http://www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newsroom/specialreports_main en USC Center on Public Diplomacy Copyright 2008 2008-10-08T17:26:00-08:00 The overall narrative for these Olympics seems somewhat ambivalent: “they were a rousing success, but...” But they could only take place in a totalitarian country where the government can direct resources at will towards any national project. But the protest zones were left empty and some of those wanting to protest were arrested after they filed their paperwork. But…But…But… These codas marring an otherwise perfect Olympic performance may trouble a few perfection-seeking souls in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) but the overall public diplomacy impact of China’s Olympics seems to have been positive. International audiences did not learn much more beyond what they already knew about issues most sensitive to the CCP, particularly the Tibet situation: namely, that it is bad, and that China should “Free Tibet,” but quite why or how remained unclear through most of the international press’ reporting. However, these same audiences learned a lot more about the rest of China from a variety of trusted and familiar sources: local news anchors, bloggers, newspaper writers, and national news reporters. They saw snippets on unusual Chinese food and heard about amazing cultural sites. They were bombarded with images of a clean and modern Beijing, and they saw a world-class event pulled off without a hitch. This CPD Media Monitor followed the media coverage surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China from April to September 2008. The Monitor sought to highlight the narrative differences between the English-language Chinese press, particularly the government run news outlet Xinhua, and the international English-language press. By providing a comparison between the official Chinese Olympic narrative and the international media’s Olympic narrative, the Beijing Olympics Media Monitor provided a look at China’s effort at public diplomacy through the Olympics. Sometimes the local coverage and the international coverage converged, as it frequently did on stories about the spectacle of the Olympics and the rich culture of China, and at times the coverage diverged, particularly on issues related to human rights and media openness. The Beijing Olympics Media Monitor focused on five main areas of interest: Human Rights Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Environmental Issues Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Culture Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Chinese Power Local News Coverage / International News Coverage; Media Local News Coverage / International News Coverage. Each of these subjects saw narratives emerge in the international press that were both favorable to and highly critical of China. The official Chinese press, on the other hand, always sought to put the best spin possible on any given issue. Through the course of the coverage it seemed clear that the strict narrative of the Chinese government would not be the story told by the international press regardless of how much the government tried to control press access to locations, the internet, or even at times their equipment. Whether or not the Chinese government’s narrative was the one the world heard seems, ultimately, to have mattered very little because at the end of the 2008 Olympic season the world’s knowledge of China had grown exponentially. For the entire month of August it seemed that every subject imaginable could be tied to the Olympic Games and to China. Energy issues, algae blooms, air pollution, Coca-Cola, Darfur, doping, and pandas all found their way into Olympic coverage and all helped to tell the story of an emerging world power with a lot of problems and a great deal of clout. More than ever before China was on everyone’s mind. The sheer volume and variety of coverage, from long form news pieces on television and radio, to commercials using Chinese images to sell products to Westerners, make it impossible to say one story or one image won the day. In the run up to the Games the people of the world were introduced to China as a complex country. They heard about its human rights abuses, and its modern cities; they read about its environmental problems, and its many different minorities; they saw images of extraordinary wealth and simple rural life. Through the broad ranging media coverage of the 2008 Olympic Games, China became much more than pandas, ping-pong, and the Great Wall. It became a real place, with real problems and real people. The story that emerged in Chinese media of a modern, vibrant, growing, culturally rich nation was echoed by the international media. Western news sources, particularly American broadcaster NBC noted China’s modernity, its development over the past thirty years, and the rich cultural tapestry of an ancient land. However, while the international press rarely missed an opportunity to report on issues of restricted protest rights, limited media access, and anything having to do with Tibet, the official Chinese press unfailingly down-played these difficult issues, vilified the subjects of such articles, or simply ignored the stories. Nevertheless, the positive cultural narrative assiduously fostered by official Chinese media helped soften the truthful but harsh critiques of its Olympic policies and practices and may have created a context to better understand China, its people, and its policies. It is this very notion of improving cultural understanding that successful public diplomacy is all about. If China managed to facilitate a greater appreciation of its complex identity during the Olympics that is independent of any particular domestic or foreign policy practice, then it has arguably laid the foundation for greater public acceptance of Chinese policies in the future. Selection of media coverage appears below in categories. Regions, Asia-Pacific, Topics, Cultural Diplomacy, Sports only take place in a totalitarian country where the government can direct resources at will towards any national project. But the protest zones were left empty and some of those wanting to protest were arrested after they filed their paperwork. But…But…But…


These codas marring an otherwise perfect Olympic performance may trouble a few perfection-seeking souls in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) but the overall public diplomacy impact of China’s Olympics seems to have been positive. International audiences did not learn much more beyond what they already knew about issues most sensitive to the CCP, particularly the Tibet situation: namely, that it is bad, and that China should “Free Tibet,” but quite why or how remained unclear through most of the international press’ reporting. However, these same audiences learned a lot more about the rest of China from a variety of trusted and familiar sources: local news anchors, bloggers, newspaper writers, and national news reporters. They saw snippets on unusual Chinese food and heard about amazing cultural sites. They were bombarded with images of a clean and modern Beijing, and they saw a world-class event pulled off without a hitch.


This CPD Media Monitor followed the media coverage surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China from April to September 2008. The Monitor sought to highlight the narrative differences between the English-language Chinese press, particularly the government run news outlet Xinhua, and the international English-language press. By providing a comparison between the official Chinese Olympic narrative and the international media’s Olympic narrative, the Beijing Olympics Media Monitor provided a look at China’s effort at public diplomacy through the Olympics. Sometimes the local coverage and the international coverage converged, as it frequently did on stories about the spectacle of the Olympics and the rich culture of China, and at times the coverage diverged, particularly on issues related to human rights and media openness.


The Beijing Olympics Media Monitor focused on five main areas of interest:
Human Rights Local News Coverage / International News Coverage;
Environmental Issues Local News Coverage / International News Coverage;
Culture Local News Coverage / International News Coverage;
Chinese Power Local News Coverage / International News Coverage;
Media Local News Coverage / International News Coverage.

Each of these subjects saw narratives emerge in the international press that were both favorable to and highly critical of China. The official Chinese press, on the other hand, always sought to put the best spin possible on any given issue. Through the course of the coverage it seemed clear that the strict narrative of the Chinese government would not be the story told by the international press regardless of how much the government tried to control press access to locations, the internet, or even at times their equipment. Whether or not the Chinese government’s narrative was the one the world heard seems, ultimately, to have mattered very little because at the end of the 2008 Olympic season the world’s knowledge of China had grown exponentially.


