Hoe moedig was de president van de Universiteit van Columbia, door Achmadinejad uit te nodigen, en hem vervolgens een wrede dictator te noemen?
Beide schijnen er voordeel van te hebben gehad: los van deze harde woorden - of juist dankzij deze woorden - is Achmadinejad thuis als een held ontvangen. En de Universiteit van Columbia was dagen prominent in het nieuws.
Ratna
_________
Last update - 09:56 26/09/2007
Ahmadinejad and the city
By Shmuel Rosner
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907594.html
Last update - 09:56 26/09/2007
Ahmadinejad and the city
By Shmuel Rosner
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907594.html
WASHINGTON - The president of Columbia University apparently believes that he evinced extraordinary courage - not only once, but twice. First, when he faced down his critics and, in the name of "freedom of academic discourse," hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a second time when he insulted his guest. "A petty and cruel dictator," he called him.
Standing at the podium in his university, facing his faculty, protected by American police, Professor Lee Bollinger really is a big hero. However, both the invitation and the insult said more about the host than about the guest. What has become clear beyond all doubt this week, if there had been any doubt, is that Ahmadinejad, petty or not, cruel or not, is above all a world-class celebrity of the sort that a New York backdrop only flatters.
How natural the news broadcasters sounded as they skipped from the Iranian's adventures in the big city to those of O.J. Simpson in Las Vegas on his way to a failed bank robbery. Nonsensical chatter about academic freedom alongside the tabloid Simpson story. Like the publisher that wanted to publish Simpson's book, If I Did It, Columbia University simply could not resist the temptation.
For three days now, the university's name has been mentioned on every news broadcast. Its backers were invited to be interviewed on every obscure program, and broadcast vehicles were kept ready since early morning to bring that man's words to a thirsty nation. Did they expect that Ahmadinejad would suddenly decide to tell them the truth, of all things? Did they believe themselves when they said that they would ask him "probing questions?" Did they think that he would in fact answer them? Did they know that he would lie, but not care, as long as he came?
It is hard to know which would be worse: The former would be indicative of a degree of stupidity, unacceptable even at academic institutions; the latter would indicate deliberate, ugly cynicism. In either case, the president of Iran received a platform and publicity that others can only dream of.
John Coatsworth, the dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, pressured the president for "a simple yes or no answer" to an important question: Does he want to destroy Israel? And supposing he had answered "yes" or "no," instead of evading the question as is his wont - would that have made any difference?
On one hand, it is possible to hope that no great damage was caused. He came, he spoke, he left. We can only guess what impression was made in New York by this momentary visitor who, like Madonna in Tel Aviv, appeared for a moment and immediately disappeared, leaving behind a mysterious smile and heaps of words open to interpretation. It is hard to believe that the Iranian president is having panic attacks about America's strength just now. If he has been blessed with any sense of humor, he will no doubt be able to amuse his friends with stories of this strange visit.
But in the big city, and sometimes this is easy to forget, public relations are an important matter, but not the most important. More important is a shipment of Iranian arms that was caught in Afghanistan last week on its way to the Taliban rebels. More important are the talks on tightening sanctions on Iran, which, if they do not produce results, will spell the end of the illusion of resolving the crisis by means of the United Nations Security Council.
Today and tomorrow, there will be meetings of the countries that are supposed to decide on those sanctions: the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany. At their meeting last Friday, which was reportedly "excellent," no agreement was reached. Therefore, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns took the trouble to send a warning in advance of the next round of talks: The credibility of the Security Council is on the line. It is possible to see this as good news of a sort: Burns apparently believes that it still has some shreds of credibility left to lose.
It is hard to know which would be worse: The former would be indicative of a degree of stupidity, unacceptable even at academic institutions; the latter would indicate deliberate, ugly cynicism. In either case, the president of Iran received a platform and publicity that others can only dream of.
John Coatsworth, the dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, pressured the president for "a simple yes or no answer" to an important question: Does he want to destroy Israel? And supposing he had answered "yes" or "no," instead of evading the question as is his wont - would that have made any difference?
On one hand, it is possible to hope that no great damage was caused. He came, he spoke, he left. We can only guess what impression was made in New York by this momentary visitor who, like Madonna in Tel Aviv, appeared for a moment and immediately disappeared, leaving behind a mysterious smile and heaps of words open to interpretation. It is hard to believe that the Iranian president is having panic attacks about America's strength just now. If he has been blessed with any sense of humor, he will no doubt be able to amuse his friends with stories of this strange visit.
But in the big city, and sometimes this is easy to forget, public relations are an important matter, but not the most important. More important is a shipment of Iranian arms that was caught in Afghanistan last week on its way to the Taliban rebels. More important are the talks on tightening sanctions on Iran, which, if they do not produce results, will spell the end of the illusion of resolving the crisis by means of the United Nations Security Council.
Today and tomorrow, there will be meetings of the countries that are supposed to decide on those sanctions: the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany. At their meeting last Friday, which was reportedly "excellent," no agreement was reached. Therefore, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns took the trouble to send a warning in advance of the next round of talks: The credibility of the Security Council is on the line. It is possible to see this as good news of a sort: Burns apparently believes that it still has some shreds of credibility left to lose.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten