 |
September 25, 2007Podium Drama in Morningside Heights!We at this university have not been shy to protest the challenge -- and challenge the failures of our own government to live by our values, and we won't be shy about criticizing yours. Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator... --Columbia University's President Lee Bollinger, introducing Iranian President Ahmadi-Nejad yesterday. At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty. I think the text read by the (dear ?) gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment, we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all. Most certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak. And that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that is given to us in this country. In many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media and the political sort of mainstream line that you read here, that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us. Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. --President Ahmadi-Nejad's response to Bollinger's 'introduction'. (Source here). Who did this particular round go to, do you think? P.S. More on the Iranian President's NYC pass-through soon, I hope.
Posted by Gregory at September 25, 2007 09:53 AM Comments
I thought the introduction belligerent. I assume some Columbia donors made their voices heard after the invitation. Good manners woud require that this is the sort of stuff I would have saved until the end of the event, though I guess that would have meant there would have been no press coverage, and donors would have been left with the impression that the Columbia administraton felt Ahmadinejad's statements were worthy of respect. Ahmadinejad's response here was nothing more or less than you would expect from him. Bollinger likely accomplished his institutional objective, though he looked thoroughly ungracious in doing so, and did not satisfy his NRO critics. Ahmadinejad's response didn't help; didn't hurt. His life is not unduly affected by what Columbia's president thinks of him, I noticed that NPR chose to use the laughter from Ahmadinejad's response to a question about homosexuas in Iran as its sound bite from the event for its hourly newscast. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at September 25, 2007 10:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Bollinger's statement wasn't really my style. I prefer the needling insinuation to rhetorical fist-pounding, and in his place would probably have addressed some of the things said to make Ahmadinejad unpopular with some groups in his own country -- just to see how that got reported in Iran. Otherwise, these were people speaking to two different audiences, though Bollinger seemed more conscious of this. Ahmadinejad's soundbite was the old chestnut about the Holocaust not being the Palestinian's fault, a statement popular with Muslim audiences in the Middle East that Americans don't track -- any more than they follow most references to issues regarded as settled long ago. The American news media picked right up on the Iranian President's reference to homosexuals, a hot button both in academia and the entertainment industry that owns so many news outlets but not a frontline issue for any audience in Iran's neighborhood. On the other hand Ahmadinejad got to appear before an audience that hadn't' been pre-screened to eliminate people who might ask awkward questions and include people who only want to reassure him of their love and support. My understanding is that he is largely deprived of that pleasure in his own country, which is a great pity. An even greater pity is that American politicians, led by our own President, now appear to see this deprivation as something admirable, and have not merely accepted but actually embraced it. Posted by: Zathras at September 25, 2007 11:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
1) Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad was one of the university's finest moments. Yes, Iran does not treat gays or women the way many of us would like. But neither do Iraq, Afghanistan, or most other countries of the region. Fact is, Iran is no worse than most countries of the region and better than many, like Iraq, where the occupation authorities have presided over the deaths of perhaps a million people. Posted by: JohnH at September 25, 2007 11:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Ahmadinejad handled himself quite well under pressure. For example when the moderator asked about Israel and demanded a yes or no answer, Ahmadinejad turned it back on him saying that you want an answer as you wish it, not as I give it. It was a fascinating display. It is so sad that we probably won't get another such display with our enemies. Not only that, but Ahmadinejad had more courage than Bush or Cheney, who carefully screen who attends their presentations. He stood up and allowed himself to be questioned over some of his most controversial statements. Bravo. Now, if only Ahmadinejad were to go back to Iran and let HIS people ask him just these kinds of questions... Posted by: Dan at September 25, 2007 12:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
With every bit of invective and with every hostile question, the audience, the protesters and Bollinger were unwittingly turning Ahmedinejad into a cultural hero in the Middle East and in Iran. This was, on a smaller scale, the same mistake during Saddam's execution. By allowing emotions to blind them, the media, the protesters and Bollinger not only gave Ahmedinejad a platform but allowed him to appear as a courageous leader who speaks truth to power on behalf not only of Iran but of the Palestinian people as well. Allowing Ahmedinejad to become the champion of the Palestinians is a massive strategic blunder. The vilification of this rather loony leader has only increased his stature at home and in the Arab world. Anybody seeking to unite the US, Israel and Sunni regimes against growing Iranian influence in the Middle East just saw their job get a lot tougher yesterday. Bollinger's chest-thumping speech may have raised the right points. But its complete lack of grace, class or tact caused it to backfire. A few donors may be appeased - but make no mistake, Ahmedinejad was the winner from yesterday's encounter. Posted by: Will Z at September 25, 2007 12:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Who won this round? Merely asking the question allows the Persian dictator to pocket a victory. A point made, perhaps not coincidentally, by the initial comments to this post -- praising his grace under pressure; criticizing Bollinger for being rude to his guest; drawing unflattering comparisons to Bush, etc. I wonder, though, what Greg's reaction was; including, more specifically, whether the event alters one way or the other his view on the advisability of negotiating our way out of Iraq. Posted by: wm. tyroler at September 25, 2007 01:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
