I don’t have a great deal to say about Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s address and reception at Columbia University yesterday. Some are condemning it; a defense of free speech or just confused?
I do have a question. Has the entire matter advanced or retarded American interests? Please explain your position and present evidence.
Update
Josh Marshall comes down on the “advanced” side:
I think it’s hard to come to any conclusion but that Ahmadinejad was diminished by yesterday’s events, not elevated. And America seemed bigger for not having cowered before him, as so many wanted to.
So does Ezra Klein:
He’s not being feared. He’s being laughed at. Imagine how the Iranian people feel seeing these clips (and they’re seeing them). Imagine how the rest of the Iranian government feels being made to look so foolish — and all for this jester’s dreams of personal aggrandizement.
The Bush administration has long upheld that our best weapons against Iran are our unwillingness to speak with them and the threat of bombing. They’ve failed. But our willingness to expose Ahmadinejad to the risks of free ands public speech, combined with YouTube, may prove to be far more potent.
I’d like to get some insight into the likely Iranian reaction from someone a little more authoritative.
Pat Lang sees it as meaningless or, possibly, a net win for Ahmadinejad:
It was quite a performance. If this were a presidential debate, I would judge him the winner based on rhetorical skill and coolness under fire. The student audience got quieter and quieter as he spoke. There was no booing at the end.
On the whole I think this event was meaningless. I think that the die is cast and that this will have no effect on the international game. pl
According to Winston, none of this was broadcast inside Iran; there was intensive jamming of satelite signals to CSPAN or VOA. So I imagine the few that found a way to watch constituted a motivated group.
http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/
BTW/ I don’t think American interests have been advanced or retarded.
Trivial in the end, but I rather think a minor opportunity was lost to make the US look rather more adult.
I’m with Marshall and Klein on this. The Iranian president was slapped around by an academic and laughed at by college kids. No way that’s a win for him.
To Americans.
To much of the rest of the world, gross impoliteness to “guests” – even ones normally unfriendly to you – is taken as a show of boorishness and uncivility. It is not hard to imagine a critical reception that would have looked less boorish.
I’m not personally much for excess civility where unwarranted, but that is personal preference. If one is trying to make an impression, other behaviour is required, and where interest overrides preference, even more so. Insofar as the US has managed in the current Presidency to sully its own image quite magnificently, well international view is going to tend against.
Well, the US seems to be specialising of late in speaking largely to itself, and shedding influence as rapidly as possible.
One would like to think that the rest of the world would have the sophistication to recognize that Ahmadinejad was received by a private university, not the U.S. government. And for that matter, neither the President of the University nor the school itself can be associated with pro-Bush sentiments.
Sophistication? Shrug, the world is imperfect.
I have a tiny violin to go along with such whinging on. One would like the Americans to start electing competents to their government, and have some sophistication with respect to say the Iranian government, but it is not a fact obtaining at present.
I realize that in the Golden Age of British Empire that the state could count on the press not to publish accounts of Ottoman atrocities on ethnic and religious minorities that might complicate British policy to prop up Europe’s sick man. I can witness that such a gentleman’s understanding has rarely, if ever, been honored in America. I believe that if Bush had his wherewithal, Ahmadinejad would not have been invited to the school for the very same reasons.
I will join the criticism in this point, however. It used to be that men of letters could conceal their daggers with subtler language than borne by the President of the University. I was just reading Charles Sumner’s speech on the floor of the Senate, condemning slavery, for which he was nearly caned to death. Far more delicate, yet far more vicious than anything I read today.
Today it is simply Bush = Hitler. And in this instance, Ahmadinejad = Hitler. I’m not quite sure what else was to be expected of our universities, other than perhaps the decency to stop inviting all of those Hitlers.
for which he was nearly caned to death
Subtler language; unsubtler politics.
I think it’s retarded American foreign policy interests, but marginally. Domestically, it’s a “win” for the freedom-of-speech left.
Lounsbury is correct to point out that host-guest dynamics in the ME is quite different from the US. Bollinger’s attack on the Iranian President is viewed as yet another example of American arrogance, hypocrisy and lecturing. Why? It’s considered rude, at the very best, to castigate a guest as Bollinger did. NPR touched on some of the dynamics today. Treating guests with respect is taken very seriously in many parts of the ME and SW Asia. Just as an example, the lone survivor of the SEAL team that made it out of NE Afghanistan in 2005 was ultimately “saved” when he was taken in and became a “guest” of the local tribe. The Taliban tried unsuccessfully to negotiate his capture, but ultimately they failed. They could have taken him by force, but it would have meant beginning a fight with the entire tribe.
Primo, Ahmedinejad is not a Hitler and the hysterics about him are overdone. Labelling every bloody little 3rd World leader one doesn’t care for a Hitler debases the notion and render you ridiculous.
Andy correctly notes that in most of the world, the concept of host-guest dynamics is rather… well, I guess better developed. The “Hitler” histrionics of the foaming at the mouth ignoramus provincials in the US aside, their interests (real ones, not their perception in school yard terms) would be better served by a more subtle, and in the end more effective criticism of Ahmedinjead – rather than the ridiculous repetition of this sad obsession with Hitler imagery, letting yourselves play the mature, adult foil to his cartoonishness ultimately gets you what you want: more influence and cred to achieve your goals overseas.
Self pleasuring histrionics and childish rhetoric labelling everyone you don’t like a Chamberlain or a Hitler merely underscores the current level of incompetence and provincialism in your FP, to your loss (and discredit).
(I would add the looney American Left labelling Bush as Hitler or other such histrionics is equally idiotic, but seems to have rather little impact these days, as such I merely find them amusing idiots)
This clearly retards U.S. interests. In fact, there was no way this could ever have been a victory, which is why private parties should not practice their own diplomacy.
Those who prattle on about some hypothetical “victory for free speech” need to understand that it is nothing of the kind. It is nothing more than an adolescent antic. Turning this into an argument about free speech is turning it into a subject that speaks only to Americans. To the rest of the world, any such notion is absurd. In any event, it has nothing to do with free speech–first, because there was no GOVERNMENT attempt to silence speech; and secondly, because free speech does not require anyone to provide a forum for that speech.
But back to why this was bound to be a loss for the USA, as seen by the people who matter, those in the Middle East. (1) The invitation itself was designed to be a slap in the face to the U.S. government, and it was. It was obviously contrary to official policy, and the fact that the government could not stop it makes the government look weak. Strike 1. (2) As has been pointed out, speaking out against Ahmadinejad is regarded as rude; not speaking out connotes acceptance, however. Hence, there is a catch-22. Strike 2. (3) Giving Ahmadinejad a platform and a microphone at a major American university elevates his stature, regardless of what he actually says. Strike 3. And even though the batter is already out, I will throw in two more strikes just to make sure. (4) Allowing Ahmadinejad to have a platform and a microphone at a major American university elevates his ideas, by suggesting that such things as Holocaust denial are legitimate subjects for discussion. Strike 4. (5) The invitation itself is a slap in the face to the American servicemen and women serving in Iraq and to the Iraqis friendly to the USA. There is no doubt that Iran is fomenting instability in Iraq and taking actions that lead directly to the killing of American soldiers. Inviting Ahmadinejad to speak displays an astounding lack of class in that regard. Strike 5.
Overall, this demonstrates the arrogance and narcissism of the so-called academic elite. Bollinger had no concept of the consequences of his action (and probably did not care). The invitation no doubt gave Bollinger the feeling that he was playing at rebellion (without having to pay any actual price or experience any real danger) and “sticking it to the man,” but it really only made him look like a fool.