There are reports that Iranians were shocked at the treatment meted out to their President Ahmadinejad in the “Land of the Free”, especially the “welcome” speech given by the Columbia University President Lee Bollinger on Sept. 24. The Iranian leader himself seemed disturbed by the introductory remarks, referring to Bollinger as “the person who read this political statement against me.”
Ever since the Columbia University decided to give stage to the Iranian leader, Bollinger had been under attack from groups that included powerful politicians, influential lobbyists, Jewish organizations and the media. Amidst the backlash, one wonders if Bollinger had to modify his script at the last moment. If Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar, was criticized before the event for inviting Ahmadinejad, he is now being censured for compromising his own principles under political pressure. Did he resist all this pressure so that he gets an opportunity for blasting Ahmadinejad and accusing him of exhibiting “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”? Was he serving as an echo chamber for the Bush administration’s talking points about Iran and its leaders?
Whatever the truth, the mainstream US media, as eager as the White House to demonize Ahmadinejad, felt relieved by Bollinger’s comments. Rather than focusing on what the Iranian leader had to say, the media went gaga over Bollinger’s “petty and cruel dictator” diatribe. Apparently, they were voicing their own opinion using Bollinger’s words.
In one sense the media behaved even more shamefully than Bollinger. The speaking event was touted as an opportunity for the Iranian leader to tell his side of the story and to allow him to answer questions that are supposedly troubling the American public. One would expect a responsible media to focus on the points raised by Ahmadinejad in his speech. Instead we were treated to the same stereotyping that the Iranian leader has received all along. The coverage was mostly limited to Ahmadinejad’s response to Bollinger’s introduction, his way of answering questions and his remarks on homosexuals.
There was hardly any mention of the key issues raised by Ahmadinejad. His point about how science and technology is used by some powers to “violate individual and social freedoms” and to “create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world” was not found worthy of mention. His point about how big powers do not hesitate to misuse science to develop “nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction” went unnoticed. Unless you were watching the event live or reading a transcript, the Iranian leader’s criticism of how “big powers create a monopoly over science” would remain hidden.
One point that was covered in the news stories, but without much thrust, was the question of Palestine. Ahmadinejad asked his audience, “but why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?”
Referring to the promises by the West that Iran will be provided nuclear fuel if it forsook uranium enrichment, he asked: “If you don’t give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you’d give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?”
Although Ahmadinejad’s call for more research on the holocaust was reported, his remark on the status of Jews in Iran was ignored. But there is no denying Ahmadinejad was successful in raising questions that “advocates” of free speech and human rights do not care to ask.
It is easy to ignore the reality through self-serving commentary that the speech was directed at an Iranian audience back home. As most listeners would have realized, after all, the visiting president was getting to the roots of some of the problems and challenges facing our world today. Having failed to stop the event from taking place, Ahmadinejad’s enemies are trying to cast it as “Professor vs. President” clash and ignoring the key messages, for giving credibility to Ahmadinejad’s views would tantamount to accepting or recognizing the factors highlighted by him and their own role in giving rise to these factors.
— Abdul Rauf is a freelance journalist based in Riyadh.
