Iranian President Ahmadinejad's trip to New York this week was marked by protests and opposition, yet many Americans saw an opportunity to promote dialogue and debate, writes Ida Sawyer "Iranian madman walks among us," read the headlines of the New York Daily News this week. The controversial Iranian leader's trip to New York for the annual meeting of the United Nations' 192-member General Assembly sparked an outburst of protest and debate. His speech at the UN on Tuesday, in which he denounced the United States and insisted that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear energy programme, came on the same day that the US House of Representatives passed a measure to impose tough new sanctions on Iran, including a ban on all imports and an expansion of curbs on exports to that country. Amid increasingly bellicose rhetoric towards Iran not only from the US government but from some European allies as well, many New Yorkers and leading political figures strongly objected to President Ahmadinejad's plans to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, the site of the 11 September terrorist attack. Last week, city officials denied the Iranian leader permission to visit Ground Zero on security grounds. Columbia University has also come under attack for inviting the Iranian president to speak as part of its World Leaders Forum, a University-wide initiative intended to further Columbia's longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate. "Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier, here for one reason -- to spread his hate- mongering vitriol on the world stage," said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who urged Columbia to withdraw its invitation to Ahmadinejad last week. In an apparent response to the outburst of protests in the New York press and from Jewish groups, presidential candidates, and city officials, Columbia's President Lee Bollinger introduced the event on Monday with a 10- minute, scathing attack on the Iranian president. He said the audience was "confront[ing] the mind of evil." He told Ahmadinejad: "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," and added, "you are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." While some students praised Bollinger's courage for challenging the Iranian leader on a number of his policies concerning women, human rights and Israel, many felt his harsh condemnation before President Ahmadinejad had even spoken spoiled the atmosphere for academic debate. "While Bollinger raised some interesting points that should have been addressed, he did so in a confrontational and unprofessional manner," said Laura Jones, a student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), which hosted the event. "He used language that was inappropriate both for the forum and for use with a head of state, and students were embarrassed." Many felt Bollinger's introduction was hypocritical: "How can you preach tolerance and then not display it yourself?" Jones asked. Ahmadinejad began his remarks by responding to Bollinger's attack: "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 judgement, 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." He then went on to address a number of the issues Bollinger raised, although he generally avoided giving direct and precise answers. More controversial were his claims that there are no homosexuals in Iran and that the Holocaust should be treated as a theory open to more research. He accused the US of supporting terrorist groups and challenged the more powerful nations' monopoly on knowledge. "If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power?" Ahmadinejad asked. He also took a more conciliatory approach, saying that with his visit to Ground Zero, he had wanted to show his sympathy for the victims of 9/11 and their families. He said Iranians are a peace-loving nation and that "we are friends of the Jews," but he would not answer directly whether his government seeks the destruction of Israel. Online tickets for the event, which was open to Columbia students and faculty and invited guests, were gone within 90 minutes. More than 600 people attended, while an estimated 2,000 students watched Ahmadinejad's speech on a huge video screen on Columbia's main campus. Crowds of students were gathered throughout the day to participate in and watch protests and counter-protests and a programme organised by students representing all political views. "I read in the media about riots and rallies outside and on campus," said Susanne Dyrchs, a German student at SIPA. "But I was there and it was really peaceful, with demonstrators for and against the event standing next to each other, talking to each other, and discussing the presentation. In my view, the event was a big success both for freedom of speech and for encouraging dialogue within our student body." In contrast to the US government's hardline stance, many Americans -- frustrated and often infuriated by the Iraq debacle -- are increasingly concerned about the dangerous potential of a military confrontation between the US and Iran. They believe efforts such as Columbia's World Leaders Forum that promote dialogue, debate, and public diplomacy may be crucial for easing tensions between the two nations which have not had formal diplomatic ties since students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. In the past year, advocacy organisations, grassroots groups, think tanks, academics, and ordinary citizens have joined in an effort to reveal a more complex and broader picture of US-Iran relations. A number of delegations of American citizens have traveled to Iran to affirm friendship and solidarity between American people and the people of Iran, and to block what they see as the Bush administration's march towards war. Carol Waser, a 70-year-old Washingtonian, travelled to Iran this past spring as part of a delegation sponsored by Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR). Waser was overwhelmed by the hospitality and warmth of the Iranians they met and surprised by their ability and willingness to make a distinction between the American government and the American people. "The message was the same from everybody," she recalled. "They were really glad we had come, they want peace, and they just want to live." Many delegates were taken aback by the dramatically different understandings Americans and Iranians have about the history between their two nations. "When Americans talk about our bad relationship with Iran," Waser said, "we talk about the bad relationship beginning with the taking of hostages in 1979," while Iranians remember the CIA's 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected leader, not to mention the United States' prior collusion with the British to maintain control over Iran's oil. "Our people need reminding about that," Waser said. FOR is a pacifist organisation that has worked for decades to promote peace with justice by facilitating direct dialogue and promoting people-to-people diplomacy. "For almost a quarter of a century, Iranians and Americans haven't had any relationship," explained Leila Zand, an Iranian-American who coordinates FOR's Iran programme. "Iranians know America as the Great Satan, while Americans know Iran as the axis of evil." The Peace and Security Initiative, based in Washington, is coordinating the efforts of organisations and individuals who are calling for dialogue and diplomacy with Iran. "By and large, the media isn't really asking critical questions," said Carah Ong, PSI's Iran coordinator. "The military and the administration are making claims that Iran is responsible for the IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in Iraq without providing any substantiated evidence." There has also been no examination about what the backlash would be on Iranian citizens if the US designates the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, Zand said, or about how this is contrary to US security interests. "The US media portrayal is extremely poor, one-sided, and very few dig down and try to uncover evidence behind what's going on," Ong said. "People seem more inclined to believe Iran is evil. I'm not an apologist for the Iranian regime, but the picture is more complicated than how it's being portrayed." While President Ahmadinejad's trip to New York this week was characterised by more of the same name-calling and saber rattling rhetoric in the American media, it also provokd discussion and debate -- something critics of current US policy towards Iran believe is desperately needed. "I'm very happy that Columbia decided to let President Ahmadinejad speak," said Clay Wiske, an economics student at Columbia. "As Americans, when we read about President Ahmadinejad we often forget that there are many people in the world who support him and think like him. It's necessary to be aware of these differences, especially as Iran has become such a major international issue."
