Insulting a guest speaker

The POST, Sun, Oct,07, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

It is somewhat unusual and extremely surprising that the President of Columbia University Lee Bollinger would hurl insults and impoliteness to a guest speaker in his introductory speech. It would have been much better not to invite President Ahmadinejad than hosting him and calling him petty and a cruel dictator. In his opening introductory speech which was more like a charge sheet rather than welcome words, Mr. Bollinger highlighted various disliked and disapproved aspects of the current Iranian regime’s policies attributing almost all of them to the person of visiting Iranian President. 

The charge sheet of Columbia University President included the brutal crackdown on scholars, journalists and human rights advocates, the denial of holocaust, the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, proxy war against US troops in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program and international sanctions. Never in the history of civilized communities, has such a damaging welcome address ever been delivered. The charge sheet itself reflected how petty and extremely rude can some American be. 

Judged by any yardstick such a speech is either reflective of the gradual degeneration of American civilization’s attainments or poor current academic environment of Columbia University or an individual’s vomit of his own frustrations or emerging resentment against their inabilities to influence Iranian leadership or spirited defensive against the intense attack for the invitation with a view to pacify the critics or a signal of rising tide of anger against the Iranian government or defense of the Jewish Israeli cause in an ugly and crude manner. 

Whatever may be the reason for such a provocative welcome speech, it needs to be stressed here that never in the history civilized world one has ever come across this type of welcome address. No civilized bunch of people would ever dream of inviting someone and then once he has come shower him with all kind of insults. It can also be dubbed as a clever trap but then the educational institution rarely indulge in such deceptive methods to invite a dignitary. 

It is indeed difficult to accept that Mr. Bollinger is a true representative of the American society and the coveted American values. If he is, then the notion of degeneration of American society cannot be ignored. Mr. Bollinger has exhibited all the signs of an indecent host with a heavy bias against Iran. The verbal assault by the host Mr. Bollinger certainly invoked strong reaction within the civilized world. 

One can understand the intense pressure Mr. Bollinger was facing after having extended the invitation to President Ahmadinejad particularly from Jewish quarters of New York. It is a well known fact that New York houses many Jews and it is not too far fetched to assume that some of them must be making impressive financial as well as intellectual contributions to the University. In fact Mr. Bollinger referred to Columbia University as the center of Jewish studies.  But he had the option of canceling the event rather than calling him and then insulting him. After all he is an elected President of a proud nation. The strong reaction both in the media and at the societal level within Iran appears to be quite justifiable. 

One can disagree with many aspects of current Iranian regime’s policies and can muster international support to influence the policy making processes in Iran but a guest is always treated as a guest. The method and manner employed by Mr. Bollinger has caused anger and dismay for both many Americans as well as non-Americans. What has happened to the American notion of righteousness and liberal traditions so forcefully advanced by many great American leaders? 

Undoubtedly Iran’s nuclear program has become acutely controversial and the United Nations has already passed two resolution imposing sanctions upon Iran. However this does not mean that the negotiation process is dead. Even now efforts are being made to resolve the dispute through negotiations. The IAEA is playing a very creditable part and has demonstrated its keenness to resolve the dispute amicably through a dialogue process. 

A question is often asked that if the dispute over nuclear acquisition of the North Korean can be resolved, why the dispute with Iran can’t be resolved on similar lines. In response to this question many answers have been put forward. Among the vast variety of answers two seem to attract more attention than the others. One stresses that if Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state, it would be second Muslim state which is intensely disliked by many leading countries of the world. 

Even the only Muslim nuclear weapon state Pakistan is continuously subjected to pressures in one form or the other. With ongoing war against terrorism, the currently advanced argument revolves around what if the nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hand? Is the Pakistani bomb in safe hands or would the Jihadis get its control? Despite the fact that most western countries are fully aware of the fact that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in safe hands yet one find some Bollinger somewhere raising unnecessary alarm. 

It is very interesting to note that Mr. Bollinger asking President Ahmadinejid that why does his country refuse to adhere to the international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreement that Iran has made with the UN Nuclear Agency? While this question certainly deserve analysis and may invoke some kind of response from Iranian officials as well as from the members of civil society, another question-perhaps of great importance and significance-for people like Bollinger should look into it revolves around the recent Indo-US civilian nuclear deal which not only destroyed the entire fabric of Non-Proliferation regime but also recognized India-a non NPT member- a nuclear weapon state. 

Perhaps it was still not sufficient; the Americans are also now deeply involved in changing the guideline for the nuclear suppliers group. Having destroyed the incumbent NPT regime, it is now determined to destroy the NSG regulations just to satisfy a friend. It appears that if you are a friend of America then all established rules and regulations become somewhat irrelevant even if the friend consistently violates them. If you are not willing to bow to command of the sole super power, it would apply initially pressures and later may even contemplate military aggression. 

The second reason deals with Israel’s policy pursuits in the Middle East. Despite the massive atrocities committed by the Israeli military, it would always appear as an innocent victim of aggression to people like Bollinger. It is a well known fact that the Israeli lobby is extremely effective in American corridors of power and some analysts have even gone to the extent of stressing that the entire Middle East policy is made by the Jewish elements in US. Admittedly one can buy the argument that the Jewish lobby enjoys massive influence over US Middle East policies but there must be some American who still maintain independent thinking. According to this line of thinking Iran is viewed with massive concerns by the Israelis, hence the US has to regards Iran as an enemy. 

In the end Mr. Bollinger stressed that he doubted that Iranian President would have the courage to answer his charge sheet. One has to give credit that the Iranian President took all that shameful and disgusting behavior in his stride and responded in a much more decent manner than that of Mr. Bollinger’s. Indeed Mr. Bollinger’s performance could not be taken as representative of the American values or their great liberal traditions.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.