President of Iran Visits U.S.: The Controversies that Follow

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad(pictured below), arrived in the United States over the weekend, scheduled to attend the United Nations General Assembly, and also to speak at an open forum at Columbia University. In his speech on Sunday, Ahmadinejad addressed issues regarding Iran’s war policies, allegations of supplying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Iraq, and the overall treatment of the citizens of Iran. The arrival of Ahmadinejad in the U.S. caused many controversies centered on the Iranian President’s reputation of being a “cruel dictator” and advocate of war. His speech was well thought out but seemed like a form of propaganda to get the American public and the U.N. to view Iran less negatively. In an interview, the president of Iran emphasized Iran’s “peaceful nature”. Whether or not this attempt at gaining a more positive global image will help Iran’s standing in the U.N. is still to be determined.

In this author’s blog called "Iranian President at Columbia University", she carefully dissected each of the controversies the media has focused on regarding Ahmadinejad and voiced some alternative views about his comments. I found many of her arguments to be similar to my own beliefs, such as this one, “I think it is important for promoting peace in the world for all sides to put aside biases and attempt to understand each other”. Furthering opportunities, (i.e. through public forums) to educate one another is essential to developing understanding. However, it does seem like the President of Iran may not have been revealing the whole truth and using his appearances in the media to make Iran look more “neutral” than they may really be, given his more violent history. It seems like the perfect opportunity to “better his image” right before he goes to speak in front of the U.N. General Assembly.
Also, in response to the comment “there is Iranian aid to insurgents, but it might be through nongovernmental groups or through paramilitary groups with governmental connections.” This statement may be true; however, Ahmadinejad never specifically denied that his government did not supply WMD’s to Iraq, nor did he mention doing anything to stop these non-governmental groups from aiding Iraq. This seems like it should be a concern for Iran’s safety as well as the U.S.

In another author’s blog titled "American Inhospitality", I aimed to address some of the questions he posed about the speech. The authors commented on a few of the major topics involved in the controversy, such as “was an this really an open forum for thought and discussion, when the tone and the introduction was setup in such a way that creates an atmosphere of unwelcome and inhospitality?” To this, I respond by saying that the American media has negatively portrayed Iran for many years; thus, some feeling of being “unwelcome” had to have been expected. Although, I do agree that the reaction to the Iranian president’s arrival into the U.S. was rather harsh. Pictured, defending himself in an interview to the left. Perhaps, if Ahmadinejad had answered some of the questions more directly, the hostility shown towards him may have decreased. Ahmadinejad stated that he wanted to have the opportunity to provide the American people with “correct and clear” information. To me, it seemed like many of his responses could have been a kind of propaganda to help Iran’s image rather than ideas to discuss.

"Darfur Day": A Demand for More Peace in Sudan

In a global attempt to once again raise awareness for the crisis in Darfur, organizations, human rights groups and individuals rallied together at various demonstrations around the world on September 16th, 2007. The rallies were directed at the United Nations leaders, who will be meeting in about two weeks. The demonstrations had enormous support including that of various celebrities like actor Matt Damon and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, helping to provide the attention in the media. Passionate participants in the rally held signs that read "Stop Genocide In Darfur" and others pleading similar requests(as pictured, right). Re-asserting the U.N. about Sudan in such a public manner shows the urgency for a solution; though, the answer is neither obvious nor easy.

The problems in Darfur have not been a recent development. In fact, the U.N. proposed a relief plan two years ago in hopes of easing some the tensions and ceasing the fighting taking place. Over the past several years hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions of people have been violently forced from their homes due to the fighting between rebels. The on-going delay of humanitarian efforts is frustrating to the human rights activists that gathered on Sunday. It seems that many peacekeeping solutions have been thrust upon western Sudan, yet they have had little to no impact on the situation. Why is this so? Reports indicate that over the last couple of years, the violence in the "camps for displaced people" has increased dramatically, while the number of people fleeing to the camps due to outside violence has also increased. It has been hard for peacekeepers to keep up with the chaos. Additionally, this violence is making the camps so dangerous that "humanitarian activities have been delayed" due to the insecure nature of the camps' environment. Small peacekeeping groups have attempted to enter into Darfur and stop, or at least control, some of the chaos, but have not been as successful as the U.N. would have hoped. However, an "attempt" by the U.N. is not satisfaction enough for the victims still suffering in Sudan or for the activists protesting the war, which they clearly demonstrated at the rallies. That is not to say that the U.N. is not being proactive about the situation, but rather, there is more that can and should be done.
The message in Sunday's worldwide protest was "cease fire now" and implement a global peacekeeping intervention. The rally leaders are pressing the U.N. for larger, immediate action and to realize what seems to be an "international failure" in stopping the genocide and general suffering taking place in Darfur. The photo to the left shows demonstrators from London with blindfolds, indicating "the communities failure to act" since the U.N. promised to implement the peacekeeping teams in Sudan. Perhaps the problem has been that the peacekeeping activities do not have enough man-power or support. With such devastating events and active protests, this issue should be one of the main topics of discussion in the next meeting of the U.N.

In an interview today, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed his concern, after visiting camps, for the recent increase in violence in western Sudan, specifically referring to the attacks last month in Adilla, South Darfur, Wad Banda and in the neighboring Kordofan region. Although, most world leaders are trying to stay positive about the situation, they are also reminded of their failed attempts of getting the situation under control by the continuous violence and hundreds of deaths each month. Global awareness, much like the rally that took place yesterday, serve as another reminder that the fight to save Darfur is not one that should be forgotten about any time soon.