For the entire month of August it seemed that every subject imaginable could be tied to the Olympic Games and to China. Energy issues, algae blooms, air pollution, Coca-Cola, Darfur, doping, and pandas all found their way into Olympic coverage and all helped to tell the story of an emerging world power with a lot of problems and a great deal of clout. More than ever before China was on everyone’s mind. The sheer volume and variety of coverage, from long form news pieces on television and radio, to commercials using Chinese images to sell products to Westerners, make it impossible to say one story or one image won the day. In the run up to the Games the people of the world were introduced to China as a complex country. They heard about its human rights abuses, and its modern cities; they read about its environmental problems, and its many different minorities; they saw images of extraordinary wealth and simple rural life.


Through the broad ranging media coverage of the 2008 Olympic Games, China became much more than pandas, ping-pong, and the Great Wall. It became a real place, with real problems and real people. The story that emerged in Chinese media of a modern, vibrant, growing, culturally rich nation was echoed by the international media. Western news sources, particularly American broadcaster NBC noted China’s modernity, its development over the past thirty years, and the rich cultural tapestry of an ancient land. However, while the international press rarely missed an opportunity to report on issues of restricted protest rights, limited media access, and anything having to do with Tibet, the official Chinese press unfailingly down-played these difficult issues, vilified the subjects of such articles, or simply ignored the stories.


Nevertheless, the positive cultural narrative assiduously fostered by official Chinese media helped soften the truthful but harsh critiques of its Olympic policies and practices and may have created a context to better understand China, its people, and its policies. It is this very notion of improving cultural understanding that successful public diplomacy is all about. If China managed to facilitate a greater appreciation of its complex identity during the Olympics that is independent of any particular domestic or foreign policy practice, then it has arguably laid the foundation for greater public acceptance of Chinese policies in the future.



Selection of media coverage appears below in categories.]]> 2008-10-08T17:26:00-08:00 Alhurra – “The Free One” – is a U.S. government-funded broadcaster available throughout the Middle East. Established in 2004, Alhurra, along with its FM radio counterpart, Radio Sawa (launched in 2002), represent America’s largest commitment to public diplomacy in the region. Over the last six years, the U.S. government has invested just under $500 million dollars in the two broadcasters. Overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent agency reporting directly to Congress, Alhurra’s mission is to promote freedom and democracy in the region through the accurate and objective representation of U.S. policies. Broadcasting from Springfield, Virginia, the station’s programming includes a mix of traditional newscasting, cultural programming, political talk shows, documentaries, as well as some American entertainment programming dubbed into Arabic. Since its inception, Alhurra has attracted controversy. In 2006, the United States General Accountability Office issued a report documenting the many challenges facing Alhurra and Radio Sawa, notably poor management and weak performance. In March 2007, Alhurra gained significant media and public attention when Joel Mowbray, a conservative syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder and a frequent contributor to the National Review, published a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal accusing the channel of providing “platforms to Holocaust deniers and Islamic terrorists.” In these articles, Mowbray revealed that Alhurra had aired the entirety of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s December 7, 2006 speech, an explicit violation of Alhurra’s Journalistic Code of Ethics and its Congressional mandate, and that they provided extensive and deferential coverage of a Holocaust denial conference held in Tehran in December 2006. In May 2007, Congress held hearings to further examine the accusations. In a statement before Congress, Alhurra executive, Joaquin F. Blaya, acknowledged the channel’s mistakes and assured his audience that corrective measures had been taken and that terrorists and Holocaust deniers would never again use the channel as a platform. In addition to this political scrutiny, Alhurra has also faced criticism from media scholars and practitioners. Professor Shibley Telhami argues that Alhurra’s actual influence on public opinion in the region is minute given its relatively small audience share. Moreover, in the face of a growing number of Middle Eastern satellite news channels (e.g., Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and Al Manar, as well as other broadcasters funded by Western governments such as the UK’s BBC Arabic TV), former deputy director of the Voice of America Alan L. Heil argues that the likelihood of Alhurra gaining any ground against its more respected competitors is highly improbable. Arab media expert, Marc Lynch, suggests that Alhurra’s problems boil down to the impossible balance required to appease its Congressional critics while also providing coverage that resonates with an opinionated Arab audience. Lynch argues that by acquiescing to Congressional pressure and ensuring that its content best represents and promotes the U.S. agenda in the region, Alhurra quickly lost credibility among an Arab audience already critical towards much of America’s current foreign policies. In June of this year, Alhurra was once again embroiled in controversy after two scathing media reports -- one produced by the media watchdog ProPublica that was aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, the other by the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock -- echoed many of the previous criticisms and added evidence to several new ones. ProPublica’s critique was that Alhurra was far from pro-U.S. in its broadcasts which, along with key interviews with senior U.S. officials, habitually aired adversarial views from all other sides – ranging from the Sunni Iraqi insurgency, through the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, to pro-Hezbollah and pro-Iranian leaders and radical Shiite Islamists. In addition to the anti-American inflammatory rhetoric, ProPublica decried Alhurra’s managerial inefficiency, favoritism in hiring, and lack of proper editorial and financial oversight as misuse of taxpayers’ money. It further drew attention to a gaping linguistic and cultural disconnect between the network’s senior management on one hand, and its executive producers, reporters and news casts on the other. The criticisms leveled generated a wave of media coverage and an intense exchange between the channel’s critics at ProPublica and its supporters at the BBG. While important points were raised on both fronts -- addressing the station’s failures to project a fair image of the U.S. on the one side, and defending its mission of providing credible programming of high journalistic standards on the other -- little agreement emerged in the way of envisioning what would constitute a truly effective U.S. public diplomacy strategy for engaging the Arab world. More constructive opinions were offered by other sources and writers in the blogosphere. Analysts seemed to converge on the view that the responsibilities of state-sponsored international broadcasting to serve the national interest while providing balanced news and catering to well-informed, skeptical audiences, are by definition mutually exclusive. In a PBS interview, Shibley Telhami further elaborated on the limits of influencing publics through broadcast media by rejecting the notion that there is a relationship between what people watch and the political opinions they form. Communications scholar Craig Hayden similarly argued for a re-conceptualization of the approach to international broadcasting by revamping it as a more interactive, participatory medium that would not only fit better in the current Arab media landscape, but would also help create a more democratic media culture in the Middle East. The unfolding controversy surrounding Alhurra clearly indicates the dilemma faced by the U.S.’s Middle East information effort. This report is an aggregation of recent press – both in the mainstream media, as well as in the blogosphere – of Alhurra’s critics and defenders with the intention of providing a balanced perspective on the issue and stimulating reflection on the broader challenge of U.S. public diplomacy through international broadcasting. Regions, Middle East, North America Alhurra – “The Free One” – is a U.S. government-funded broadcaster available throughout the Middle East. Established in 2004, Alhurra, along with its FM radio counterpart, Radio Sawa (launched in 2002), represent America’s largest commitment to public diplomacy in the region. Over the last six years, the U.S. government has invested just under $500 million dollars in the two broadcasters.

Overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent agency reporting directly to Congress, Alhurra’s mission is to promote freedom and democracy in the region through the accurate and objective representation of U.S. policies. Broadcasting from Springfield, Virginia, the station’s programming includes a mix of traditional newscasting, cultural programming, political talk shows, documentaries, as well as some American entertainment programming dubbed into Arabic.

Since its inception, Alhurra has attracted controversy. In 2006, the United States General Accountability Office issued a report documenting the many challenges facing Alhurra and Radio Sawa, notably poor management and weak performance. In March 2007, Alhurra gained significant media and public attention when Joel Mowbray, a conservative syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder and a frequent contributor to the National Review, published a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal accusing the channel of providing “platforms to Holocaust deniers and Islamic terrorists.” In these articles, Mowbray revealed that Alhurra had aired the entirety of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s December 7, 2006 speech, an explicit violation of Alhurra’s Journalistic Code of Ethics and its Congressional mandate, and that they provided extensive and deferential coverage of a Holocaust denial conference held in Tehran in December 2006. In May 2007, Congress held hearings to further examine the accusations. In a statement before Congress, Alhurra executive, Joaquin F. Blaya, acknowledged the channel’s mistakes and assured his audience that corrective measures had been taken and that terrorists and Holocaust deniers would never again use the channel as a platform.

In addition to this political scrutiny, Alhurra has also faced criticism from media scholars and practitioners. Professor Shibley Telhami argues that Alhurra’s actual influence on public opinion in the region is minute given its relatively small audience share. Moreover, in the face of a growing number of Middle Eastern satellite news channels (e.g., Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and Al Manar, as well as other broadcasters funded by Western governments such as the UK’s BBC Arabic TV), former deputy director of the Voice of America Alan L. Heil argues that the likelihood of Alhurra gaining any ground against its more respected competitors is highly improbable. Arab media expert, Marc Lynch, suggests that Alhurra’s problems boil down to the impossible balance required to appease its Congressional critics while also providing coverage that resonates with an opinionated Arab audience. Lynch argues that by acquiescing to Congressional pressure and ensuring that its content best represents and promotes the U.S. agenda in the region, Alhurra quickly lost credibility among an Arab audience already critical towards much of America’s current foreign policies.

In June of this year, Alhurra was once again embroiled in controversy after two scathing media reports -- one produced by the media watchdog ProPublica that was aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, the other by the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock -- echoed many of the previous criticisms and added evidence to several new ones. ProPublica’s critique was that Alhurra was far from pro-U.S. in its broadcasts which, along with key interviews with senior U.S. officials, habitually aired adversarial views from all other sides – ranging from the Sunni Iraqi insurgency, through the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, to pro-Hezbollah and pro-Iranian leaders and radical Shiite Islamists. In addition to the anti-American inflammatory rhetoric, ProPublica decried Alhurra’s managerial inefficiency, favoritism in hiring, and lack of proper editorial and financial oversight as misuse of taxpayers’ money. It further drew attention to a gaping linguistic and cultural disconnect between the network’s senior management on one hand, and its executive producers, reporters and news casts on the other.

The criticisms leveled generated a wave of media coverage and an intense exchange between the channel’s critics at ProPublica and its supporters at the BBG. While important points were raised on both fronts -- addressing the station’s failures to project a fair image of the U.S. on the one side, and defending its mission of providing credible programming of high journalistic standards on the other -- little agreement emerged in the way of envisioning what would constitute a truly effective U.S. public diplomacy strategy for engaging the Arab world.

More constructive opinions were offered by other sources and writers in the blogosphere. Analysts seemed to converge on the view that the responsibilities of state-sponsored international broadcasting to serve the national interest while providing balanced news and catering to well-informed, skeptical audiences, are by definition mutually exclusive. In a PBS interview, Shibley Telhami further elaborated on the limits of influencing publics through broadcast media by rejecting the notion that there is a relationship between what people watch and the political opinions they form. Communications scholar Craig Hayden similarly argued for a re-conceptualization of the approach to international broadcasting by revamping it as a more interactive, participatory medium that would not only fit better in the current Arab media landscape, but would also help create a more democratic media culture in the Middle East.

The unfolding controversy surrounding Alhurra clearly indicates the dilemma faced by the U.S.’s Middle East information effort.

