September 25, 2007
Ahmadi-Nejad in New York
This is the big week at the UN General Assembly. But it’s already clear who the star of the show will be - Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the president of Iran. Ahmadi-Nejad is often portrayed as a dangerous simpleton. But he has played the PR game with masterful precision, since his arrival in New York.
Today (it’s still Monday night in New York), he limbered up for his appearance at the UN General Assembly by talking to an audience at Columbia University, in upper Manhattan. He was greeted with screaming headlines. The New York Daily News splash was "The Evil Has Landed" - with a sub-title -"Hate spewing Iran prez speaks today at Columbia.". For good measure, the paper ran an editorial accusing Columbia of "Monstrous Idiocy". Perhaps intimidated by all this pre-publicity, Columbia’s president - Lee Bollinger, (a champagne socialist?) - spoke for 10 minutes before the Iranian president and accused him of being a "petty and cruel dictator." This played into Ahmadi-Nejad’s hands. He mildly rebuked his host for being discourteous - and smilingly dodged all difficult questions about Israel or the Holocaust. The only moment when he appeared genuinely ridiculous was when he denied the existence of homosexuality in Iran.
It also looks like Iran will be able to avoid tougher UN sanctions. Western diplomats are gloomy about the prospects of agreeing a new package. The Chinese, apparently, are being even tougher in their opposition to sanctions than the Russians - amidst muttering about substantial Chinese economic interests in Iran. The pro-sanctions crowd have also been undercut by the work of Mohamed El-Baradei, the UN’s nuclear inspector. He is now being quietly bad-mouthed by diplomats who reckon that his primary purpose is now to avoid war, rather than to give a tough and accurate appraisal of where Iran’s nuclear efforts are heading. But if nothing happens at the UN, it is assumed that the EU will push its own package of sanctions through.
Aside from the theatre of the leaders’ speeches, the three other big other issues at the UN this week will be Darfur, climate change and the Middle East. UN officials seem to be deeply frustrated by attempts to get peacekeepers deployed in Darfur - "two steps forward, two steps back" is how one described it. The whole of Monday was devoted to climate change. But the UN’s efforts are being slightly overshadowed by the fact that President Bush is staging his own global warming summit in Washington, later this week, with the inelegantly named "major emitters".
That leaves that famous graveyard of broken dreams - the Middle East peace process. One official I spoke to today, who had been at the Quartet meeting addressed by Tony Blair (remember him), pronounced herself very encouraged by the atmosphere. The official claimed that there was a real sense that progress is possible at the meeting planned for November. "The Bush administration really seems serious", was the verdict. That’s nice to hear. But somehow, I feel I’ve heard it all before.
Ahmadinejad may be petty but he certainly does not fit the definition of a dictator. Of the 4 dictionary definitions given below, the only only one that he may conform to is the fourth one (in that he may dictate to his secretary!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
dictator
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. (in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3. a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
4. a person who dictates, as to a secretary.
Ahmadinejad’s constitutional position as president subordinates him to the Supreme Leader, the parliament and a whole host of other institutions peculiar to the present day Iran, such as the Council of the Guardians and the Expediency Council.
Specifically he is NOT the head of the armed forces, he is NOT in charge of foreign policy and he is NOT in charge of the nuclear effort.
His own personal popularity and authority is not very high either, after failing to get to grips with the economy and, in many people’s perceptions, picking unnecessary fights with foreigners. He also lacks the support of a properly organised party or mass movement.
Finally, Iran has a layer of powerful elite with huge financial interests who straddle both the economic and political spheres. (The only other country with such a group, that I can think of, is Russia.) These very influential people see Ahmadinejad as a threat to their fiefdoms and frustrate his efforts.
It is important to understand the above so that Ahmadinejad’s noises are put in context. I think some of the NeoCons and warmongers in the West try to exaggerate his power and influence to suit their own nefarious purposes.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am | Report this commentI think in the context of an academic institution - where students ask questions with impunity unlike grown men and women in politics - inviting a controversial speaker like him is a laudable effort. Jean-Marie Le Pen spoke at Cambridge Union in 2003 to similar reception from the wider student body.
