Of the close to fifty million visitors that New York City receives each year, few have been as controversial as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA), the President of Iran, who had arrived for the United Nations (UN) week in late September. After being repulsed by the Police Department from visiting the World trade Center site, Columbia University invited him to speak, yet the university's President, Lee Bollinger, called him a "petty and cruel dictator." He attended George W. Bush's speech at the UN, but, at his speech, the US table had one person attending, an anonymous note-taker. Did MA deserve such rude treatment?
No, easy answers here. However, there us subtlety aplenty if one knows where to look: the realms of religion and politics.
In Islam, the two are inseparable; from the very beginning, the religion incorporated a political system. Being the leader of the only true Islamic Republic on earth, MA is, of course, well aware of this fact, as he is aware that other countries do not share this particular mix of religion and politics. Thus, in the various venues in which he found himself, MA, behaved in ways he felt were appropriate at that particular time.
At Columbia, being greeted with some hostility, MA responded in kind. He chided the US for its nuclear weapons, and denied that Iran had homosexuals, "like in the US." His comments on weaponry are the product of mere observation; his denial of homosexuals, as derided as it was, was also correct. Homosexuals abound in Iran, of course, but they are cruelly executed. The photos of two boys (16- and a 17-years-old) being hanged still haunts the memory. [Side bar: for a hilarious take on MA's comment and modern US politics, see the cover of the October 8 issue of The New Yorker]
The conspicuous absence of the US delegation at MA's speech has too many layers to address here. Suffice it to say that the US in 1979 received payback for their interference in Irani politics, and its support of the brutal regime of the Shah, by being embarrassed for 444 days during the hostage taking. Since then, Iran has been the Middle Eastern bogey-man, and the US continues to treat it as such, rejecting all attempts by the Iranians to talk. Granted, the letters sent recently by MA to the President were, from a US standpoint, a bit loopy, but MA was merely putting religion and politics together, as befits the leader of an Islamic State.
MA's third venue was the most telling: a meeting of religious leaders. Here, MA could drop the political role and concentrate on an attempt at dialogue with other religions. To all accounts, this meeting was civil and informative. There was no rude treatment, no harangues, no slighting, merely talk.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a stupid man; on the contrary, he is a bright and savvy world leader. He rightly demands to be treated as such during the UN meeting. He was not. US arrogance was on stage once again. One could hope that we might deal with the shame, but the shame does not even register.
Please make no mistake; MFoD does not relish MA's posturing, and certainly not his treatment of gay men. However, MFoD's petty personal concerns are not a part of this discussion. The US had an opportunity for rapprochement, and it let the opportunity slip through its fingers. Perhaps, this behavior will not make things worse. One may only hope.
No, easy answers here. However, there us subtlety aplenty if one knows where to look: the realms of religion and politics.
In Islam, the two are inseparable; from the very beginning, the religion incorporated a political system. Being the leader of the only true Islamic Republic on earth, MA is, of course, well aware of this fact, as he is aware that other countries do not share this particular mix of religion and politics. Thus, in the various venues in which he found himself, MA, behaved in ways he felt were appropriate at that particular time.
At Columbia, being greeted with some hostility, MA responded in kind. He chided the US for its nuclear weapons, and denied that Iran had homosexuals, "like in the US." His comments on weaponry are the product of mere observation; his denial of homosexuals, as derided as it was, was also correct. Homosexuals abound in Iran, of course, but they are cruelly executed. The photos of two boys (16- and a 17-years-old) being hanged still haunts the memory. [Side bar: for a hilarious take on MA's comment and modern US politics, see the cover of the October 8 issue of The New Yorker]
The conspicuous absence of the US delegation at MA's speech has too many layers to address here. Suffice it to say that the US in 1979 received payback for their interference in Irani politics, and its support of the brutal regime of the Shah, by being embarrassed for 444 days during the hostage taking. Since then, Iran has been the Middle Eastern bogey-man, and the US continues to treat it as such, rejecting all attempts by the Iranians to talk. Granted, the letters sent recently by MA to the President were, from a US standpoint, a bit loopy, but MA was merely putting religion and politics together, as befits the leader of an Islamic State.
MA's third venue was the most telling: a meeting of religious leaders. Here, MA could drop the political role and concentrate on an attempt at dialogue with other religions. To all accounts, this meeting was civil and informative. There was no rude treatment, no harangues, no slighting, merely talk.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a stupid man; on the contrary, he is a bright and savvy world leader. He rightly demands to be treated as such during the UN meeting. He was not. US arrogance was on stage once again. One could hope that we might deal with the shame, but the shame does not even register.
Please make no mistake; MFoD does not relish MA's posturing, and certainly not his treatment of gay men. However, MFoD's petty personal concerns are not a part of this discussion. The US had an opportunity for rapprochement, and it let the opportunity slip through its fingers. Perhaps, this behavior will not make things worse. One may only hope.
Image credit: wikipedia.org
2 comments:
Very well argued. Is there a precedent for a university president inviting a firebrand to campus?
Oh Lord, is there ever! Many universities have taken their role as advocates for freedom of speech seriously. My own alma mater, a small, slightly right-wing Catholic college, invited Jane Fonda to speak in 1972. Thank goodness for the dogma of academic freedom.
Post a Comment