This whole sordid affair allowed the media to repeat the administration contention that "Iran is killing americans in Iraq" over and over. Most of the pre-petreus military command in Iraq was agnostic on this at best...but now it seems like it is headed for the the national consciousness....due to sheer unquestioned repetition. Iran kills Americans....saddam behind 911..endless war! Posted by: centrist at September 25, 2007 03:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
He's not a dictator - he was elected, and he has an unelected group of mullahs he has to deal with to get anything done. He may be authoritarian, he may want to be a dictator - but he's not yet. Getting the terminology right would be a start towards accurately accessing the situation. Posted by: drs at September 25, 2007 03:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
Some here seem to think that Ahmedinejad wouldn't do such a talk and Q&A in Iran. They are wrong: /quote Mr Ahmadinejad, who was marking Iranian students' day, answered the "dictator" taunts by saying: "Everyone knows the real dictator is America and its servants." He added: "A few who claim there is a stifling climate are trying to stifle the majority by not letting them hear what is being said." As students set fire to his picture, he said: "Everyone should know that Ahmadinejad is prepared to be burned in the path of true freedom, independence and justice." Mr Ahmadinejad - who has turned his appearances before mass audiences into a potent political tool - has insisted that the protesters should not be punished, Reuters reported, citing a presidential spokesman. Now show me Bush in such an environment. Bollinger was absolutly rude - as an European I find that manner typical "american" and disgusting. Posted by: b at September 25, 2007 03:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sorry if I'm slow, but why does a university invite speakers to appear if it (or at least its leadership) doesn't want them there? If they invited Iran's big cheese for the PR value, why be such jerks about it? Invite the guy and say to all who attend, "make up your own mind." But don't invite him and then act like an idiot when he actually shows. Seriously, could someone clear this up for me? Posted by: LL at September 25, 2007 04:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
If our host were trying to give his commenters a middle east Rorschach Test, he couldn't have done a better job. I think we've done a better job showing our prejudices than in, perhaps, answering Greg's question.
B should reflect on what happens to Iranian students who oppose the government. There is plenty of footage available of Iranian students being beaten by government toughs, and the number of university students killed is in triple figures. Ahmadinejad may protest publically, but has done nothing concrete otherwise. I am sure Iranian protesters would rather be tazed. Posted by: Tom S at September 25, 2007 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
Bollinger's opening remarks may have been rude and impolitic, but one can't say they weren't truthful. I think other posters are right to be concerned about how they will play in the Middle East. And I've seen plenty of rude and disgusting behavior on the part of Europeans. Given the diversity of the country, there's no such thing as a "typical" American. People who attribute negative characteristics to an entire nation in this sweeping manner are typical bigots, in my view. Posted by: Ed G at September 25, 2007 07:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
A comment from far off Japan: It seems Americans continue to view international affairs as a blood sport, and that the establishment has a strong need to create a bogeyman. With Saddam gone and bin Laden diminished, now it's Iran's president they are trying to build up hate for. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the American people seem all too happy to play along with this deadly game. Please! Enough of this! It's time for America to grow up. Bollinger's performance was self-serving and shameful, but it's part of a much bigger problem. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at September 25, 2007 08:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Tom S says: B should reflect on what happens to Iranian students who oppose the government. There is plenty of footage available of Iranian students being beaten by government toughs, and the number of university students killed is in triple figures. How about a source for that triple figures comment. B provided his source. And here is an AFP source for the same story. You will notice that this was one of a "series of student demonstrations." Ahmadinejad is a politician who scored a come from behind victory in his election. I am reasonably sure he is used to campaigning and also to skeptical, if not unfriendly, crowds. So, how about a source for the "triple figures?" I had not heard that one before. Posted by: empty at September 25, 2007 10:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
Wataru Tenga, I understand your concerns but your perception of how we view international relations seems simplistic and heavily stereotyped. The mentality you criticize is real, but it is far from universal in this country, any more than your former Prime Minister Abe's appeals to nationalist groups represent the sentiments of all Japanese. The Iraq war is deeply unpopular, was opposed from the beginning by significant numbers of Americans, and every poll I've seen indicates that a large majority in this country oppose any military action against Iran. We've always had an isolationist streak -- many people in this country, far from itching for more wars, simply wish the outside world would go away (which it won't, of course). This information is readily available even in not so far off Japan -- you have internet access and your English is obviously excellent, so your monolithic charaterization is puzzling. Also, comments such as "grow up" are not helpful. No one likes to be talked down to, whatever their nationality. By all means criticize Bollinger's words, but you'd also do well to be mindful of your own. Posted by: Ed G at September 26, 2007 11:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
Speaking of Campus Watch, be it duly noted that this speech occured on Daniel Pipes' watch. If not this, what does he watch? I feel totally defenseless against rogue lectures, unflitered opinions and virulent Islamicism. Posted by: ATS at September 26, 2007 12:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
