Here Comes the President

Column

25 September 2007

By Manal Alafrangi

It seems the hottest tickets in New York two days ago were not for a famous musical or a Hollywood movie premiere but for a serious lecture at Columbia University by none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Crowds flocked to the university grounds to watch the event on a large screen as tickets to the actual event were snatched within minutes.

Invited to Columbia to address its students at the university's World Leaders Forum, the Iranian president received a hostile welcome from its president Lee Bollinger, who denounced him as "a petty and cruel dictator" adding, "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated" to persist in questioning the facts of the Holocaust.

Calling an elected president a dictator and referring to him as "ridiculous" prior to his speech is in itself ridiculous and insulting to the nation he represents, but Ahmadinejad wouldn't be the first to receive such treatment.

From the start, Bollinger spoke of his country's hot issues against Iran, sounding more than ever like a neoconservative spokesman reading from a handed-down speech. Today, he shares equal news coverage with the Iranian president because of the way he handled himself.

Extent of bias

Bollinger took up almost half an hour to introduce Ahmadinejad and while it might have been popular amongst the university crowd, it certainly showed the extent of US bias even in the world of academia.

Instead of reinforcing the notion of free speech at an institution that should reflect free speech, Bollinger's words worked in showcasing the campaign of disinformation against the Iranian leader, which also extends to the US administration's overall policies towards the Islamic Republic.

In fact, Ahmadinejad was right in complaining at the beginning of his speech that the president was trying to provide "vaccinations" to his students and faculty by injecting them with a series of claims against the leader.

Indeed it was an insult to the knowledge of the university audience, who undoubtedly are able to make their own decisions. If nothing, everyone should have been allowed to think for themselves.

The primary thrust of Ahmadinejad's speech, which has been completely sidelined by everyone, was the nobility and significance of education and knowledge - a fitting topic for his Columbia venue.

The humble populist referred to academics as shining torches. He also commented on the issue of nuclear power whereby he sounded more intelligent that the gibberish one reads in some international press by so-called analysts.

He insisted the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful, legal and entirely within Iran's rights reminding the audience that the US should not deny Iran something they themselves enjoy.

Big question

When questioned on the Jewish Holocaust, Ahmadinejad asked a very sound question: why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with? - aluding to the fact that Israel was established at the expense of the Palestinian population.

In the US itself, Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia received a special kind of public interest, media coverage, and sidewalk chatter, which is usually kept for top Hollywood actors or the British royal family.

The Iranian president had already spoken to the American masses when he appeared on the widely-viewed US television show 60 Minutes. Through that interview, he denied a "rush" to war with the US and extended quite a long hand to Americans albeit his words are fearfully falling on deaf ears.

The New York campaign against him has picked up and one can only hope that the media will not mix their dissatisfaction with the Iranian president with a campaign to support a possible American war against Iran.

Today, the US administration stands accused of grave crimes against humanity abroad - not to mention its domestic shortcomings. It is therefore amusing to have seen the president of Columbia University attack someone such as the Iranian president while his own president's record on the international stage is less than honourable.

For those who protested Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia, they should know that he was exercising free speech, an "American" freedom which allows critical engagement with elected officials. Bollinger embarrassed himself and the establishment and in so doing, did what many US academics have done: support the status quo.

In the name of "free speech and academic freedom", Bollinger further demonised Iran for the purposes of attack, making his Monday performance despicable.

In the end, it was Ahmadinejad who acted like a gentleman in the face of a university president who looked like he was trying to score brownie points in a very childish manner. Let's hope Americans and the international audience have picked up on that.