This report is an aggregation of recent press – both in the mainstream media, as well as in the blogosphere – of Alhurra’s critics and defenders with the intention of providing a balanced perspective on the issue and stimulating reflection on the broader challenge of U.S. public diplomacy through international broadcasting.]]> 2008-07-10T22:27:00-08:00 Ever since his rise to power in 2005 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enjoyed being in the spotlight of American attention. Not without the help of the news media and the White House's preoccupation with his persona, the Iranian President successfully managed to turn many of his public appearances into public diplomacy triumphs. His musings on the Holocaust and the annihilation of Israel, and his defiance of the West over Iran's nuclear program have been the subject of much debate granting him rock-star-like popularity on a par with Bruce Springsteen. While nothing more than the demagoguery of an unpopular leader, these same narratives were the word of the day once more during Ahmadinejad's recent visit to the U.S. for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly. Incessant rumblings and great anticipation preceded Ahmadinejad's arrival, reaching a crescendo when Columbia University enlisted him as a speaker at its World Leaders Forum. Intended to meet "bad beliefs" with "better beliefs" and "hateful words" with "wiser words," Columbia provided a prominent public diplomacy platform in the battle of ideas. Yet, neither the soft power advantage nor the publicity opportunity was successfully clinched for American public diplomacy. The centerpiece of Ahmadinejad's visit to New York—his appearance at the UN—was largely overshadowed by Columbia's invitation. Ahmadinejad's speech was sponsored by Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, which is launching a year-long series of lectures and events on the thirty years history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. News outlets were poised eagerly to cover the controversy as some condemned and others applauded the invitation. Fierce debate erupted over whether Ahmadinejad's views deserved to be granted such a high podium and opinions were expounded on free speech, Iran and American democracy. Coverage of the Iranian President was predominantly negative and even those who supported his right to speak in New York expressed their condemnation of the President's views and Iran's human rights violations. However, Ahmadinejad still managed to pull off an extraordinary publicity coup. Despite the fact that Manhattan teemed with world leaders and important gatherings, he remained the media's favorite celebrity. Aside from the Iraq war, Ahmadinejad's visit was the most closely followed news story during the week. According to the Pew Research Center, 23% of the public followed the story very closely, and 14% listed it as the single news story they followed most closely. Ahmadinejad's visit, and U.S.-Iranian relations in general, was the most heavily covered news story of the week. Fully 13% of the national newshole was devoted to this story. In an earlier poll, gauging news interest, Ahmadinejad ranked fifth in the list of people most often mentioned by American news outlets, preceded by O. J. Simpson, George Bush, Britney Spears and Hillary Clinton, and followed by General Petraeus. As Americans were watching, so were the Iranians. The entirety of Ahmadinejad's Columbia talk was broadcast on Iranian television the next day providing an unparalleled opportunity for American public diplomacy to communicate its message. Some argued that having Ahmadinejad speak would demonstrate clearly the fundamental pillars of American democracy — free speech and the right to protest. The example of how the United States handles criticism and how it treats even the most opposing views was expected to highlight its moral high ground over the regime in Tehran. The contrasts would hopefully not be lost on the Iranian people. President Bollinger stated that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak showcased America at its best: "to commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world". Dean John Coatsworth added that, "opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and still dangerous world." Not only was this seen as an excellent occasion for a real world demonstration of American values and democratic practices at work, it could also be perceived as a valuable opportunity to directly confront the Iranian President on his controversial remarks and hold him accountable for the accusations that the U.S. has been leveling against him and his country. Iran has been accused by President Bush of seeking nuclear weapons and was named the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. As opposed to the straight speech which Ahmadinejad was scheduled to deliver at the UN, a "robust" debate could serve to lay bare the bankruptcy of human rights in Iran and challenge the rationale of its policies in Iraq and the wider Middle East. Yet, Columbia was not praised for this laudable public diplomacy endeavor. Democratic Presidential candidates expressed at best a lukewarm support for the University with Senators Clinton and Obama noting that they wouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad if they were Columbia's President. John Edwards cautioned against allowing leaders like Ahmadinejad to score propaganda points. However, it is not so much Columbia's invitation, as the current administration's personalization of Iranian politics through Ahmadinejad's figure and the news media's subsequent focus on the President that continues to enhance his popularity both at home and abroad. Nevertheless, Republican Presidential candidates went even further in criticizing the University. Senator Thompson stated he would not have allowed Ahmadinejad into the country if he were President. California Rep. Duncan Hunter went as far as to threaten that "if President Bollinger follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of federal funding to Columbia University." So much for the hope of showcasing American freedom and democracy. As events unfolded on the day of Ahmadinejad's talk, those who looked to Columbia for an exhibition of the country's openness to dialogue and receptivity to criticism, might have been disheartened. In welcoming his guest, President Bollinger called him a "petty and cruel dictator" and "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." Whether the result of threats of sanctions, political or media pressure, or simply a miscalculation, Bollinger's "tough line" with the Iranian President caused an uproar in the U.S. and abroad. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described Bollinger’s speech as culturally insensitive and counterproductive. "If you invite someone, you have to be polite," he said. "Ahmadinejad scored points, especially in their culture. If you permit an enemy to come into your home, you still treat him with dignity and respect. Therefore, we lost." Most importantly, President Bollinger's disrespectful attitude towards an elected head-of-state alienated and shocked Iranians who perceived it as an offense to their nation. The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying his "insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful." In response, Iranian academics asked ten questions of President Bollinger pointing out America's 1953 overthrow of Iran's national government, U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, and U.S. support for undemocratic regimes in the Middle East. As evidenced by this response, the episode at Columbia exacerbated Iranian feelings of humiliation and frustration with the West. It contradicted the very goals of public diplomacy which views academic leadership as a primary stakeholder and gatekeeper in relaying political and cultural texts to the broader public sphere, a strategy President Ahmadinejad is well versed in. While the Iranian President ingeniously complements each of his UN visits with hosting a carefully targeted stylish dinner with American journalists and academics, the Bush administration is quick to dismiss invitations by Iranian Universities such as the one extended on October 1 by Ferdowsi University, one of Iran's oldest academic institutions located in Iran's second largest city of Mashhad. The justifications presented—Iran's undemocratic society, nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel, make such a visit all the more imperative. Before leaving for New York Ahmadinejad stated that "the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions." Arguably, Iranians have fared much worse in terms of access to information. However, as Ahmadinejad strives to provide "a different voice" and the "correct and clear information" to Americans, Iranians have not been engaged in a similar exchange of opinions. Rather, President Bush's rejection of Ferdowsi University's invitation compounded the hostile welcome and mistreatment accorded to Ahmadinejad at Columbia, fueling Iranian perceptions of the U.S. as an arrogant superpower. Some commentators drew comparisons between U.S. policies toward the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union and Iran of the "Axis of Evil." Despite the deep antagonism, American presidents did not ignore or insult their Soviet counterparts. Today, dialogue has been scrapped and to many Iranians it seems that U.S. policies are increasingly advanced through bullying while Americans "act like cowboys and nothing more." As a result, events at Columbia and the developments they triggered helped rather than hurt Ahmadinejad's standing in Iran and the broader Middle East. Just as his failed economic policies and provocative posturing over the nuclear program were drawing intense criticism among Iranians, this hostile reception came to justify his defiance and intransigence and confirmed Iranian officials' claims of an unjust attitude toward Iran in America. It further provided Ahmadinejad with an opportunity to posit himself as the true public diplomat who "created a new room for making direct contacts with the U.S. and international public opinions" only to be snubbed by his uncooperative hosts. For Iranian critics and supporters alike he appeared to have taken the high road. "Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against those who could not remain polite," said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at a grocery store who had watched state television's recorded version of the event. The demonizing and mistreatment of the Iranian President enhanced his image of resistance to the U.S. in the eyes of much of the Middle East, an image that he endeavors to encourage among Iran's Arab neighbors. According to Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, "the protests by Israel's supporters against Ahmadinejad outside the university also helped him to appear as a hero for people of the Middle East." Ironically, Iran and the broader Middle East rather than Western publics are Ahmadinejad's target public diplomacy audience and many of his statements are framed for domestic and regional consumption, although delivered in an international context. Some have described his strategy as a charm offensive in gearing up for the upcoming presidential elections. Others have pointed to his attempt to garner popular support in the Middle East by using the pan-Arab appeal of the Palestinian question. U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president, however, does more than boost his domestic and regional popularity. It also bolsters his persona which does not enjoy a place of real power in Iran. Often depicted as George Bush's prime antagonist, Ahmadinejad has become the definitive cultural stereotype of a powerful and radical Islamic leader with his finger on the nuclear button. The abundant coverage that he regularly receives is likely to lead publics in the U.S. to form their opinion of Iran and Iranian policy largely based upon their evaluation of the President. However, greater attention to the actual power nexus of Iranian politics might redefine Americans' perceived threat from Tehran, as the President's quirky personality and combative populism are hardly a serious concern for foreign policy. Although a master of inflammatory rhetoric, President Ahmadinejad does not wield much power or influence and does not have decision making authority over the nuclear briefcase or Iran's military. Basing U.S. policy and attitudes toward Iran on the President's rhetoric thus increases the risk of exaggerated threat assessments much to the detriment of conflict resolution with Iran. Ultimately, events around Ahmadinejad's visit served to increase rather than alleviate tension between the U.S. and Iran and multiple public diplomacy opportunities were wasted. Considering the amount of media attention showered on the visit, such a platform could have been used to raise ideas and propositions on an unofficial level that would have undoubtedly reached the mass audiences in the Middle East and generated a certain amount of goodwill. On the contrary, the attempt to deny Ahmadinejad a public diplomacy coup only contributed to his popularity at home and in the broader Middle East, while the disrespectful treatment he received further alienated Iranian public opinion and played into the hands of critics of American policy. Thus, the opportunities provided by Columbia's public diplomacy forum were squandered. The following is an aggregation of articles, commentary and public opinion polls on the public diplomacy implications of Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. and their significance in the broader U.S.