Talks should promote dialogue, not boycotts
By Negar Tehrani
Sept. 29, 2009 9:46 p.m.
On Sept. 23, protesters surrounded the United Nations to denounce appearances made at the General Assembly by Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Libyan leader, Moammar Gadhafi.
Disapproval of the decision to allow Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi to speak was not limited to U.N. headquarters in New York. A short walk along Westwood Boulevard, home to many Iranian stores and restaurants, revealed conversations between Iranian shopkeepers and customers, who also criticized the presence of the two speakers at the U.N.
Some people joked that the two speakers should have been allotted a time slot close to midnight when no one would have to hear them speak, while others more seriously said that Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi should not have been invited to speak at all.
Although the anger and disappointment expressed is understandable and sentiments that I, as an Iranian Jew, initially held, we should realize that allowing controversial world leaders like Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi to speak at the U.N. is a necessary step toward handling international conflicts. It is also proof, for future reference, of our determination to work with such nations.
An obstacle in dealing with world crises arises when countries are not willing to listen to dangerous heads of state but insist that they be dealt with immediately. Nations criticize President Barack Obama for wanting to engage in open talks with such leaders, especially Ahmadinejad, who continues to deny the existence of the Holocaust during the particularly sensitive time of the Jewish high holidays.
In fact, in an already near-empty room in which countries such as Israel boycotted the Iranian president, Canada walked out during the speech as a sign of protest. Some Americans even condemned Obama during the 2008 elections for wanting to engage in such talks, saying that even acknowledging these leaders would be a sign of negotiating with terrorists.
But engaging openly in talks, an action made possible by allowing all world leaders to speak at the U.N., should not be equated with compromise.
Rather, by allowing all world leaders to speak, nations determined to prevent and put a stop to international disputes afford themselves the opportunity by showing their willingness to listen.
“I think we should let leaders like Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi speak at the U.N. because silencing someone doesn’t resolve anything, it just covers it up,” fourth-year, political science student Neema Farhang said. “Although dictators like Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi have their ideologies set in stone, we can learn from their words. Having them come in front of the U.N. council could hopefully lead to negotiations and better understanding of one another.”
Learning to understand these leaders is not just important for world governments, but also for the people who live in nations run by those governments. Listening to a world leader speak firsthand without having to rely on an intermediary party to relay the information allows these global issues to become more salient to us.
Hearing about what someone is doing from a media source is not the same as hearing or seeing the person for ourselves. Although some media sources maintain objectivity when reporting international issues, others choose to emphasize some issues more than others. This influences the public according to their own standards of what is significant.
“It makes a huge difference seeing it for yourself rather than listening to a newscaster tell you what is being done over in another country,” fourth-year architectural studies and African studies student Nasra Nimaga said. “People should have a better opportunity to see if they should take action or not and make decisions for themselves.”
Furthermore, governments, such as the democratic one we have, often take action based on the opinions of their constituents.
Thus, the more constituencies understand an international leader through speeches made in the U.N., the better they can guide their governments in dealing with these leaders.
Even if an international leader purposefully attempts to mislead people in their speeches, everyone should at least have the opportunity to judge the truth or falsity of those speeches for themselves.
Listening to other countries and talking with them openly can help prevent tempers from flaring later.
“Let’s just hope everyone keeps their cool, and shoes don’t start flying across the U.N. meeting room,” Farhang said.
And if it’s not shoes flying, hopefully peaceful talks will keep other forms of military offensive from flying, too.
E-mail Tehrani at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].
