Giving the Devil His Due
Tuesday September 25, 2007
Background: Human Rights in Iran
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University yesterday. The decision to give him this opportunity to air his views was absurd, offensive, and absolutely correct.
Ahmadinejad rose to power by shamelessly exploiting anti-Western sentiment, then used that power to crush his critics. He lies like a fox. There is no influential figure in the American Religious Right who does not look moderate and benign against the sharp relief of Ahmadinejad's worldview.
In 2009, we may all hope, Iranian voters will go to the polls and put an end to this nonsense. Until then, there is considerable reason for concern. Ahmadinejad's actions have further destabilized the Middle East, contributed to violence in Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon, reversed many of the promising reforms of his predecessor's administration, and put his own country at risk of invasion. When Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger admitted that Ahmadinejad demonstrated "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," he was unquestionably telling the truth.
So why did Bollinger let him speak?
Certainly an American who shares even a fraction of Ahmadinejad's more radical beliefs--in theocracy, the silencing of dissidents, the subjugation of women, Holocaust denial, and the list goes on and on--would have trouble finding a forum at Columbia. The administrators would not want to give that person a platform with which to spread their misguided ideologies.
Some conservative commentators have, quite understandably, accused the academic left of hypocrisy in the matter of inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia. Isn't it funny, one might wonder, that the same people who protested Ann Coulter's speech at Xavier University because she once used an anti-gay slur are the first to defend Columbia University's decision to give a venue to a man who has actually been responsible for the state-sponsored execution of lesbians and gay men? Where are our priorities? Why are we giving this monster a platform?
Well, part of the answer lies in the fact that Ahmadinejad already has a platform. As ruler of a country of 70 million, Ahmadinejad can get the world's attention whenever he wants it. We don't have the option of simply depriving him of his channels of communication and hoping that he goes away. Might doesn't make right, but it does buy relevance. By marginalizing hatemongers in our own country, we can deprive them of their ability to influence the world--but as long as he has power, Ahmadinejad will never be irrelevant.
So does this mean, as many conservative bloggers have asked, that if Adolf Hitler asked to speak at Columbia in 1938, we would have been well served to honor that request? Well, let's look at that proposition a little more closely. What if, in 1938, more Americans were made aware of the threat Hitler posed? What if, in 1938, more Americans were made aware of the rising German tide of antisemitism, fascism, and nationalism? Could a Hitler speech at Columbia University have destabilized Nazi-Soviet relations? Could it have inspired more anti-Hitler sentiment in Germany? Could it have inspired a stronger anti-Hitler prewar sentiment in the United States? Could it have persuaded Chamberlain not to cede Czechoslovakia? Could it have ultimately saved millions of lives? We don't know the answer to that question, and we can't know the answer to that question, but it's a question that we should ask ourselves every time we think we're doing the world a favor by depriving some foreign despot of a venue.
Let's also consider the war of ideas that is presently being waged in Iran. Do we really want to see Ahmadinejad reelected in 2009? (There is only one sane answer to that question.) If not, what actions are we preparing to take to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people? Because Iran is an extremely modern country and, despite the level of domestic oppression that exists there, Iranians are not walled off from the rest of the world. Modern technology has made that impossible, particularly in a semi-industrialized nation with a per capita income eight times that of India. Iranian teenagers text message each other on cell phones, much as American teenagers do. And cybercafes, which have become ubiquitous in Iran's major cities, provide Iranians access to the world of ideas--and this includes American culture. Are we really helping to spread democracy in Iran if Americans have no idea what Ahmadinejad's beliefs are, or why the Iranian people put him in office?
For the sake of the Iranian people, for the sake of our global counterterrorism efforts, for the sake of Israel, and for the sake of stability in the Middle East, we must take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously as a cultural adversary. Is it fair that Ahmadinejad's power has given relevance to an ideology that does not deserve relevance? No--but when tens of millions of lives hang in the balance, we can't always afford to be fair. We have an obligation to defeat Ahmadinejad's message. That means we also have an obligation to hear it.
See also:
|
Ahmadinejad rose to power by shamelessly exploiting anti-Western sentiment, then used that power to crush his critics. He lies like a fox. There is no influential figure in the American Religious Right who does not look moderate and benign against the sharp relief of Ahmadinejad's worldview.
In 2009, we may all hope, Iranian voters will go to the polls and put an end to this nonsense. Until then, there is considerable reason for concern. Ahmadinejad's actions have further destabilized the Middle East, contributed to violence in Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon, reversed many of the promising reforms of his predecessor's administration, and put his own country at risk of invasion. When Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger admitted that Ahmadinejad demonstrated "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," he was unquestionably telling the truth.
So why did Bollinger let him speak?
Certainly an American who shares even a fraction of Ahmadinejad's more radical beliefs--in theocracy, the silencing of dissidents, the subjugation of women, Holocaust denial, and the list goes on and on--would have trouble finding a forum at Columbia. The administrators would not want to give that person a platform with which to spread their misguided ideologies.