-Iranian relations. NEWS ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS United States US, Iran Play with Fire (Ramesh Thakur, Boston Globe, October 4, 2007) The recent in-your-face introduction by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have delighted the US audience, but it has compounded America’s image problem in the rest of the world. Iran college asks Bush to speak (BBC News , October 2, 2007) An Iranian university has invited US leader George W Bush to speak following his Iranian counterpart's hostile reception at a US college last week. "We're not taking it too seriously," said a White House spokeswoman. She said Mr Bush might have considered the invitation if Iran allowed freedom of expression, did not have nuclear ambitions, and did not threaten Israel. Blogging Ahmadinejad in Tehran (New York Times , September 30, 2007) Despite official harassment and intimidation, Iranian blogs remain a vibrant source of debate and provide a valuable insight into popular opinion inside the country. Bloggers tend to be young, well educated and not very supportive of President Ahmadinejad, who typically attracts followers from the urban poor. The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad farce (Rosa Brooks, LA Times , September 28, 2007) Ahmadinejad was playing to global public opinion, and though he lost some PR points for incoherence and general bizarreness of message ("In Iran, we don't have homosexuals"), he gained some for coming off as a bit more mature than his prissy, infantile host. Bollinger, meanwhile, was playing to a different audience. After taking a beating for giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he was eager to show the media, alumni, concerned Jewish organizations and a raft of bellicose neoconservative pundits that he was no terrorist-loving appeaser of Holocaust deniers. In a narrow sense, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger achieved their goals. Ahmadinejad showed that he could be dignified in the face of crass American bullies, which will play well abroad -- and may even buttress his dwindling prestige in Iran. And Bollinger showed that he can be a crass American bully, which, in our current political climate, is what passes for "courage." U.S. response plays right into Ahmadinejad's hand (Mohamad Bazzi, Newsday.com, September 28, 2007) Arabs admire Ahmadinejad because they believe he is brave enough to stand up to the United States and Israel, he is mindful of his people's interests, and he is in touch with the common man. In whispers, Arabs talk of how the Iranian leader is different from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, who are dependent on American support to stay in power. After his speech this week at Columbia University, Ahmadinejad's stock in the Arab street is sure to rise even higher. Dreaming of a Dictator: The Perils of Personalization in the Iran Crisis (Todd Fine, Center for Defense Information, September 28, 2007) No Hitler, Ahmadinejad is a sagging populist politician using the nuclear crisis to bolster his personal popularity and power within a baroquely complex political system. The Western personalization of Iranian politics through his figure has a deleterious effect on U.S. policy and, via the media, on the actual circumstances in Iran. The Ahmadinejad show (LA Times, September 27, 2007) As the ruckus recedes, the question remains: How much does Ahmadinejad matter? The answer depends on just one thing: To what extent are his views shared by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who really calls the shots in Iran? Ahmadinejad is reported to enjoy the supreme leader's full support. Certainly Khamenei is as rhetorically anti-American and mistrustful of Western intentions as his protege. Yet some see signs -- in Iran's dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the recent release of four Iranian Americans held in Tehran, among other moves -- that the quiet Khamenei may be less eager than the flamboyant Ahmadinejad to provoke a confrontation with the West. Columbia Still Reeling Over Visit (Karen Arenson, New York Times , September 26, 2007) Before Iran's president took the stage at Columbia University on Monday, the university's president, Lee C. Bollinger, sent out an early-morning e-mail message, calling on students and faculty "to live up to the best of Columbia's traditions." Yesterday, many critics questioned whether Mr. Bollinger had met that test himself. Some said Mr. Bollinger's remarks were just the rebuke that Mr. Ahmadinejad deserved. Others said they were embarrassing and offensive. And there were still questions about whether Mr. Ahmadinejad should have been afforded a public platform at a prestigious university. 'Fruitbat' at Bat (Maureen Dowd, New York Times , September 26, 2007) We just can't stop being nice to Iran. We help build up the self-serving doofus Iranian president, a frontman with a Ph.D. in traffic management, into the sort of larger-than-life demon that the real powers in Iran — the mullahs — can love. New York's hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Once you've made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can't undo it by belittling him in public. Wouldn't sticks and carrots — cultural fluency, smart psychology and Reaganesque dialogue — be a better way to bring the Iranians around than sticks and stones? Inflating a Little Man (Joe Klein, TIME , September 26, 2007) Ahmadinejad's appearance was a small but telling moment in the rolling overhyped crisis that is George W. Bush's so-called war on terrorism. The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program. And yet this strange little man who brings to mind Peter Sellers more readily than Adolf Hitler — Sellers playing one of his brilliantly befogged simpletons — occasioned a classic, free-range American outrage festival, in which everyone, even Hillary Clinton, happily granted him exactly the opprobrium he desired. My Dinner with Ahmadinejad (Richard Stengel, TIME , September 26, 2007) This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience. The Iran Impasse (Washington Post , September 26, 2007) The furor that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created in New York this week has served his repugnant purposes in a couple of ways. First, like other anti-American demagogues, he has managed to use a visit to the U.N. General Assembly to convey an image of himself as engaged in mano-a-mano ideological combat with the U.S. enemy. Even more important, the Iranian president, who is not his country's principal leader, has managed to distract attention from a question more urgent than his rhetoric about the Holocaust and Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks (Karen Arenson, New York Times, September 26, 2007) There are many reasons we find Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's policies and pronouncements loathsome. High on that list are his denial of the Holocaust, his call to wipe Israel off the map and his country's sponsorship of terrorism. Equally loathsome is Iran's denial of basic civil rights to its citizens, including the right of free speech. So we are dismayed by the behavior of some of New York's democratically elected representatives who denounced and threatened Columbia University for inviting the Iranian leader to speak there yesterday. We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran's repressive state than by showcasing America's democracy and commitment to free speech. Iran's Media Assail President's Treatment (Nazila Fathi, New York Times , September 26, 2007) Iranian state television on Tuesday sharply criticized the way President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been treated during his Columbia University talk and asserted that he had triumphed over his adversarial hosts, whom it described as Zionist Jews. Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, denounced on the state-run news channel the inhospitable treatment of Mr. Ahmadinejad. "He is the president of a country," he said. "It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way." U.S. loses home-field advantage in its jousts with Ahmadinejad (Eric Trager, The Philadelphia Inquirer , September 25, 2007) Give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad credit: He understands the American public far better than our leaders understand the Islamic publics to which he is appealing. In attempting to reach out to American students, Ahmadinejad has done what American diplomats have failed to do on campuses throughout the Middle East. For American public diplomacy, the results have been disastrous, as these campuses—always catalysts for the political movements shaping the region—have become unchecked hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. With each small victory in public diplomacy, Ahmadinejad's stature grows throughout the Middle East. Ahmadinejad v. Bollinger: Words Were Spoken, But What Was Said? (Ru S. Freeman, CommonDreams, September 25, 2007) An invitation is a communication, expressed both formally and politely, to an individual, asking that they attend a festivity or event of ones own creation. In this case, Columbia University's president, Lee C. Bollinger, chose to ask a visiting foreign dignitary to grace his campus with his presence. A guest who accepts such an invitation does not envision that they will be publicly humiliated and attacked by their host for the amusement of other attendees. How embarrassing then that such a thing could occur, at so prestigious a venue as Columbia University, so publicly and at the center of such media attention. How much worse, however, is that not one newspaper in this country chose to point out that Lee C. Bollinger acted appallingly and disgracefully? Ahmadinejad Does New York (Pierre Tristam, CommonDreams, September 25, 2007) Even assuming that Ahmadinejad was the enemy, that's only more reason to speak with him face to face, not less, or at least to hear him out. The guy had the guts to submit to open questions from a hostile university and New York audience. When's the last time George W. Bush had that courage? Bush never goes within a mile of an audience that hasn't been filtered, interrogated, pre-screened and pre-judged. Iranians decry Columbia leader's harsh speech Bollinger said Ahmadinejad behaves like a 'petty and cruel dictator' (MSNBC, September 25, 2007) Iranians expressed dismay Tuesday at the tough reception given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and only fueled the image of the United States as a bully. In the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim. He complained about Bollinger's "insults" and "unfriendly treatment" but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion. Some critics of Ahmadinejad in Iran warn that U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president has only strengthened his hand and boosted his falling political fortunes. Ahmadinejad, they say, keeps influence through his image as standing up to the world's superpower. Who's Afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? After all the trembling, the Iranian president got a bruising instead of a boost. (Jesse Walker, Reasononline, September 25, 2007) When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University yesterday, he did not emerge with the "propaganda victory" that neocon pundit Bill Kristol assured us he would receive. Sadly, however, Iran's president did win a propaganda victory throughout much of the world outside the USA. Propaganda Coup (Alan W. Dowd, FrontPageMagazine, September 25, 2007) It has been a very successful trip for Ahmadinejad. And by that measure, it's hard to see how giving him a platform was the right thing to do. Our view on Ahmadinejad in New York: Let Iranian president speak — to showcase U.S. values (USA Today, September 24, 2007) The Columbia invitation represents an opportunity of another, more important sort. The public display of Ahmadinejad getting to taste two fundamental pillars of democracy — free speech and the right to protest — should speak volumes about what the United States stands for, and what he and Iran don't. The contrast with how the United States treats critics hopefully won't be lost on the Iranian people. Ahmadinejad in America (Washington Post, September 24, 2007) It is difficult to see how the United States would benefit from having a "dialogue" with a jihadist despot who denies the Holocaust and is arming to the teeth. N.Y. site transcends boundaries (James Carroll, Boston Globe, September 24, 2007) Today's rebuff to the current president is of a piece with a long history of omni-political denigration aimed at Tehran. After all, it was when the reform-minded Khatami was Iran's leader that George W. Bush, in 2002, hung that nation on the "Axis of Evil." The extremist Ahmadinejad rode to power on Iranian reactions to the steady insult from America. This new insult reinforces him at home, just as moderate, relatively pro-Western opposition forces are jelling there. Candidates Speak Out On Ahmadinejad Visit (CBS News, September 24, 2007) On the day that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University in New York, U.S. presidential candidates offered reaction ranging from support for academic freedom to harsh criticism of the university for inviting the Iranian president to speak. Candidate (Duncan Hunter) Threatens Federal Money Over Ahmadinejad Columbia Speech (Byron Wolf, ABC News, 24 September, 2007) Duncan Hunter, the Congressman from California, joined other Republican Presidential candidates over the weekend in condemning the upcoming address to Columbia University by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Hunter went a step further by pledging that if the speech goes forth he will introduce legislation in Congress to cut off federal assistance from the University. Legislatures May Act on Columbia (Jacob Gershman, The Sun, September 24, 2007) As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution." U.S. Focus on Ahmadinejad Puzzles Iranians (Michael Slackman, New York Times, September 24, 2007) In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts. Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president's power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up. Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1 (Juan Cole, Salon, September 24, 2007) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited. Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war. Facing Scorn, President of Iran Is Defiant to His Critics (Helene Cooper, New York Times, September 24, 2007) Mr. Ahmadinejad's much talked-about appearance at Columbia came as the opening act of a week of dramatic theater here as the United Nations General Assembly opened its annual session. Online tickets had evaporated in 90 minutes last week, they said, almost on par with a Bruce Sprinsteen concert. "I'm proud of my university today," said Stina Reksten, a 28-year old graduate student from Norway. "I don't want to confuse the very dire human rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom." Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East (Jeffrey Fleishman, LA Times September 24, 2007) The president of Iran, who has made a point of defying the West and Israel, has won admiration even among Sunni nations. (Subscription required) Backstage at the Ahmadinejad Show (Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, September 24, 2007) What's really driving the Iranian president's Western charm offensive? A savvy political strategy for Ahmadinejad—and despite what the White House says, Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East outside Israel—is to appear just as reasonable with the West as Rafsanjani. Columbia Does the Right Thing with Ahmadinejad (Brian Lehrer, New York Public Radio, September 22, 2007) New Yorkers are choosing up sides over Columbia University's plan to hold a forum on Monday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. WNYC's Brian Lehrer says in his opinion, Columbia is doing the right thing. The world will see a free society at work, where demagogues get exposed. The United States stands to look strong, not weak, by showing the world our values: seeking truth and accountability based on FREEDOM of speech, not denial of speech. Denial, as we know, is Ahmadinejad's claim to fame. President Bollinger's Statement About President... Regions, Middle East preoccupation with his persona, the Iranian President successfully managed to turn many of his public appearances into public diplomacy triumphs. His musings on the Holocaust and the annihilation of Israel, and his defiance of the West over Iran's nuclear program have been the subject of much debate granting him rock-star-like popularity on a par with Bruce Springsteen. While nothing more than the demagoguery of an unpopular leader, these same narratives were the word of the day once more during Ahmadinejad's recent visit to the U.S. for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly. Incessant rumblings and great anticipation preceded Ahmadinejad's arrival, reaching a crescendo when Columbia University enlisted him as a speaker at its World Leaders Forum. Intended to meet "bad beliefs" with "better beliefs" and "hateful words" with "wiser words," Columbia provided a prominent public diplomacy platform in the battle of ideas. Yet, neither the soft power advantage nor the publicity opportunity was successfully clinched for American public diplomacy.