Just because we disagree with his views is no reason to invite him and then insult him, when he is in OUR territory.
Overall, yes, a great PR exercise executed to precision, but arguably Bollinger comes out looking worse than Ahmadinejad from all accounts I have read.
There is a space on the continuum between an opponent and an apologist, and many, fortunately for the world, still occupy that space.
Posted by: Shefaly | September 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am | Report this commentWould agree with both previous post. Ahmadinejad was elected (he beat Rafsanjani, right? - I remember him coming over to London the week before the election to talk to the BBC about how Iran would engage more etc.. - that didn’t play well with the voters)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005
As for inviting world leader (and former) to Q&A sessions at universities, I think that’s great. It’s obviously a great way to generate debate and discussions. I cannot think of anything worse than a situation where everyone agrees on everything. I mean Uni is when you are supposed to engage with the world, start forming informed opinions etc…
Surely, the audience gets a lot more out of it if the speakers are of opposite views etc..
My own point is on Mr El Baradei with whom I think I can empathise with. I mean - if you’ve been told once before go and find Nukes, and you come back saying “been everywhere, nothing at all” and then you’re told - “no Nukes, oh what the hell, we’ll send the army and we’ll find them” then clearly you have to feel a little bit upset because clearly your job is basically pointless. It seems to me it’s unfair to put scientists (lamb) in situations when their findings are in disagreement with what the (cunning wolves) politicians want. Not sure if he’s hell-bent on avoiding war with Iran - but if he is, and he’s right in the sense of his findings, then fine. But of course, if he’s overlooking findings to prevent war, that might make tainted and hence disposable. Of course, that doesn’t mean a strike is justified and on this, I think I’m more or less in agreement with Mr Rachman. But I do think the allegations are damaging for Mr ElBaradei - even more so as it appears the “deal” gives Iran too much control regarding the inspections.
Posted by: a | September 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pm | Report this commentI watched the speech on Al-Jazeera English.
Bollinger did not actually impress me much at all.
It was not brave what he said, since he was saying it to an audience and media that would agree with him. Nowhere in his speech did he seem to challenge mainstream US views and impressions on Ahmadinejad or Iran. Furthermore I expected a more dignified and sophisticated tone from him, rather than an emotional rant with personal insults.
Of course we must remember that Ahmadinejad is bad on human rights. However my impression is that if you ask Iranians who don’t like him, hardly any would support attacks or even sanctions on Iran that would affect the general public. Let us instead try to increase interactions with Iran, and support the Iranian human rights campaigners in the ways that they would want.
Americans (and the British) must also be aware, before taking a morally superior tone with Iran, that their governments played a leading role in destroying democracy in Iran and in fuelling the Iran-Iraq war where unspeakable attrocities were committed. It also seems fair to say that the scale of the human rights abuses committed by Ahmadinejad is very small compared to those of the coalition in Iraq.
Ahmadinejad should be forcefully criticized, but this should be out of caring for the Iranians, and not in order to indulge in attempts at establishing moral superiority.
Posted by: Oscar | September 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pm | Report this commentInteraction with the devils of one’s mind has eminent therapeutic effects. Both Ahmadinejad and his hosts will learn and mature from their experiences and through introspection over what they have said and done. I know that an invitation for Osama is too much to expect as yet, but perhaps more exchanges with diversity will enrich American polity. Why not consider Chavez next?
Posted by: Dr S Banerji | September 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Report this commentAhmadinejad gets it absolutely right when it comes to Israel.
Why should the Arabs have to pay the price for Germany’s crimes against the Jews?
No one here in the US has the courage to answer that question.
Posted by: Marcus from USA | September 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm | Report this commentFor once I agree with Bu$h that inviting Ahmadinejad showed the greatness of America. (Even more so when you consider that Ahmadinejad could not even tolerate the hezbollahi BAZTAB site. http://www.baztab.com/news/75484.php )
On Bollinger, both Shefaly and Oscar are right. I think it took away from the propaganda value for the Americans that he should be so discourteous. This simply shows the fear factor among the American academic institutions and the huge power of Zionist lobby to intimidate. He simply had to protect his ass.
