Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Caesar Zvayi
3 October 2007
opinion
Harare — MANY who have been socialised into believing the United States is the epitome of all freedoms and democracy would be shocked by the events that occurred on the sidelines of the just-ended 62nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The most blatant, of course, was the total black-out by US media of President Mugabe's address to the General Assembly that tore into US President George Walker Bush, his legacy of subversion and terror and his country's history of destabilisation.
Yet only a day earlier, the same channels had carried Bush's diatribes against Zimbabwe with glee. The media embargo tore to shreds the myth of media freedom as someone in the White House had apparently sanctioned the blackout, so much for the First Amendment.
The other incident involved Iranian leader Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Suffice to say in the end the two leaders had the last laugh.
One of the US' leading institutions, Columbia University, invited Mr Ahmadinejad to speak at a World Leaders' Forum on September 24, only to have the university president, one Lee Bollinger, issue a torrent of insults against the Iranian leader and his people, simply because they differ with the Bush administration.
What was interesting about the whole spectacle was that Bollinger had initially defended his decision to invite Mr Ahmadinejad in the face of sustained criticism from the Bush administration and rightwing American media which called him (Bollinger) "a terrorist-coddling liberal egghead" whose extension of the invitation was "a monument to everything wrong in American academia".
In defending his decision, Bollinger cited the First Amendment to the American constitution that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Said Bollinger: "It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honour the dishonourable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."
Bollinger was; however, to do a shameful somersault a few hours later after succumbing to the barrage of criticism as he sought to assuage the acerbic US media.
In his introductory speech, Bollinger called the Iranian leader a "petty and cruel dictator", questioning his stance on the Holocaust and human rights record. And voila! Bollinger was transformed from villain to hero courtesy of a few self-serving syllables.
Said Bollinger, in part: "Frankly, and in all candour, Mr President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions, but your avoiding them will itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterises so much of what you say and do. I feel all the weight of the modern civilised world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better."
Bollinger berated Mr Ahmadinejad for his stance on Israel without questioning his own government's position on Palestine. He insulted the Iranian leader on his stance on homosexuality without bothering to situate that stance within Iran's Islamic religion and culture, and the fact that homosexuality is simply an unnatural act that can never find purchase in any society that values God.
Bollinger took offence with Mr Ahmadinejad's stance on the Holocaust without questioning why the West plays "Jews as the great victims" and why they have not even considered reparations for Africa that they pillaged from slavery, through colonialism, to the present era of neo-colonialism.
But in the end, the Iranian leader, a holder of a doctorate in transportation engineering who does two-hour sessions with undergraduates in his country every week, put the pseudo US academic in his place with the following response before the start of his incisive exchange with students.
"In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty."
The progressive world agreed, with many observers saying Bollinger's attack had gone too far as it had taken on a personal dimension in what was supposed to be a scholarly exchange between the Iranian leader and Columbia students. Yet many others said it compromised academic freedom and the quest for greater knowledge and understanding.
Columbia's own academic staff, among them Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies said Bollinger's comments were very harsh and bordered on "Islamophobia".
"Inviting him (Mr Ahmadinejad) and then turning around and alienating and insulting an entire nation whose representative this man happens to be is simply inappropriate," Dabashi was quoted as saying.
In response to Bollinger's claims about Iran's intolerance for homosexuality, the Iranian leader calmly said unlike the US, Iran did not have such perversion, and he (Mr Ahmadinejad) was hearing it for the first time that he was "intolerant" to non-existent homosexuals.
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this," said Mr Ahmadinejad
The clincher was the Iranian leader's response to Bollinger's hysterics over the Holocaust where he said, among other things, as academics Bollinger and his staff should never close the lid on anything even a historical thing, as that is the basis of academic enquiry.
In the end, it was Bollinger who was left with egg on his face after the Iranian leader, who smiled throughout Bollinger's shameful tirade, taught the "esteemed American academic" the basics of intellectual freedom, etiquette and discourse, giving scholarly and thought-provoking responses to each hysterical allegation.
Mr Ahmadinejad criticised Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, questioned and called for research on the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, expressed his sympathy for the families of the victims of the 9/11 bombings, asked who instigated the attacks, reiterated Iran's right to nuclear energy, criticised the United Nations sanctions on his country, and US policy in the Middle East.
But the US media was nonplussed as it tore into the Iranian leader, calling him all sorts of names. While the Iranian leader humbled his hosts, the childishness with which the Bush administration, the US media and Columbia University handled a purely academic exercise should reveal to all that the myth of the so-called "Free World" is just that -- a myth.
Some wondered why Bollinger invited the Iranian leader to speak ostensibly to promote dialogue, only to turn around and insult him, but the answer is simple: Bollinger was simply serving the interests of his masters, either of his own volition or under duress.
The US media, in lampooning the Iranian leader, was simply toeing the White House line.
It is important to note that a week earlier, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton had called for the deposition of the Iranian leader by force, saying all other means, including using the UN, had failed. And this from a country that purports to be the defender of the noble values of democracy, freedom and good governance!
Said Bolton to the British newspaper the Daily Mail: ". . . our options may be down to regime change or the use of force. Once upon a time we knew how to do clandestine regime change. We need to reacquire that capability."
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