The centerpiece of Ahmadinejad's visit to New York—his appearance at the UN—was largely overshadowed by Columbia's invitation. Ahmadinejad's speech was sponsored by Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, which is launching a year-long series of lectures and events on the thirty years history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. News outlets were poised eagerly to cover the controversy as some condemned and others applauded the invitation. Fierce debate erupted over whether Ahmadinejad's views deserved to be granted such a high podium and opinions were expounded on free speech, Iran and American democracy. Coverage of the Iranian President was predominantly negative and even those who supported his right to speak in New York expressed their condemnation of the President's views and Iran's human rights violations. However, Ahmadinejad still managed to pull off an extraordinary publicity coup. Despite the fact that Manhattan teemed with world leaders and important gatherings, he remained the media's favorite celebrity. Aside from the Iraq war, Ahmadinejad's visit was the most closely followed news story during the week. According to the Pew Research Center, 23% of the public followed the story very closely, and 14% listed it as the single news story they followed most closely. Ahmadinejad's visit, and U.S.-Iranian relations in general, was the most heavily covered news story of the week. Fully 13% of the national newshole was devoted to this story. In an earlier poll, gauging news interest, Ahmadinejad ranked fifth in the list of people most often mentioned by American news outlets, preceded by O. J. Simpson, George Bush, Britney Spears and Hillary Clinton, and followed by General Petraeus.

