Ahmadinejad Visit to UN Sparks Protests, Walkouts

On a day where several hundred demonstrators rallied and chanted outside UN headquarters against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York, European Union and American diplomats inside the world body staged their own protest, walking out half way through the Iranian President’s address to the General Assembly.

In his half hour speech, Ahmadinejad’s listed off a long line of rhetorical questions condemning American and European foreign policy as far back as the 17th century.

“Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world?…Who triggered the first and second world wars? Who created the wars in the Korean peninsula and Vietnam? Who imposed, through deceit and hypocrisy, the zionist and all their 60 years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and countries of the region?” 

Ahmadinejad also spoke of more recent events,blaming the global economic crisis on the greed of Western governments and corporation, criticizing the Security Council’s bias towards Israel and putting in question NATO’s motives in Libya. 

“ Do these arrogant powers really have the competence and ability to run or govern the world? Or is it acceptable that they call themselves as the sole defender of freedom democracy and human rights, while they militarily attack and occupy other countries? Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO’s missiles, bombs or guns?”

Last year, diplomats walked out of the Iranian President’s General Assembly address after he said the September 11th attacks could have been orchestrated by the American intelligence community and called for an international investigation into the matter

Ahmadinejad once again brought up 9/11 conspiracy theories, this time questioning American motives behind the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden.

“Instead of assigning a fact finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea…why should it not have been allowed to bring him to trial, to help recognize those who launch terrorist groups and brought wars and other miseries into the region?Is there any classified information that must be kept secret?”

The US mission to the UN issued a short response to the Iranian President’s address. 

“Mr. Ahmadinejad had a chance to address his own people’s aspirations for freedom and dignity, but instead he again turned to abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories.” said the statement.

Columbia Students May Dine With A Dictator

Four years ago, on September 24, 2007, Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to address the campus.

Alumni threatened to remove their funding from the University and students and concerned citizens protested in uproar over the university’s decision to provide a public forum for a man who many say embodies cruelty, tyranny, aggression and intolerance.

Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel, denied the Holocaust and promoted the preposterous theory that the United States planned the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to launch wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He is prosecuting homosexuals, blatantly violating human rights in Iran and is widely believed to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons and sponsoring al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He rejects all forms of democracy and expels brazen, discriminatory dialect.

But Columbia University President Lee Bollinger defended his invitation to Ahmadinejad, arguing that providing Columbia as a forum for Ahmadinejad “is the right thing to do” because “it is required by the existing norms of free speech, of Columbia University, and of academic institutions.”

After a cold introduction from Bollinger, in which he referred to Ahmadinejad as “ridiculous” and a “petty and cruel dictator,” Ahmadinejad maintained his infamous reputation and made rash, hatred-filled comments about the state of Israel, questioned the extent of the Holocaust and denied the existence of homosexuals in the Islamic Republic.

“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” Ahmadinejad said during that 2007 speech to Columbia students. “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”

Ahmadinejad then defended Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons by stating that the United States has developed nuclear capabilities so it’s only fair that Iran can as well.

Unfortunately, it seems that Columbia University has not learned from its mistakes.

Rumors have been circulating that the University’s President Lee Bollinger and 15 members of the Columbia International Relations Council and Association (CIRCA) may be attending a private dinner with Ahmadinejad on September 21 in Midtown Manhattan while he is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. 

According to Bollinger’s office, however, it is just a rumor.

“At no time has there been any University event planned or considered involving the president of Iran and President Bollinger, nor has there ever been any plan for a dinner involving the Iranian president on campus,” Bollinger’s office told TRNS. “Media reports to the contrary have no basis in fact and we hope they will be corrected.”

CIRCA’s involvement, however, was confirmed by the Columbia Spectator.

CIRCA vice president of academics Tim Chan told the Spectato that group members are “enthusiastic” about their potential dinner with Ahmadinejad and are “thrilled to have this opportunity.”

Chan, however, stressed that the meeting is still tentative.

In an op-ed published in the Spectator on Wednesday entitled, “Say No to Ahmadinedinner,” Columbia Junior David Fine argued that “the moral burden of our Columbia education and human dignity requires us to examine whether it is right for us to sit down to dinner with a man who facilitates, even encourages, such executions.”

“What will this dinner accomplish? Nothing, except a sating of the human urge to be in the presence of greatness, no matter how unbridled or pernicious,” Fine wrote. “Since no public report can be made, nor Ahmadinejad’s opinions changed, this intimate dinner is, at best, the moral equivalent of sitting down with Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson just for the “thrill.” At worst, it is a small, but useful, affirmation for Ahmadinejad that his thoughts deserve to be heard by the best and brightest that American universities can offer.”

CIRCA did not respond to TRNS’s request for comment.

House Intelligence Chair Assesses Threats Abroad

By Adrianna McGinley

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) pushed the importance of American leadership abroad in combating national security threats.  

During an event Friday held by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Rogers addressed questions regarding U.S. involvement in the Middle East and the military rise of China.

“We must be prepared for the potential threat that a rising China poses,” Rogers said. “We must keep a strong American presence in the region. We must understand the Chinese ambitions and tensions and capabilities and how they see their future. China will only surpass us if we let them.”

Questions were also posed concerning Iran and its potential threat to Israel.

“Iran’s leaders have clearly expressed their desires to annihilate Israel. We should take their leaders’ public sentiments and statements and intentions seriously,” Rogers said. “They speak volumes about their desires and how they maintain power and position, even in their own country. We must therefore recognize the strategic threat and position that Iran poses.”