I kind of agree with W. Tenga, in that Americans (when they bother paying attention to foreign policy at all) tend to always view it in zero sum terms, with America always in the right (or wrong) no matter what. Mature people know that it is rarely that simple. Unfortunately, lots of Americans don't seem to be that mature. And it is monumentally stupid to invite the leader of one of the Axes of Evil over here and then heap abuse on him. Helps him and makes us look like idiots, again. If we really don't want him over here, tell him to stay out. Don't we have some kind of govt agency that is supposed to keep undesirable people out of our country, I can't quite remember the name, it's on the tip of my tongue... I'll think of it in a minute. If we don't want to do that, then at least show a modicum of hospitality. You don't have to kiss someone's ass to be cordial to them. If the president of Columbia didn't want Iran's president there, I feel sure he could have found a way to stop it. I doubt the president of Iran forced his way in and then forced everyone to listen to him. Having said that, I haven't noticed a great deal of maturity on the part of most countries' people. Most people appear to be xenophobic (at least a little) and seem to love nothing more than to jump to ridiculous conclusions and make broad, inaccurate assumptions about people from other countries based on nothing more than what they read in their country's press. It would be nice if our "leaders" would decline to join in the orgy of ignorance that characterizes most press coverage of any foreign policy discussion. Oh well. Can't say I'm surprised. Posted by: LL at September 26, 2007 12:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
The grown-up answer is that Ahmadinejad lost. If someone can't reconcile the truthfulness of Bollinger's introduction, shame on them. Politics aint beanbag, to recall Mr. Dooley. Modern civility and manners certainly allow that a man-even an adversary- be treated with common respect and dignity, as Ahmadinejad was. There is no stipulation annexed to that civility, however, that restrains one from calling a skunk a skunk. This is the USA, Mr. Despot man, not your little backwoods Persian playpen. Finally, Ahmadinejad likes to diddle in a strategic game called global theatre; he's the omnipresent stage fool, in search as much for a compliant, intoxicated audience as for his self-validation. That he was readily exposed by Bollinger as the snake in the grass that he is says more of Bollinger's deep respect for candor than it does his haste for unabashed rudeness. It is the always the absence of the former that gives root to the Ahmadinejads of the planet. The ken and spirit of academia has not disappointed. Posted by: reshuffle at September 26, 2007 03:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
reshuffle, First, Bollinger had a responsibility, and a interest, one might guess, to be factually correct in his assertions. Say what you will about Ahmadinejad, he is not a dictator. He may be a representative of dictatorial regime. He may desire to be a dictator. He is not one at present. Witness the senseless remark by Bollinger that Ahmadinejad's party lost in a local election. Dictators do not lose elections. This will open me up to some riducle from you, I suspect. But another thing Bollinger said was that "he [Bollinger] had revulsion for what [Ahmadinejad] stands for". For the life of me I don't know WHAT the guy stands for and I follow this stuff. I don't know how much power he actually has. I don't how, if at all, his economic policies differ from the mullahs. But I hear they do. I don't know if he is part of a faction that, if former State Dept officials are to be believe, made the so called 'grand offer' via the Swiss, to commence negotiations on all issues between the US and Iran. Or perhaps he is part of a faction that opposes this. I don't know any of this. I have hints. All I know is the MSM, for the most part, has portrayed this guy in the same manner they portrayed Saddam. And I see a lot of people speak about him. People who have been, almost with out exception, dead wrong about everything with regards to the handicapping of Middle East events. At best. At worst have lied through their teeth about said events. One last note....I must admit your "Mr. Despot man" added a unique, and humorous touch to your post. Its hard to do on a subject so serious...but you did it well. I keep thinking of the old Johnny Rivers song, "Secret Agent Man".....Mr Despot man.....they've given you a number (666) and taken away your name" Posted by: jonst at September 26, 2007 06:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
The winner: Norman Podhoretz, Sick Willie Kristol, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Posted by: John P. Normanson at September 26, 2007 07:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ed G., accusing me of having a monolithic view of America, wrote: "The Iraq war is deeply unpopular, was opposed from the beginning by significant numbers of Americans, and every poll I've seen indicates that a large majority in this country oppose any military action against Iran." I'm quite aware that Americans are getting tired of an endless war and seem wary, for now, of starting a new one. The same thing happened during the Vietnam fiasco, but it doesn't seem to translate into more sensible international relations. When 9/11 happened, most of the country wanted blood and cheered their warriors on. (That was exactly the reaction the enemies of the US wanted to see, by the way.) Anyway, for the rest of the world, what matters is not that there is dissent in the US, but the actual things your government continues to do, and the policies that are carried out, including environmental ones. It's the American people that elected Bush, twice. It's the American people that created a life style where you have to drive a car just to buy a pack of cigarettes, because your cities sprawl endlessly and public transportation is limited. It's the American people who fill their plates with beef. These things end up hurting us, killing us, because they use up precious resources and pollute the earth. To the enlightened ones, I salute you. But your numbers, and influence, have still not changed much of anything as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at September 26, 2007 07:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
"So, how about a source for the "triple figures?" I had not heard that one before." It's buried somewhere in all that evidence that the Iranian gov't is killing our troops in Iraq. That you would suggest a need for evidence just shows where your loyalties lie. Posted by: srv at September 26, 2007 10:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
"That you would suggest a need for evidence just shows where your loyalties lie." Don't have a source, huh? Posted by: Walt Sherrill at September 26, 2007 11:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
Obvious question: would the US have looked better to the Moslem world if we had NOT allowed him to speak at Columbia? Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 27, 2007 12:13 AM | Permalink to this comment
Walt Sherrill, I'm sure that post by srv was a sarcastic mockery -- he's imitating the KGB-style appearance of the US religious right, and making it sound funny.