As Americans were watching, so were the Iranians. The entirety of Ahmadinejad's Columbia talk was broadcast on Iranian television the next day providing an unparalleled opportunity for American public diplomacy to communicate its message. Some argued that having Ahmadinejad speak would demonstrate clearly the fundamental pillars of American democracy — free speech and the right to protest. The example of how the United States handles criticism and how it treats even the most opposing views was expected to highlight its moral high ground over the regime in Tehran. The contrasts would hopefully not be lost on the Iranian people. President Bollinger stated that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak showcased America at its best: "to commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world". Dean John Coatsworth added that, "opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and still dangerous world."

Not only was this seen as an excellent occasion for a real world demonstration of American values and democratic practices at work, it could also be perceived as a valuable opportunity to directly confront the Iranian President on his controversial remarks and hold him accountable for the accusations that the U.S. has been leveling against him and his country. Iran has been accused by President Bush of seeking nuclear weapons and was named the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. As opposed to the straight speech which Ahmadinejad was scheduled to deliver at the UN, a "robust" debate could serve to lay bare the bankruptcy of human rights in Iran and challenge the rationale of its policies in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

Yet, Columbia was not praised for this laudable public diplomacy endeavor. Democratic Presidential candidates expressed at best a lukewarm support for the University with Senators Clinton and Obama noting that they wouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad if they were Columbia's President. John Edwards cautioned against allowing leaders like Ahmadinejad to score propaganda points. However, it is not so much Columbia's invitation, as the current administration's personalization of Iranian politics through Ahmadinejad's figure and the news media's subsequent focus on the President that continues to enhance his popularity both at home and abroad. Nevertheless, Republican Presidential candidates went even further in criticizing the University. Senator Thompson stated he would not have allowed Ahmadinejad into the country if he were President. California Rep. Duncan Hunter went as far as to threaten that "if President Bollinger follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of federal funding to Columbia University." So much for the hope of showcasing American freedom and democracy.

As events unfolded on the day of Ahmadinejad's talk, those who looked to Columbia for an exhibition of the country's openness to dialogue and receptivity to criticismEver since his rise to power in 2005 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enjoyed being in the spotlight of American attention. Not without the help of the news media and the White House's preoccupation with his persona, the Iranian President successfully managed to turn many of his public appearances into public diplomacy triumphs. His musings on the Holocaust and the annihilation of Israel, and his defiance of the West over Iran's nuclear program have been the subject of much debate granting him rock-star-like popularity on a par with Bruce Springsteen. While nothing more than the demagoguery of an unpopular leader, these same narratives were the word of the day once more during Ahmadinejad's recent visit to the U.S. for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly. Incessant rumblings and great anticipation preceded Ahmadinejad's arrival, reaching a crescendo when Columbia University enlisted him as a speaker at its World Leaders Forum. Intended to meet "bad beliefs" with "better beliefs" and "hateful words" with "wiser words," Columbia provided a prominent public diplomacy platform in the battle of ideas. Yet, neither the soft power advantage nor the publicity opportunity was successfully clinched for American public diplomacy.