Rogers expressed concern for political differences interfering with decision making on international involvement, and the effect it can have on America’s credibility abroad.

“If every decision on international engagement is made through your own domestic political troubles, we are never going to come to the right conclusion ever again on international engagement,” Rogers said. “In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in the rest of the world, our allies and our enemies must know that when America intervenes, we will not cut and run. Our enemies must know without a doubt that when America commits itself, we do not commit ourselves to artificial timelines of withdrawals or limits on troop levels. America commits itself to one thing, achieving a lasting victory.” 

Syria Is No Libya: Security Council Deadlocked

The UN Security Council failed to come up with a position on the violence in Syria as it became obvious that members hold different views on the situation in the country and the extent of the reforms the government of Bashir Al Assad has introduced.

 US and European diplomats have been pushing other Council members to adopt a statement condemning the government security force’s increasingly violent crackdown on protests since last Friday.

 But after two days of closed door consultations, UN delegates were no closer  to agreeing on a statement.  

 American Ambassador Susan Rice told an open session of the council the US was considering its own targeted sanctions and called on the international community to condemn the Syrian government’s actions 

 “The Syrian government’s actions until now have not been serious responses to demands of its people.” Rice said “Casting blame on outsiders instead of  addressing its own internal failures is no way for a government to respond to legitimate calls for reform from its people.”

 But other council members, such as China and India, weren’t as quick to condemn the Syrian regime and said they were pleased to see the government make political and civil reforms. 

 Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong said his country was concerned by developments and the regional instability any escalation could create, but noted the al-Assad regime’s reforms as a positive step.

 “We welcome the fact that recently the government of Syria has lifted the state of emergency and announced it will carry out political reforms and start a national dialogue” said the Chinese Ambassador.

 Some delegations also questioned the peaceful nature of the protests.

 Russia’s Deputy Ambassador Alexander Pankin argued that while demonstrators had legitimate demands, casualties suffered by Syrian security forces were evidence of violent elements 

“It is increasingly clear that some of the demonstrations both in Syria and other countries hope that a deteriorating situation could force the international community to help them and take sides. Such approaches lead to a never ending cycle of violence. This is a type of invitation to civil war.” Pankin said, warning that any foreign interference could further destabilize the region.

 UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe told the Council he had received reports that Syrian security forces were carrying out military operations around the town of Daara and several other villages outside Damascus, where they were reportedly shelling civilian populated areas. 

 Pascoe said the al-Assad regime has made communication and access to affected areas exceedingly difficult but that most preliminary reports indicate the great majority of casualties are peaceful protesters and civilians.

 Pascoe said there had only been one recorded incident in which demonstrators seized weapons from an abandoned military checkpoint and returned fire, killing Syrian security forces.

 Latest reports from rights groups on the ground indicate more than 100 people have been killed since Friday, bringing the death toll from the start of protests in mid-March to well over 300.

 Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari defended his government’s actions, blaming armed extremists for the escalation in clashes and the death of several dozen members of the country’s security forces. 

 “Authorities have stopped many arms shipment that had been sent to those groups attempting to undermine stability and security in the country. It has been proven that those weapons were sent from overseas by extremist religious groups to their agents inside the country to kill innocent people , to burn private and public institutions and to cause chaos generally” he told the Security Council “It was thus natural under such circumstances for the state to undertake its fundamental responsibility, just like any other state facing such threats and dangers” 

 Jaafari argued that state department had been financially supporting Syrian opposition groups and their mouthpieces for years now, with the intent of taking down the Al Assad regime.

 The Syrian Ambassador also dismissed American accusations that Iran had a hand suppressing the protests, saying that such charges were worthy of a Hollywood film and in fact exposed the American administration’s intent on using the crisis to further its own foreign policy objectives against Tehran.

 The United Nations Human Rights Council is scheduled to convene this Friday to further discuss the situation.  

Latest WikiLeaks Dump Shows United Front Against Iran, Says Mideast Affairs Expert

By A.J. Swartwood

While the recent release of a cache of State Department cables “goes against the business of politics in the Gulf,” it did not disable or seriously jeopardize American diplomatic relations with Gulf States or alter positions toward Iran, but in fact clarified them, Kuwaiti Gulf Affairs and Nuclear Proliferation Expert Dr. Sami Alfaraj said Tuesday.

Alfaraj said that he was not “overwhelmed” with the release of the confidential documents and that there were in fact some positives that came out of the leaks. One of the benefits, he added, is that it clearly showed that many Gulf countries’ positions towards Iran and its nuclear proliferation were aligned.

“One element that really caught my attention was how different countries of the GCC as well as the region, whether in Jordan and Israel, were thinking the same way about how to best stop the Iranian nuclear program in its tracks,” said Alfaraj. As tensions with Iran continue to rise, many of those nations are wondering whether or not to continue pursuing diplomatic negotiations or “if war was to be contemplated.”

On the other side of the conflict, Alfaraj added, the release might well have a positive impact on Iran.
“The WikiLeaks have…influence on the Iranian strategic mind. It shows them the degree of animosity between Iran and its neighbors, that it is against what Mr. Ahmadinejad’s administration has been alluding to, that it is enjoying great status and is welcome everywhere.”

Alfaraj hopes that this increased transparency about the Middle Eastern world’s united opposition to Iran and its nuclear program will lead the more “reasonable” members of Iran’s ruling party to alter their increasingly standoffish behavior before military action is necessary.