There were some of us who did not understand why the BushCheney reaction to an attack by Saudi terrorists, was to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq. I only finally understood when I read how the Taliban had refused to give the US good oil terms for Caspian piping, and then finally truly when I read of the basic oil dependency problem the US has, and the Cheney Energy Policy promoting increased US dependence on foreign and Middle East oil, and increased military control over Middle East oil (so that we can control the spigots, and so that we can enforce infrastructure improvements).
Jonst- I have neither the interest nor the time in "ridiculing" your comments; besides, most of them are sensible even if they are inaccurate. Bollinger didn't call Ahmadinejad a dictator, as you impute. He said he "exhibted signs of a petty and cruel dictator." That pejorative is no small distinction (in the context of truth) and fits your request that Bollinger be factually correct. Surely you wouldnt argue the point.
Nor does it much matter that he parades himself as the man of the people and courtier to the planet. Ahmadinejad is another instantiation of man's darker side; he likes to cozen his audience and corrupt their minds. He enjoys the perpetuity of selective injustice and expedient sexism. His message and methods might have success in the retrograde landscape that is Islamic fundamentalism, but they are empty gestures when confronted by the pure light of reason, as Bollinger evinced.
Bruce: Answer to your question -- I think if the speech simply was cancelled, we would have done far better in the Mid East. Governments suppress speech all the time over there -- I don't think it would have been seen as anything special. Bollinger's rudeness to an invited guest, on the other hand, probably looks uniquely bad to (*possible overgeneralization alert* ) a set of cultures that values hospitality. By the way, what is with people on this thread today? Does everyone absolutely *have* to conform to ther assigned stereotypes? Posted by: Appalled Moderate at September 27, 2007 11:44 AM | Permalink to this comment
Why did Bollinger need to comment at all, if not to "vaccinate" the audience? Of course his real audience was Shelly Silver and Dov Hikind and all the rest of the grandstanding "I'm more pro-Israel than than you" crowd. He did what he had to do. Ahmadinejad came in with the lowest possible expectations. He didn't do anything to make his own words or actions look better, and certainly had gaffes (no gays in Iran?!). But those gaffes were not provoked by Bollinger or the chorus of media yahoos, but by the students, who still believe in being intelligent. They nailed Ahmadinejad, but he astutely and efficiently made Bollinger, et al., look like asses. Final score: Ahmadinejad no change; American blowhards look stupider than ever. Posted by: calling all toasters at September 27, 2007 11:50 AM | Permalink to this comment
reshufflex, I stand corrected on my dictator comment. That was sloppy reading on my part. I should have read the text and not the coverage of the statement. "No one is suggesting that Ahmadinejad is Saddam or Jong-il or Stalin". I think that is factually incorrect on your part. I think many, if not all, the MSM outlets are alluding to that...and in many (most?) cases doing precisely that. I think Libeberman et al are doing precisely that. >>>>Nor does it much matter that he parades himself as the man of the people and courtier to the planet. Ahmadinejad is another instantiation of man's darker side; he likes to cozen his audience and corrupt their minds. He enjoys the perpetuity of selective injustice and expedient sexism. His message and methods might have success in the retrograde landscape that is Islamic fundamentalism, but they are empty gestures when confronted by the pure light of reason First, I think he is by no means a "man of the people". Far from it. He may well be a "courtier" though I loath, and oppose, his message (as I do, frankly with most 'true believers' of any stripe) In any event I could write your paragraph this way: BUSH is another instantiation of man's darker side; he likes to cozen his audience and corrupt their minds. He enjoys the perpetuity of selective injustice and expedient sexism. His message and methods might have success in the retrograde landscape that is Christian fundamentalism, but they are empty gestures when confronted by the pure light of reason [which he, and the Christenists loath] And we would both be correct from my perspective. Posted by: jonst at September 27, 2007 12:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
Compare Bollinger's harangue of Ahmadinejad to his fawning introduction of a real dictator, Musharraf, in September 2005: "Rarely do we have an opportunity such as this to greet a figure of such central and global importance. It is with great gratitude and excitement that I welcome President Musharraf and his wife, Sehbah Musharraf, to Columbia University. ... We at Columbia are eager to listen. As a community of scholars and as students and faculty who come from everywhere in the world, we take a great scholarly and personal interest in what the President has to say. The development in Pakistan over the past several years, from its economic growth to its fight against extremism and terrorism, are vital issues for all of us. Mr. President, as you share your thoughts and insights you will give our students, the leaders of tomorrow, first-hand knowledge of the world their generation will inherit." More at... http://www.distantocean.com/2007/09/lee-bollinger-f.html Bollinger's rude harangue was simply more of the same current hysteria over the latest "Hilter of the Moment" . Bollinger has no real dislike of dictators, real or imagined, he just wants everyone to know that he hates the current designated "devil" just as much as the rest of us are supposed to, lest he be thought "anti-American", or, even more dangerous for a head of Columbia University, considered "anti-semitic". Both of Bollinger's speech's were pathetic capitulations to the status quo of group think. Posted by: zed at September 27, 2007 05:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
