardly a reasonable national policy.
Posted on September 25, 2007 — by nicmcconnell
0 comments
not yet rated
uh, i must disagree
Although Columbia brought him as part of a series of lectures involving Iran, and so I see the merit in his appeareance, I must admit that if I were a student there I would be upset that my tuition dollars were funding his maniacal, anti-semitic drivel. There is a certain reverance that comes with appearing at an Ivy League school and I think Columbia should be more responsible in whom they decide to effectively honor in this way. It's also not as if Ahmadinejad is lacking in fora for his lunatic agenda. Bring me an Iranian woman who drives, I'll happily hear her speak, and be very pleased that an old and revered American institution is paying her.
Posted on September 25, 2007 — by gvoien
0 comments
not yet rated
No, Ahmadinejad should not have been invited to Columbia.
Before Bollinger extended the invitation to the president of Iran he should have thought through to the end result. Before Ahmadinejad made the “speech”, most Americans already knew that he was and continues to be a controversial figure, a cruel dictator, and the head of a state that sponsors terrorist groups. Not to mention providing funds and weapons to the insurgents (some from Iran) in Iraq whose goal is to kill our troops and cause chaos. That was a given, so what else can be gained from hearing a man that answers questions with questions and spews propaganda to any and all that will listen. Nothing. The only thing that comes out of this what we are currently seeing right now (http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0709252616013529.htm) by the way that his country’s ‘media’ is covering the event. In the eyes of his followers this is being portrayed as a victory… that he was invited to a prestigious American University, and that those in attendance gave him applause. Nothing was gained, and we made him look like a hero and that people in America agree with his horrific views. The introduction and slamming from President Bollinger was not covered even though his words were powerful and challenging. This event does not improve anything as far as diplomatic relations with Iran. Bollinger is simply the president of a university that challenged a man that could quite possibly have his hand over a red button in the near future. The invitation has nothing to do with the right of free speech. Bollinger has the right to speak, students have the right to speak, but providing a forum for this man to demonstrate his lack of reality does not.
As far as his request for the NYPD to provide the security detail to see ground zero is ridiculous. The man despises the United States, and to think that some people do not see the direct insult in this request blows my mind. I was in my sophomore year at Columbia when thousands of New Yorkers and international civilians were murdered, and for this future enemy of the United States, I believe that his intentions were to mock us simply by issuing the request knowing full well that it would be denied.
People in this country need to understand the inherent evil that confronts our peaceful and freedom filled way of life that our troops are sacrificing themselves for.
Posted on September 25, 2007 — by tomkaz
0 comments
not yet rated
Right idea, wrong result.
I think it was a bold step in the right direction for Columbia to invite Ahmadinejad to speak, but I'm disappointed Lee Bollinger appeared to buckle to pressure from pundits and the public to turn what should have been an informed exchange about conflicting viewpoints into a mudslinging match. I would agree that this debacle was a missed opportunity, both for the U.S. and Iran.
Discourse with our enemies is necessary if we're ever to understand each other and reach some diplomatic compromise on issues like nuclear energy/weapons development, Israel/Palestine, and the future stability of the Middle East, especially Iraq. To listen is not to condone.
True, Ahmadinejad harbors some provocative views about U.S. foreign policy, Israel's right to exist, and homosexuality; to engage him in debate and make articulate and well-informed counter-arguments would have been much more effective than labeling him a cruel and petty dictator and levering the weight of the civilized world into condemning everything the man stands for. To me, that's not dialogue; that's name-calling.
Posted on September 25, 2007 — by patrickhodgins
0 comments
not yet rated
Questionable Intentions, Invaluable Exposure
It seems to me that a fundamental lack of communication has been at the heart of many modern international conflicts. Two stark examples include Western Europe's decided ambiguity when confronted with a re-militarized Nazi Germany on the Polish border, as well as the U.S. envoy to Iraq whose unfamiliarity with Arab culture ill-equipped her to properly convey how seriously Washington opposed a potential invasion of Kuwait. As we well know, poor communication in these examples had devastating consequences that we would now do anything to have prevented.
As such, when political, professional and academic leaders fail to engage their international counterparts at the onset of bilateral tensions, they do their fellow citizens and esteemed credentials a grave disservice. As Columbia's willingness to host Ahmadinejad is an encouraging development in the current U.S.-Iranian rift. I think Bollinger was right to voice the university's opposition to the hateful populist rhetoric Ahmadinejad espouses, and although he unnecessarily insulted Ahmadinejad's intelligence (hardly the mark of a proper host), it was clearly his right to bow to pressure from the highly partisan media by sensationalizing the event. Moreover, it is also our obligation to live up to our own ideals of free speech and allow our international friends and enemies an audience should they wish to address one, complete with all the protests and demonstrations as warranted.
After watching Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia and hour-long interview on Charlie Rose I saw nothing new from a man who habitually dodges questions, twists topics, and blatantly lies about his nation's intimate relationship with Hezbollah and aid to Sunni militias in Iraq. His purpose may very well have been to communicate with the American people; however, his populist, egalitarian tone struck me as typically disingenuous, which leads me to believe his appearances were intended merely as a slap-in-the-face to the Bush administration. Regardless of intent or substance, communications with the many nations that lie far from our shores are precious opportunities to better understand our fellow man and, hopefully, to avoid future armed conflict. Any attempts to thwart that interaction should be questioned and resisted.
Posted on September 26, 2007 — by drjones
1 comment