Write your abstract here.IRAN US RELATIONS. Part 1.
Amidst reports of fall in popularity for Bush
Administration, both at home and around the globe,the growing
tension between Iran and US assumes significance. In this context the
controversial visit by the President of IRAN,Mr Ahamedinejad to speak at Columbia University assumes importance. Before
going into the genesis of his visit , the type of reception he got and
the actual address he made to the University students , it is
worthwhile to refer briefly the biography of MrAhamedinejad. It may be recalled Mr Ahmedinejad
had defeated his rival in the run off to the President in 2005 when he
obtained almost double the number of votes secured by his opponent ,
Mr Ali Akbar Rafsanjani,
head of the Expediency Council contrary to the perception the fight
was ''very close''.Thus he assumed office as the first non-cleric
President in the history of the last 24 years to lead Iran . In
the Islamic Republic of IRAN the political
power is vested with a
religious head called the Spiritual Guide selected by an Assembly
of Experts.Next to him comes the President holding the power to head
the state and also executive branch. The constitution of IRAN as
amended in 1989 vests the power to the President to select the
Council of Ministers, Ambassadors, and Governors for the provinces
but the SPIRITUAL Guide retains the control of foreign policy,
armed forces,
nuclear policy and main economic policies. Mr Ayatollah Khomeini took over as Spiritual Guide in June 1989.Mr Ahmedinejad
represent the younger generation and the invasion of Iran triggered
by a three- front surprise attack by IRAQ, lasted nearly 8 years
resulting in a casualty of about 30,000 (on their side )in a
population of about 60 Million. These were his
experiences in the formative period of his taking over as President. A
cease fire was ordered by a UN Resolution in 1988 , but it
failed to address the outstanding issues.Reports of American
involvement with Iraq during the war fuelled the anger of Iranians
towards United States. Mr Ahmedinejad was seen as a simple man but by his populist measures after his taking
over, brought him esteem and affection from the common folk compared to
Rafsanjani who had amassed huge wealth during his period.
Now elaborating
the background of the President''s visit, he was officially invited by
the President of Columbia University to speak at ''A QUESTION AND
ANSWER
SESSION ''from the Faculty and Students as part of the
WORLD Leaders Forum on his way to New York where he was scheduled
to address the United Nations Assembly. In spite of wide spread
(including Jewish groups)) protests and pressure from media hype to
prevent Mr Ahmedinejad
from expressing his views which were labelled as '' a hate mongering
by a vitriol in the world stage'''', the session continued as
scheduled,.The decision to schedule and conduct such a session was
justified in the words of Mr Bollinger,
the President of the COLUMBIA&nbs"part of a long standing
tradition of this University to serve as a ''MAJOR STADIUM for ROBUST
DEBATE'' However, the events which actually happened subsequently reflect a scene quite contrary to these expectations. Barely before the session started the introductory speech from the President of the Columbia University welcoming Ahmedinejad
to speak, hardly met even minimum level of decent behaviour ,as per
reports appearing in the press.To be brief, he (the President)was
called as "resembling a petty and cruel dictator" which remark was
widely condemned by Iranians at all levels and was seen as "shameful"
,. They treated his sardonic comments as an insult in scholarly
atmosphere to a President of a country with a recorded history of
7000 years civilisation and culture.The rudeness exhibited was seen
as fuelling the image of United States as a bully.In spite of the offending opening remarks from Mr Bollinger, Ahmedinejad
who at first smiled , pointed out the uncivil behaviour and sat
through the whole session . Although he answered most of the
questions raised in his own manner, it cannot be concluded that all
his replies were straight and really answered the specific points
raised mainly due to difference in perception of the questioner and
the person answering it. For example the range of questions covered
starting from the crackdown by Iran military of scholars and academics,
the execution of innocent people (quoting Amnesty International.) ,his
views on Holocast
referring his state television speech in 2005 denying the
events , support and funding of catalogued terrorist
organisations who are responsible for disruption of the restoration
of peace and tranquility in Middle East.. etc etc He was
also heckled for his divergent views about the people responsible
for9/11 attack on US.,. his rhetoric that Israel will be destroyed and
removed from the map.., Iran''s plan to make nuclear weapons etc etc
Referring to the nuclear weapon issue he denied that IRAN had
any hand in doing things secretly and quoting the Bylaws of the IAEA
which specifically declares the right by all member countries to carry
on the nuclear fuel programme . He justified that all pursuits being
carried on this field are for peaceful purposes only like energy
and IRAN was fully cooperating with International Body IAEA in inspection etc
x The above is a short summary of stories picked from US media like USA Today etc on the subjectKonthai
More reviews about the USA Today