Regarding the Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia, the really sick, disgusting thing about the matter is this: That it would take someone like Ahmadinejad to state the obvious fact that Palestinians should not be paying the price for the Holocaust which they had nothing to do with. While America's so-called journalists cringe in fear from the Israel lobby, afraid to criticize Israel in the least, let alone take issue with their ethnic cleansing which made possible their shitty little country in the first place, it takes someone like Ahmadinejad to finally say this painfully obvious fact? American pseudo-journalists, you should be ashamed of yourselves for your cowardice. Don't be afraid of the ADL and other Zionist racists using their tired, worn-out tactic of calling anyone who disagrees with them an "anti-Semite" (and calling any Jewish person who criticizes Israel a "self-hating Jew"). Enough is enough. Yes, the Holocaust was horrible, I'm not trying to belittle it. But it's long overdue to call out the Zionists on this constant beating of the Holocaust dead horse and using it as an excuse for basically everything they've done since 1948. Suffering through the Holocaust DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE "RIGHT" TO ACT LIKE THEIR FORMER OPPRESSORS. Posted by: Realist at September 27, 2007 06:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
In a thread about Bollinger's embarrasingly rude performance at Columbia, "shitty little country" exemplifies well that rudeness comes from all points of the political spectrum. Or perhaps the former French Ambassador to England is reading Greg's blog? Either way, rather shabby. Israelis have shown strength and fortitude in staking out a nation-state for themselves, pursuant to broad international approval in the late 40's. Yes, the immoral occupation and post '67 triumphalism have been shameful, but "shitty little country" is rather a nasty turn of phrase to employ in this context. This being said, the fact that myriad individuals have tossed around the "anti-Semite" charge against, say, reputable academics like Walt and Mearsheimer is outrageous, and I'd suggest more embarrassing to those making incendiary charges than the recipients of these vitriolic attacks. Frankly, it shows weakness and insecurity. Could it be that some American Jews of the AIPAC variety are scared that more and more Americans will judge this particular special relationship not altogether that special (read: helpful) to the U.S. national interest?
As far as I can see, degenerating to the level of one's opponent is an especially human trait (meaning, an especially common one for humans). Jews were oppressed and persecuted and treated as subhuman by Germans. Now Israelis persecute and treat Palestinians (esp. Palestinian Arabs, but also Palestinian Christians) as subhuman. The US has notoriously degenerated to the avowed public and military policy of using the North Vietnamese tortures which originally were used on US servicemen, now on US prisoners. This cycle, which as I say is somewhat natural to humankind, is what made the Irish problem so difficult, and the Serbian/Bosnian problem, and the Hutu/Tutsi problem -- that it is so natural for the victims to descend to the same level of brutality and immorality when given opportunity. Posted by: Joe Iowa at September 28, 2007 12:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
A few random observations. If I'm not mistaken, this is actually Ahmadinejad's third visit to the US since his election in 2005 - and, IIRC, he was actually scheduled to speak at Columbia last year. I get the impression that he enjoys his forays to the US and is quite serious in trying to "connect" with American society. Broadly speaking, I got the sense that Ahmadinejad was attempting to defuse and de-escalate tensions with the US; predictably, the US is going to drop the ball on this...again. If one includes Khatami's trip to the US last year, this is the fourth high-profile, public, visit by a top-tier Iranian political figure in a relatively short space of time. As far as I can tell, there have been no parallel efforts by US political figures to go to Iran for the purposes of public diplomacy, nor is there any effort by the State Department to book representatives on the Iranian media. Perhaps there should be....assuming it's not illegal under current US provisions. Both Bollinger and the NBC(?) interviewer, whose name I forget, made kindergarten level errors in their approaches - they seem to be only dimly aware that Ahamdinejad is subject to frequent public criticism in Iran and that their grandstanding was counterproductive, simply because it made Ahmadinejad look better than he is. Whilst being rude, reciting administration talking points and adopting a confrontational and hostile attitude might appease certain domestic constituencies, this is a sad reflection of how insular both the US media and the broader US polity has become over the whole issue of how to conduct itself with regards to Iran. It won't have escaped an Iranian, and more broadly, an international audience, that Ahmadinejad was being subjected to "unequal" treatment when compared to any other head of state or top tier foreign political figure, tht he dealt with it with a degree of poise and aplomb, and that he was being treated with a level of disdain that far outstrips any actual sins committed - he has, after all, been president for just a touch over 2 years. Overall, a big moral victory for Ahmadinejad personally, and an even bigger victory for Iranian public diplomacy. My final 2 pennies worth: the level of hysteria surrounding Ahmadinejad in the US, especially when one considers that he will struggle to hold the "low-wattage" presidency of a second-tier regional power in 2009, indicates the total "breakdown" of the US capacity to develop any kind of reality-based, well-judged and sustainable foreign policy towards Iran. Bipartisan thrall to hyper-neurotic ID-iocy.
