Monday, September 24, 2007

Ahmadinejad and America's Test


Today President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran spoke to students and faculty at Columbia University in New York. His arrival was marked by heavy criticism and fierce protests, but he was nonetheless permitted to speak. Today this country passed a small but important test.

Let me first establish that I believe President Ahmadinejad is a terribly misled man who does not represent a positive force in the global community. He is the leader of a radical theocracy, which maintains brutal rule over its country—though this rule is in fact crumbling due to a very pro-western youth majority (60% of the population is younger than 30). The Islamic Republic is a known supporter of the radical organization known as Hezbollah and has been accused by Washington of supplying heavy weapons to the insurgency in Iraq. Ahmadinejad has been quoted calling for the “destruction of Israel” and has been accused of denying the Holocaust. In his recent talk at Columbia, he went as far as to denying the existence of homosexuals in Iran.

The debate occurring in the past few days has been one that I feel we have truly needed. Ever since the days of Woodrow Wilson, it has been this country’s supposed “duty” to spread freedom and democracy—criticizing and even invading nations in the name of this “freedom.” But now we have been faced with the question: “To what extent do we offer freedom?” Would it be justified for us to tell President Ahmadinejad, who is considered a “terrorist” by many, that he has no right to engage in conversation with America’s youth? I watched the event online, so let me be clear: serious questions were asked—questions that strove to get to the bottom of this terribly complex man. Instead of relying on the media, real students were given the opportunity to directly engage with a world leader who has been the focus of so much uproar. His answers, though ambiguous at many times, brought to light many issues that must be discussed. What caused this radical Islamic regime to come to power in the first place? What was the role of the United States? Why is Israel so hated? Why are we so hated?

Though I am greatly pleased that the President was able to speak, I remain disconcerted over the overwhelming opposition that I have seen in the nation’s leaders, in the citizenry, and in my peers. The “we don’t agree with you, so we won’t hear from you” mentality is what led to 9/11, and not much has changed. Our government interferes with the affairs of others, manipulates nations for our country’s economic interests, it bombs cities, stages coup d’états and assassinations, all to keep our oil prices down. We have made everlasting enemies who attack mercilessly and with brutal strength. Unfortunately, 9/11 didn’t wake us up like it should have. Shame on Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and all of our potential leaders who have denied the significance of learning from this experience—we need a leader willing to engage, not to ignore as we have for so long. To stop the bloodshed we must understand why people hate—and to do this, we must hear the voices of the haters. We don’t have to agree, but we must listen.

I encourage everyone to watch Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia--it is long but worth it.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

A great post. Iran's president should have been allowed to speak at Columbia and thank goodness the president stood down the critics and let Ahmadinejad take the podium. Ahmadinejad did not come out of nowhere as you rightly note. He is the product of a radical Islamic theocracy which was the backlash to U.S. support of a corrupt Shah. Asking the questions you did puts him in a historical context. How was Israel created? Why is there hate?
You ask the right questions.

Smoke said...

Excellent and provocative. I tended to agree with the opinion in expressed well in both the editorial in the WSJ leading up to the speech as well as today's opinion piece called GLOBAL VIEW By BRET STEPHENS
Columbia's Conceit
Mr. Stephens makes the excellent comparison to allowing Hitler speak in 1939 as the Columbia president suggested would have been valuable. Read the story and see what you think about his points. I generally agree with his premise.

The bottome line is that free and open debate absolutely critical in a free society, giving a maniacal leader of a terrorist state a position of "legitimacy" may not serve anyone's purposes. That said, I remain open to your view of this event. I completely agree with the benefit that this controversy brings in terms of bringing the debate forward. Better this than discussing the opening episode of Desperate Housewives!

Unknown said...

Great post Skye, it is obvious that referring to countries as "Evil" and refusing to hold talks with them does not improve diplomatic relations. Look what happened with North Korea, we created a dialogue and now they are disarming their nuclear programs.

Anonymous said...

Great post. No matter how bad Ahmadinejad might be, no one has the right to take away his ability to speak to people in our country or we are no better than the people our governnment says we are fighting against in the middle east.

Unknown said...

Hi Skye!
I am glad that you are such a lucid young man with a sharp mind. you have intelligent and interesting points of view and you express yourself very clearly and with a nice style.
It is also comforting to see that there are people in the US that have the right notion of the situation, that are also critical and that want to do something about it ! thank you very much !
keep going !
see ya
Mathieu