Some conservative commentators have, quite understandably, accused the academic left of hypocrisy in the matter of inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia. Isn't it funny, one might wonder, that the same people who protested Ann Coulter's speech at Xavier University because she once used an anti-gay slur are the first to defend Columbia University's decision to give a venue to a man who has actually been responsible for the state-sponsored execution of lesbians and gay men? Where are our priorities? Why are we giving this monster a platform?
Well, part of the answer lies in the fact that Ahmadinejad already has a platform. As ruler of a country of 70 million, Ahmadinejad can get the world's attention whenever he wants it. We don't have the option of simply depriving him of his channels of communication and hoping that he goes away. Might doesn't make right, but it does buy relevance. By marginalizing hatemongers in our own country, we can deprive them of their ability to influence the world--but as long as he has power, Ahmadinejad will never be irrelevant.
So does this mean, as many conservative bloggers have asked, that if Adolf Hitler asked to speak at Columbia in 1938, we would have been well served to honor that request? Well, let's look at that proposition a little more closely. What if, in 1938, more Americans were made aware of the threat Hitler posed? What if, in 1938, more Americans were made aware of the rising German tide of antisemitism, fascism, and nationalism? Could a Hitler speech at Columbia University have destabilized Nazi-Soviet relations? Could it have inspired more anti-Hitler sentiment in Germany? Could it have inspired a stronger anti-Hitler prewar sentiment in the United States? Could it have persuaded Chamberlain not to cede Czechoslovakia? Could it have ultimately saved millions of lives? We don't know the answer to that question, and we can't know the answer to that question, but it's a question that we should ask ourselves every time we think we're doing the world a favor by depriving some foreign despot of a venue.
Let's also consider the war of ideas that is presently being waged in Iran. Do we really want to see Ahmadinejad reelected in 2009? (There is only one sane answer to that question.) If not, what actions are we preparing to take to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people? Because Iran is an extremely modern country and, despite the level of domestic oppression that exists there, Iranians are not walled off from the rest of the world. Modern technology has made that impossible, particularly in a semi-industrialized nation with a per capita income eight times that of India. Iranian teenagers text message each other on cell phones, much as American teenagers do. And cybercafes, which have become ubiquitous in Iran's major cities, provide Iranians access to the world of ideas--and this includes American culture. Are we really helping to spread democracy in Iran if Americans have no idea what Ahmadinejad's beliefs are, or why the Iranian people put him in office?
For the sake of the Iranian people, for the sake of our global counterterrorism efforts, for the sake of Israel, and for the sake of stability in the Middle East, we must take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously as a cultural adversary. Is it fair that Ahmadinejad's power has given relevance to an ideology that does not deserve relevance? No--but when tens of millions of lives hang in the balance, we can't always afford to be fair. We have an obligation to defeat Ahmadinejad's message. That means we also have an obligation to hear it.
See also:
Comments
Did you hear where Amadinejad is calling for the return of the Muslim Messiah? This is NOT the Messiah of Revelation, Jesus Christ, this is the one who will defile the temple, who will bring all the world’s muslims together to ‘convert’ the rest of the world (much like they ‘converted’ Europe and Africa back in the day).
“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” Not sure who said that, but it’s true. You are right, it was the correct thing to do to let this man speak. The profs and student questions made him look like the idiot he is. But an idiot who has access to nukes, who has an army at his command… Who may not be able to beat us in a war, but will give us a run for our money.
Oh for the ‘good old days’ with Aiatola Komeniee (sp sux) at least he didn’t have nukes! He just took hostages.
“In 2009, we may all hope, Iranian voters will go to the polls and put an end to this nonsense.”
Your willingness Tom to believe that the results of elections in Iran are actually a true expression of the people’s will is much greater than my own. Ahmadinejad is the puppet, not the puppeteer.
Tom, I’m a little bit curious about how much power Ahmadinejad actually holds – isn’t the Shah still significantly more powerful?
What president of Iran said is a free speech. But what president of Columbia did, is shameful logical and political and ethical fallacies: he was attacking rudely and pre-emptively the guest whom he invited for exchanging opinions, and not put a manure on his head before even the guy told what is his views.
ahmadinejad won intellectually and logically and ethically-he showed that he is very intelligent, patient, tolerant and the best logician who in adverse and hostile situation can be polite and to the point, while Bollinger shows that he is a coward since under the Bush administration pressure he succumbed to the fallacy of ad hominem attack and was not logical–he lost the argument.
This is not a democracy if US continues this lines of attacks and before any debate started to accuse and divide: “us verse them”, this is an eternal error in thinking about different religions, cultures, politics and people, since “us” is always good, whatever we bombed or did, all is all right, but when victims are trying to defend their own land, policy and country’s integrity, they are “evil” by this divide us/them.
Secondly, US has the same right as Iran or India or Israel or Pakistan, to develop the nuclear energy for whatever purposes it fit: for energy or for defense, since all the rest of those countries did it. To add to this, that Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and India is not, yet US rushed to embraced India’s nuclear weapons programs b/c she agrees to gave our nuclear companies to make a profit on this deal, isn’t it? Then the question not in developing nuclear weapons program by Iran , but the absense of megatrillions of profit by American and British nuclear magnats to get it.
Thanks a lot.