I, for one, like Dick Cheney to be invited to the Tehran Uni for a debate. I think he is too chicken to come and the people in charge in Tehran are too stupid to invite him.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 25th, 2007 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentAhmadi-Nejad is no joke; his statements should be taken seriously. Iran’s is a very dangerous regime for the stability of the region and the world. I am delighted with President Sarkozy’s speech at the General Assembly, in which he said as much. I am even more delighted with President Bush, who didn’t even mention Iran - Actions will speak, not words.
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Report this commentPaco,
not saying the things he’s said aren’t inflammatory etc.. But the guy is just a politician trying to make a living! Check out what the role of the president is in Iran - he def has powers but nothing like what the presidents of France or the US have - and of course, he’s accountable to the religious authorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_president
Then check out the economist’s recent special report on Iran - very insightful. (might need subscription - was published mid-july)
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9466834
I, for one, is rather reassured by Bush’s seemingly new understanding of the not-so-black-and-white tough reality of world affairs. (speeches on darfur and burma might be helpful in turning the attention away from Iraq and Iran but are still reminiscent of a seemingly long bygone era - for example compare the threat of not issuing visas to the Junta with “bombing back to the stone age”)
Anyway, sure Iran’s regime is backing terrorist groups etc… but but if I’m not mistaken, how many wars has the US started in since WW2? How many Iran has? I thought so…
Posted by: a | September 26th, 2007 at 6:25 am | Report this commentYes Dearest Paco, of course Israel is not a dangerous country for the stability of the region. It does not possess weapons of mass destruction.
It does not carry out assassinations on a worldwide basis. It is not a race / religious based apartheid state and it has not repeatedly attacked her neighbours.
No, Israel is a “good” citizen of the world and everybody else should be attacked and destroyed, as Iraq was, to save this virtuous paragon of a nation.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 26th, 2007 at 9:54 am | Report this comment1) Israel didn’t just kick away Palestineans, and jews lived on this land 2000 years ago. May be we should wait for 500 years and then say ‘Well, palestineans lived here 500 years ago, its too long lets forget it’. Jews have right on this land as well.
Even if Israel is moved to another place, palestineans will be poor unsuccesful people because they have no education, they don’t work hard, they don’t have perseverance etc etc. It will be another failed state, if they wished peace they would’nt vote for Hamas.
Bollinger’s goal was not to impress the public, it was not his Q&A session.
Ahmadinejad said ‘There are no homosexuality in Iran’, who in the right mind would say it? Also, Ahmadinehad avoided answering questions directly, on the destruction of Israel he never said ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, muttering his prepared lines.
Ahmadinejad invited Columbia studends to study in Iranian universities, which are so obsolete and old and inefficient. This invitation is laughable. He said ‘In Iranian universities we have such discussions on a daily basis’, as if World leaders go to Iran and talk to students on a daily bases’. Its outragious, his blind eyeness makes me laugh.
Posted by: Chen | September 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentIranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8606300370
Posted by: Pacifist | September 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pm | Report this commentSadly, these UN events, with all of the security, posturing and poltical correctness that comes with them, are reducing the institution’s credibility. Circus or opera? Those who have watched Ahmadinezad for years were neither surprised he could stand in shoes nor deftly handle a classroom. Nonetheless, Iran deserves a more worldly leader.
Iran and its president did not comprise the most shamelessly exploited displays this year. While I am among those who have kept the Burmese situation on agendas close to my own interests for 20 years, I am appalled by the seemingly staged events, empty words and salivating opportunism now on show for the television cameras in NY. Firgive me for questioning how much of the current news leadering story arises coincidentally from local grassroots pressures. As Burma surfaced a few weeks ago after long silence, is it not possible that the special events girls in Condi’s office picked this as this year’s sensational hit?
Bollinger’s and other remarks confirm that the US is less and less often home to enlightened intellectual leadership. If it still exists, it is widely and thinly diffused.
Posted by: WCM | September 27th, 2007 at 10:54 am | Report this comment