W. Tenga: in one ear and out the other. You acknowledge the existence of U.S. dissent, then plow on with more blanket generalizations about "the American people". Jeez. Lots of us opposed Bush (both times), want less war, better public transport, etc. Sadly, change takes time. We're frustrated too, but you're not much help. And isn't a bit presumptuous for you to claim to speak for the "rest of the world"? I note that Japan is not 100% benign either, but when I've visited your country I haven't subjected anyone to lectures blaming "the Japanese people" as an undifferentiated group for illegal whaling, the ongoing comfort women scandal, the role of Japanese companies in the deforestation of southeast Asia, etc. It wouldn't have helped any of those causes. In the political discussions I did have with your compatriots, I noted about 0% support for present American policies, but a much more nuanced perception of the U.S. and a whole lot less sanctimoniousness than you've shown here so far. Re: the understandable (but again, not universal) desire for military retribution after 9/11 -- welcome to human nature. I think most people in most places at most times would have reacted in a similiar way after such an atrocity (and have done so throughout history). Also, right or wrong, the overthrow of the Taliban was supported by large numbers of people outside the U.S. as well as a majority here, so I don't think this is something you can put down to a specifically American belligerence. Finally, your comment about beef is bizarre. What, you don't have cows in Kobe? Posted by: Ed G at September 28, 2007 01:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Excellent analysis, Dan. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
B (and others): I misspoke: According to Human Rights Watch, thousands of protesting students were detained (and many were beaten) by Iranian state security operatives in June 1999. That said, B--and others--would do well to the read the article that B cited. First, there was no Q&A, students protesting State repression on Iranian college campuses tried to shout him down. And while Ahmedinejad may have urged no retaliation against his hecklers, would anyone here be willing to bet their house that there was no retaliation? If conditions on Iranian college campuses are as bad as those described in the Guardian article B cites, I certainly wouldn't. The Ahmedinejad speech at Columbia was an instance of the often-abused tradition of academic freedom; a tradition that does not appear to exist in Iran. Posted by: Tom S. at September 28, 2007 04:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Dan Drezner offers his take on Greg's question. Which, if I interpret it correctly, is that most of you all are focusing too much on the Arab Street, and are ignoring the more important Persian Street and international elites. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at September 28, 2007 04:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ed G, there is dissent in just about every country, including, obviously, Burma. Does that excuse the things their governments do? Of course not. And when the country happens to be a democracy, with an elected government, is it so wrong to hold the people somewhat responsible for the things their leaders do? The beef thing should not be dismissed so casually as some short of bizarre idea. That the American life style causes you to consume way more than your share of the earth's resources is the biggest problem in the world today, and beef, if you'll do a little studying, is even worse than urban sprawl in that regard. Kobe beef is a delicacy, not something people put huge chunks of on their plate every week. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at September 28, 2007 07:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
I must admit, the sight of someone from Japan (the land of waribashi, concrete mountains and uninsulated homes) lecturing Americans on their stewardship of the earth's resources sure is rich. Posted by: Geoff in NY at September 29, 2007 11:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
Um, Geoff, this > Japan (the land of waribashi, concrete mountains and uninsulated homes) doesn't do much to distract from the serious petrol US problem -- the what? 13 million barrels a day that is driving the US to attack various countries, and most recently destroy Iraq, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, without even putting a dent in the US petrol problem. I think the beef allusion was an attempt to subtly point out this problem -- that the US is not just overconsuming, but it is attacking and destroying other countries as a direct result of its overconsumption problem. Even after all the destruction the US has wrought, it did not gain the Caspian pipeline it sought from the Taliban, nor has it gained any decent petrol output from the Iraqi refineries. I would even argue that it has not even gained that which I think US VP Cheney most wanted, which is long-term control over Iraq oil reserves, because I think it is only a matter of time before the US is kicked out of Iraq, and loses everything it has spent so much money and destruction wishing to gain.
Geoff in NY, nice attempt to deflect your problems. Many of your houses may have better insulation than some of ours, but yours also have central heating and central air conditioning, whereas ours use spot heating and cooling. Of the total world energy consumed in 2005 (449 quadrillion Btu), the USA consumed 105.3 and Japan, with half the population, consumed 22.6. http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1389_world_energy_consumption_by_region_and.html And that's not counting the energy used in other countries to pay for the US life style. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at September 29, 2007 07:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hmmm. WT, I never wrote that misdeeds by ANY government should be excused or that people in a democracy have no responsibilties. What a strange remark of you to make. However, *which* people are we talking about? We don't all think, act (or vote) alike here. Policy-wise, I suspect you and I hold similiar positions. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that overconsumption (by everyone, but particularly my country) is the single biggest problem we face as a world. Al Gore has been saying something like this for years, as you surely know. What's annoying (besides your hectoring tone) is this insistence on stereotyping and lumping together discrete, diverse groups who happen to be citizens of a single country -- "the American way of life", as if there was just one way people live here. Not true. It's not just this particular topic. This type of discourse has long been a pet peeve of mine and I've had countless variations of this conversation with people who generalize about Muslims or gays, for instance. One of the reasons we find ourselves in the present mess is because the idiot in the White House doesn't know the difference between Sunnis, Shias, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Baathists, Hamas, etc and has no interest in finding out. Distinctions are critical. I'm not arguing that criticism should be withheld, but that it should be more nuanced and precise. The Kobe remark was a joke, which obviously fell flat. I'm aware of the ecological consequences of massive beef consumption. I've also noticed that the Makudonarudo franchise is well-represented in Japan and most of the customers are natives, not tourists. A propos of Burma, I was sorry to hear about the Japanese photographer killed there yesterday. Very sad (as of course are the killings of the Burmese). My condolences to his family. Posted by: Ed G at September 29, 2007 08:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ed G, I'll try to be more nuanced in the future, but what am I susposed to say? "US military and CIA intervention over the past 50+ years, from Central America to Vietnam to the Middle East, has had a devastating impact on those countries, but of course not all Americans support such activities." The thing is, that doesn't lessen the actual impact at all. Or, Seriously, though, good luck in getting people on board with your own point of view, and getting some better leaders elected. I'll be pulling for you. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at September 29, 2007 08:49 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, mostly that's some more of what I already knew but thanks anyhow. Quite true that feeling bad doesn't change things. On the other hand, heckling, while often satisfying, doesn't win many hearts and minds either. We'll continue to work, thanks for pulling for us, and good luck with things in your own country. Posted by: Ed G at September 29, 2007 10:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
This Ahmadinejad speech and other political speeches are not tournaments or games. There are few winners when political leaders speak- think of Bill Clinton’s long-winded state of the Union speeches. The most that we can hope for is that occasionally a politician surprises us in a positive way. Let’s look at the three main players: Bollinger- your basic idiot. We know that it was the International Relations people who invited Ahmadinejad to speak. A sane and decent educator would have said 2-3 sentences “Iran is an important country and our International relations faculty wanted Mr. A to speak. I personally think that he has made many stupid and disgraceful remarks and am unlikely to believe anything that he says. Now, I introduce the Dean of... who will introduce Mr. A...” George W. Bush- the 800-pound gorilla that nobody wanted to acknowledge. He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe more than a million Iraqis. He has dismembered Iraq and caused most of its educated people to be killed or driven out of the country. Yet, he and many Americans say that we must stay the course and keep on killing to avoid losing face by admitting defeat. He’s made many stupid remarks and is infinitely more dangerous than A. He is a war criminal; A is a foolish ideologue. I’d say that A emerged the least bad of the three, although I certainly don’t believe his claims. I think most foreigners other than Israelis will have increased negative feelings about the US and about Columbia University. It is not only Muslims who believe that guest speakers deserve some degree of courtesy. Those who say that A equals Hitler are not interested in discussing the real world. Posted by: Old.Bob at September 30, 2007 05:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
wt, you have a very good point. the US needs to focus much more on energy conservation, and whatever else you suggest, and leave you to worry about China. Whew.. we feel lighter already.....
Neill, nothing would make me happier than to have the US end the military occupation of Japan. Think of what it would be like in your own country. Unfortunately, the Japanese officials are mostly cowards in this regard. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at September 30, 2007 10:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
The US is slowly moving towards ending the military occupation of Japan, as I have heard -- aren't the US marines going to pull out of Okinawa fairly soon, and relocate to Hawaii?
"doesn't do much to distract from the serious petrol US problem -- the what? 13 million barrels a day that is driving the US to attack various countries, and most recently destroy Iraq, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, without even putting a dent in the US petrol problem." Japan is even more dependent on foreign and Middle East oil than the US is. Thankfully America is in charge of securing your oil supply now; the rest of Asia is still a little angry over the last time the Japanese tried to exert control over their own energy supply... "Many of your houses may have better insulation than some of ours, but yours also have central heating and central air conditioning, whereas ours use spot heating and cooling." Central heating and cooling (combined with good insulation) is the most energy efficient way to control temperature inside a building. I'll concede that the Japanese probably use less energy per capita on heating/cooling, but they manage this not because spot heating and cooling is more energy efficient, but by simply choosing not to heat/cool much of their buildings. That's why Japanese students have to suffer through brutal heat in the classroom during the summer and people have to put their cooking oil in the refrigerator during the winter to keep it from freezing. Energy-saving? Yes. Somewhat assinine? Also yes... At any rate, why are we limiting the discussion to energy? Why not include deforestation and overfishing (areas where Japan is a world leader) in our discussion of the stewardship of natural resources? Posted by: Geoff in NY at October 2, 2007 03:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, this thread is probably over, but my take on the Columbia flap is this: Bollinger was posturing for domestic political consumption - attempting to inoculate himself for Columbia inviting Ahmadi-Nejad to speak. By employing hyper-ventilated bombast he gave the impression of a close-minded individual unwilling or unable to engage in a dialogue. His abrasive approach could only have played well with those already convinced that diplomacy cannot be effective in dealing with Iran and thus made him seem the less reasonable man. He should have opted for a more distanced and cordial approach and trusted in the very likely and obvious outcomes of Ahmadi-Nejad's appearance. The Iranian President would almost surely make several (or more) ludicrous assertions in the course of his speech that informed and intellligent listener's would challenge, leaving him to somehow try and support positions that could not be intelligently supported. As we see Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad followed form and did make these types of statements and in the end was the subject of ridicule over some of them. Instead, Bollinger allowed him settle into a stance that probably appeared gracious and open-minded to much of the world, including many in the U.S...could Bollinger have taken a more idiotic tack? I don't see how. Posted by: Tax Analyst at October 2, 2007 04:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
Geoff in NY, Still deflecting, eh? At least we in Japan (and much of the rest of the world) are getting our bodies used to the brutal heat and freezing cold that your life style is bringing us. When your turn comes, I wonder how you will do. (Your knowledge of Japan is also rather outdated. We have something called progress here, too.)
