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: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran

McCain's League Proposal is "Super"

Is it just me, or do some of you also think of the Justice League of America comics whenever you hear or read references to the League of Nations or any other phrase using the word “league?” Even with a graduate degree in history the word “league” conjures more images of Superman and his trusted allied superheroes than Woodrow Wilson. How fitting then, that John McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution yesterday filled my mind with images of a League of Democracies, with America standing as Superman surrounded by legions of valuable allies each with a unique contribution to offer to the joint effort against tyranny and evil. McCain, of course, was not speaking on the virtues of comic book superheroes to the august members of the Hoover Institution. Yet the comparison between the Justice League and McCain’s proposed League of Democracies seems just as valid and exciting now after absorbing the entire speech and appreciating its greatness.

John McCain’s poll numbers are steadily improving and the gap between current GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani and McCain is shrinking. Over the past two weeks, McCain has been more aggressive in his campaigning and has impressed potential voters. After reading McCain’s address to the Hoover Institution, it is easy to see why his appeal appears to be growing. Whether the Senator writes his own speeches (which is entirely possible given his love of history and writing) or has employed a speechwriter remains to be seen, but in either case, his Hoover speech was pleasantly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a Hill” tribute to America’s past and future greatness. That speech, Reagan’s last as President, was an eloquent clarion call for Americans to live up to America’s potential and set a standard that will encourage other peoples to embrace freedom and democracy. McCain’s Hoover Institution speech went a step further, challenging the free world to form a League of Democracies to which all nations who value democracy and self-determination can turn for protection and support of common interests.

Initial reports of McCain’s speech gave some the impression that his proposal for a League of Democracies was merely an idealistic 21st century rehash of Woodrow Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations, but when one examines carefully McCain’s reasoning and the global role he foresees for a League of Democracies, the differences between his proposal and Wilson’s become clear. Whereas Wilson’s League of Nations was a fractured collection of nations desperate to avoid any future wars, McCain’s proposal offers substantial advantages to members based on their commitment to democracy and freedom, and subsequently produces incentives for non-members to make changes necessary for inclusion. The entire speech can be found at National Review Online , but the following excerpt paints a striking portrait of the world envisioned by McCain:

If we strike this new bargain and renew our transatlantic solidarity, I believe we must then take the next step and expand the circle of our democratic community. As we speak, American soldiers are serving in Afghanistan alongside British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers from the NATO alliance. They are also serving alongside forces from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea —all democratic allies or close partners of the United States. But they are not all part of a common structure. They don't work together systematically or meet regularly to develop diplomatic and economic strategies to meet their common problems. The 21st century world no longer divides neatly into geographic regions. Organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront.

The NATO alliance has begun to deal with this gap by promoting global partnerships between current members of the alliance and the other great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision.

While McCain may publicly insist that a League of Democracies would not supplant the UN, it is not difficult to imagine the effect such a League would have on the viability of the already declining UN. Yesterday, John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who is a campaign consultant for Duncan Hunter, published a preview of McCain’s speech and made the astute observation that the League of Democracies would grow in importance and power to the point that all relevant issues would naturally be addressed by it, rather than the UN. Hawkins, no fan of the UN, pointed out to his readers that McCain’s League is a good idea precisely because it would ultimately create an avenue for the U.S. to “get out of the United Nations.”

I agree with Hawkins that McCain’s League would reduce the UN to utter irrelevance, and if that were the only reason to support it, that would still be sufficient for me. However, considering McCain’s speech as a whole, I see something worthy of serious consideration and implementation, particularly as it applies to combating the radical ideologies that breed terrorism. McCain distills the battle we face down to two sides, with no middle ground, invoking James Madison to make his case:

Almost two centuries ago James Madison declared that the great struggle of the Epoch' was between liberty and despotism.' Many thought that this struggle ended with the Cold War, but it didn't. It took on new guises, such as the modern terrorist network, an enemy of progress that has turned our technological advances to its own use, and in rulers trying to rebuild 19th-century autocracies in a 21st century world. Today the talk is of the war on terror, a war in which we must succeed. But the war on terror cannot be the only organizing principle of American foreign policy. International terrorists capable of inflicting mass destruction are a new phenomenon. But what they seek and what they stand for are as old as time. They comprise part of worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism. Upon the outcome of that struggle depend our security, our prosperity, and our democratic way of life.

Uniting the world’s democracies into a global entity seeking to preserve and promote democracy invokes another Reagan comparison, a worldwide call to “tear down this wall” that exists in too many nations between oppressive governments and their freedom seeking peoples. Whether or not one supports McCain the candidate, his League of Democracies is worthy of support from conservatives, who despise the UN and repressive systems of government, as well as liberals who embrace international collaboration and promote human rights. I recommend that readers visit NRO and read McCain’s masterful speech in its entirety.