"Let men be wise by instinct if they can, but when this fails be wise by good advice." -Sophocles

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Ahmadinejad Cannot be Denied Ground Zero Visit

Americans are up in arms over the much-publicized proposed visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.

The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.

Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:
"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.

Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.

A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.

Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.

It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.

I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.

This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.

Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.

Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."

Technorati Tags:


4 comments:

Davosaurus Rex said...

What a shame that some would want to halt the opportunity to share our values with an enemy. Every chance to build relations counts. Let the Golden Rule be the rule. While Ahmadinejad may deserve the worst, I hope his heart finds the opportunity to appreciate American soil while he is on it. At least let him feel what we are willing to fight for. And if he is past feeling, let him see it. Regardless, he will see America prevail in the end.

Plus, one of the basic rules of winning a negotiation requires that every now and then you must play a nice card, regardless of the enemy’s strategy. Let this play be a nice card.

As stated in the article, it is our responsibility to be Ahmadinejad's host. Therefore, we should do our best, even if only for American self-respect. Arguably, being our best is the greatest way to respect the Americans that died on September 11th.

The opposing political comments to Ahmadinejad’s visit could have addressed the stated concerns more responsibly. Clearly, these comments were strategically said behind the protection of knowing that our hospitality would not be halted. The politician's should have risen to the opportunity to show grace.

Boy said...

Maybe he just wanted to pay his respects?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1544955.stm

I know, I know, it's a crazy thought, but there are people in Iran who deplored the September 11th attacks, and I think Ahmedinejad was one of them. He's not as hardline as the Ayatollah Khomeni for a start, and thanks to Iran's political structure he has a very thin line to walk if he wishes to be a moderate in power.

It would be easy for him to be a blow-hard, knowing that America is unwilling or even unable to attack, he could talk up Islamic terrorism against US forces in Iraq, instead he denies having any involvement. He could brag of Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons, instead he brags of Iran's progress in civilian nuclear technology whilst denying any wish for weapons.

Ahmedinejad realises he is on a knife-edge, and whilst it is still to be seen which side he would like to stand it would be rash to assign him to one or another, _especially_ since tarring him as a supporter of terrorism, as the leader of a rogue state, will only encourage him in thinking that that role is the only one left open to him.

O-Be-Wise said...

Well stated, Dave and boy.

Boy, while it is "possible" that Ahmadinejad was sincere in wanting to pay respects, there are a number of ways he could have shown his commitment to oppose terrorism and this was not one of them. When Iranian munitions are no loner detonating and killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have shown that he can choose a path other than terror. When he apologizes for participating in the Embassy takeover in Tehran in 1979 and speaks out against hostage taking, suicide bombings, and funding Hezbollah, then he will be on a path away from his leadership role of a rogue state. It is not "tarring" to list Ahmadinejad's resume. His career as a fomenter and supporter of terrorism is likely to lead to a forced early retirement at the hands of Western militaries unwilling to risk pondering where a nuclear Iran might strike.

Dave, your analysis was spot on. We accepted the role of UN host, and providing American hospitality as well as solid protection demonstrates to the world that we keep our commitments and are not to be trifled with lightly.

The political firestorm over this issue was a facade. He ultimately did not visit the site, but only because he chose not to. NYPD objections would not have overruled Secret Service protocol and duty to transport him wherever and whenever he would have chosen to go to Ground Zero.

Thanks for your comments, both of you.

Boy said...

O-be, please don't fall into the trap of thinking that something is true because you want it to be. For your point about Iranian munitions, we Brits made a bit of a gaffe when we first accused the Iranians of providing EFPs, before discovering that the technology in them was actually British, probably stolen. The US left upon our initial, flawed, intel to accuse Iran of cross-border weapons transfers. Now I don't doubt that members of the Revolutionary Guard are in Iraq working against Allied forces, but as to whether they are doing this as representatives of Iranian policy is a vastly different question. I believe they are merely supporting the jihad, like many of the other foreign insurgents. Just because Osama bin Laden is Saudi, that doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is anti-US, does it?

The US embassy in Tehran was invaded by students, not soldiers. Iran has nothing to apologise for. He will not speak out against hostage taking, bombings or funding terrorists any more than the US will speak out against rendition, bombings or funding rebels. I think Ahmedinejad is puzzled by America's hypocrisy in this field, and he is sure enough of his support to press the points peacefully, despite the amount of rhetoric used on both sides. And whilst it may not be tarring his name to list previous things Iran has done wrong and which he has failed to put right, I find it reckless to pursue so aggressively a man in such a tight position, _especially_ when the nation accusing him has done the exact same things in other situations. I am not saying anything is right or wrong here, I'm just stating the facts.