"Geoff in NY, Still deflecting, eh?" I don't see how bringing up valid questions about Japan's own environmental record is "deflecting." I can understand why you don't want to answer them, though. Throwing stones is more fun as long as you can ignore the fact that you're living in a glass house... "Your knowledge of Japan is also rather outdated." I doubt Japan has changed all that much in the year since I moved back to the States. Posted by: Geoff in NY at October 2, 2007 09:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
> Japan is even more dependent on foreign and Middle East oil than the US is. Thankfully America is in charge of securing your oil supply now; (I'm not sure that this is very reassuring to those currently dying under the US occupation in Iraq, but of course, not all people can be pleased.) But back to the point. You are correct to point out that Japan also has a petrol deficit, but it would be misleading to cast it as worse than the US petrol deficit in absolute numbers, which are what actually are reflected in shipping volumes. The US petrol deficit is -- well, let us say over 10M barrels a day. Japan's is half that. So currently the US is contributing twice as much to the problem as measured in deficit. (In terms of violence & supporting terrorism, it seems likely that the US is contributing far more than Japan -- when was the last time Japan was caught shipping arms to terrorists for any reasons including or excluding petrol?) Both have increased about 25% in consumption since 1975, but as far as I've seen, the US' is forecast to rise worse. To take one set of estimates, perhaps the US consumption will rise on the order of 1.5% per annum, and the Japanese consumption will rise on the order of 0.5% (or lower) per annum. Posted by: Awahari at October 3, 2007 12:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
"But back to the point. You are correct to point out that Japan also has a petrol deficit, but it would be misleading to cast it as worse than the US petrol deficit in absolute numbers, which are what actually are reflected in shipping volumes." I didn't frame the issue in terms of absolute numbers. I framed it in terms of dependence, ie. the percentage of total oil consumption that originates from foreign sources. American dependence on foreign oil was ~60% in 2006, much of which comes from non-Middle Eastern sources. Japan, on the other hand, depends on foreign sources for ~98% of its oil needs, and Middle Eastern sources have accounted for ~90% of Japanese oil imports in recent years. If you want to play with absolute numbers, we can do that to. In that case, you can certainly argue that America is "worse" than Japan, as America is the #1 importer of oil worldwide in absolute terms. Of course, Japan is #2, so one could argue that Japan is the "worst" country in the world after the US. Or one could just argue that it makes sense that the #1 and #2 economies in the world would also be #1 and #2 in oil consumption (including imports), but that wouldn't allow for the silly value judgements you and your fellow countryman seem so intent upon making. Either way you look at it, Japan is just as interested (if not more so) in stable and secure supplies of Middle East oil as the United States is. You can snipe at the US all you want, but your national well-being depends on American involvement in the Middle East and our willingness to let you free ride on the benefits of such involvement. Given these facts, your holier than thou attitude on the issue is completely unwarranted. Posted by: Geoff in NY at October 3, 2007 01:04 AM | Permalink to this comment
Geoff in NY, I'd say American involvement in the Middle East has been a negative factor overall for oil. What kind of benefits are you crowing about? Japan used to have good arrangements with countries there, which US meddling has all but ruined. Not much oil flowing out of Iraq these days now that Saddam's gone. As for the US military presence in Japan providing a free ride, it actually makes Japan more of a target, and gives neighboring countries more reason to be belligerent. If the troops would leave, Japan would be better able to portray itself as a country of peaceful intentions. That's my view. Posted by: Wataru Tenga at October 3, 2007 01:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
The US meddling may have ruined Japan's relations in the Middle East, and destroyed both Iraq's stability and petrol flow for possibly years to come, but it must be admitted that the US military has secured the Saudi monarchy (tyranny?), which is of great (enormous?) benefit to many petrol consumers worldwide. The Saudi monarchy is very friendly to petrol consumers, and has bent over backwards to make up shortages single-handedly. Preserving the Saudi monarchy (or preventing any democracy in Saudi Arabia, if you want more inflammatory terms) is perhaps the one clearly positive benefit the US has provided in the Middle East. Posted by: Awahari at October 3, 2007 09:44 AM | Permalink to this comment
Awahari- "Preserving the Saudi monarchy (or preventing any democracy in Saudi Arabia, if you want more inflammatory terms) is perhaps the one clearly positive benefit the US has provided in the Middle East." Youre blaming the US for the social retardation that is endorsed by the House of Saud and readily embraced by the Saudi populace? Salafism seems endemic to their world from my perspective (along with its non-democratic tenets)-please correct me if I'm wrong- and appears as the preferred (irrepressible?) lifestyle that transcends any US influences or impositions. I'd appreciate your explanation of how democracy would unfold in SA absent our presence but with the apparent omnipresence of Wahhabism. Is there a republican revolution brewing under the Ar Riyad desert sun? I can't see Jeffersonian principles developing under any circumstances over there when they havent yet as a culture or intellectually, after countless generations, even accepted a woman's equality. Posted by: reshufflex at October 3, 2007 03:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
The introduction was unnecessarily insulting and disrespectful. Columbia asked Ahmadenijad to appear and speak. The "leadership" at Columbia in no way need agree, or like, their guest speaker but, being a guest, that speaker deserves a modicum of basic respect. And this particular speaker a world leader, like it or not. The President of Columbia disgraced himself and Ahmadenijad, in some ways, comported himself well, even considering nonsense statements about there not being a "gay problem" in Iran, holocaust "questions" etc. Posted by: Praedor Atrebates at October 3, 2007 04:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
I like the way you people believe the Jeffersonian democracy in the US colonies developed with the understanding of a woman's equality :)
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