The centerpiece of Ahmadinejad's visit to New York—his appearance at the UN—was largely overshadowed by Columbia's invitation. Ahmadinejad's speech was sponsored by Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, which is launching a year-long series of lectures and events on the thirty years history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. News outlets were poised eagerly to cover the controversy as some condemned and others applauded the invitation. Fierce debate erupted over whether Ahmadinejad's views deserved to be granted such a high podium and opinions were expounded on free speech, Iran and American democracy. Coverage of the Iranian President was predominantly negative and even those who supported his right to speak in New York expressed their condemnation of the President's views and Iran's human rights violations. However, Ahmadinejad still managed to pull off an extraordinary publicity coup. Despite the fact that Manhattan teemed with world leaders and important gatherings, he remained the media's favorite celebrity. Aside from the Iraq war, Ahmadinejad's visit was the most closely followed news story during the week. According to the Pew Research Center, 23% of the public followed the story very closely, and 14% listed it as the single news story they followed most closely. Ahmadinejad's visit, and U.S.-Iranian relations in general, was the most heavily covered news story of the week. Fully 13% of the national newshole was devoted to this story. In an earlier poll, gauging news interest, Ahmadinejad ranked fifth in the list of people most often mentioned by American news outlets, preceded by O. J. Simpson, George Bush, Britney Spears and Hillary Clinton, and followed by General Petraeus.

As Americans were watching, so were the Iranians. The entirety of Ahmadinejad's Columbia talk was broadcast on Iranian television the next day providing an unparalleled opportunity for American public diplomacy to communicate its message. Some argued that having Ahmadinejad speak would demonstrate clearly the fundamental pillars of American democracy — free speech and the right to protest. The example of how the United States handles criticism and how it treats even the most opposing views was expected to highlight its moral high ground over the regime in Tehran. The contrasts would hopefully not be lost on the Iranian people. President Bollinger stated that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak showcased America at its best: "to commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world". Dean John Coatsworth added that, "opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and still dangerous world."

Not only was this seen as an excellent occasion for a real world demonstration of American values and democratic practices at work, it could also be perceived as a valuable opportunity to directly confront the Iranian President on his controversial remarks and hold him accountable for the accusations that the U.S. has been leveling against him and his country. Iran has been accused by President Bush of seeking nuclear weapons and was named the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. As opposed to the straight speech which Ahmadinejad was scheduled to deliver at the UN, a "robust" debate could serve to lay bare the bankruptcy of human rights in Iran and challenge the rationale of its policies in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

Yet, Columbia was not praised for this laudable public diplomacy endeavor. Democratic Presidential candidates expressed at best a lukewarm support for the University with Senators Clinton and Obama noting that they wouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad if they were Columbia's President. John Edwards cautioned against allowing leaders like Ahmadinejad to score propaganda points. However, it is not so much Columbia's invitation, as the current administration's personalization of Iranian politics through Ahmadinejad's figure and the news media's subsequent focus on the President that continues to enhance his popularity both at home and abroad. Nevertheless, Republican Presidential candidates went even further in criticizing the University. Senator Thompson stated he would not have allowed Ahmadinejad into the country if he were President. California Rep. Duncan Hunter went as far as to threaten that "if President Bollinger follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of federal funding to Columbia University." So much for the hope of showcasing American freedom and democracy.

As events unfolded on the day of Ahmadinejad's talk, those who looked to Columbia for an exhibition of the country's openness to dialogue and receptivity to criticism, might have been disheartened. In welcoming his guest, President Bollinger called him a "petty and cruel dictator" and "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." Whether the result of threats of sanctions, political or media pressure, or simply a miscalculation, Bollinger's "tough line" with the Iranian President caused an uproar in the U.S. and abroad. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described Bollinger’s speech as culturally insensitive and counterproductive. "If you invite someone, you have to be polite," he said. "Ahmadinejad scored points, especially in their culture. If you permit an enemy to come into your home, you still treat him with dignity and respect. Therefore, we lost."

Most importantly, President Bollinger's disrespectful attitude towards an elected head-of-state alienated and shocked Iranians who perceived it as an offense to their nation. The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying his "insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful." In response, Iranian academics asked ten questions of President Bollinger pointing out America's 1953 overthrow of Iran's national government, U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, and U.S. support for undemocratic regimes in the Middle East. As evidenced by this response, the episode at Columbia exacerbated Iranian feelings of humiliation and frustration with the West. It contradicted the very goals of public diplomacy which views academic leadership as a primary stakeholder and gatekeeper in relaying political and cultural texts to the broader public sphere, a strategy President Ahmadinejad is well versed in.

While the Iranian President ingeniously complements each of his UN visits with hosting a carefully targeted stylish dinner with American journalists and academics, the Bush administration is quick to dismiss invitations by Iranian Universities such as the one extended on October 1 by Ferdowsi University, one of Iran's oldest academic institutions located in Iran's second largest city of Mashhad. The justifications presented—Iran's undemocratic society, nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel, make such a visit all the more imperative. Before leaving for New York Ahmadinejad stated that "the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions." Arguably, Iranians have fared much worse in terms of access to information. However, as Ahmadinejad strives to provide "a different voice" and the "correct and clear information" to Americans, Iranians have not been engaged in a similar exchange of opinions. Rather, President Bush's rejection of Ferdowsi University's invitation compounded the hostile welcome and mistreatment accorded to Ahmadinejad at Columbia, fueling Iranian perceptions of the U.S. as an arrogant superpower. Some commentators drew comparisons between U.S. policies toward the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union and Iran of the "Axis of Evil." Despite the deep antagonism, American presidents did not ignore or insult their Soviet counterparts. Today, dialogue has been scrapped and to many Iranians it seems that U.S. policies are increasingly advanced through bullying while Americans "act like cowboys and nothing more."

As a result, events at Columbia and the developments they triggered helped rather than hurt Ahmadinejad's standing in Iran and the broader Middle East. Just as his failed economic policies and provocative posturing over the nuclear program were drawing intense criticism among Iranians, this hostile reception came to justify his defiance and intransigence and confirmed Iranian officials' claims of an unjust attitude toward Iran in America. It further provided Ahmadinejad with an opportunity to posit himself as the true public diplomat who "created a new room for making direct contacts with the U.S. and international public opinions" only to be snubbed by his uncooperative hosts. For Iranian critics and supporters alike he appeared to have taken the high road. "Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against those who could not remain polite," said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at a grocery store who had watched state television's recorded version of the event. The demonizing and mistreatment of the Iranian President enhanced his image of resistance to the U.S. in the eyes of much of the Middle East, an image that he endeavors to encourage among Iran's Arab neighbors. According to Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, "the protests by Israel's supporters against Ahmadinejad outside the university also helped him to appear as a hero for people of the Middle East."

Ironically, Iran and the broader Middle East rather than Western publics are Ahmadinejad's target public diplomacy audience and many of his statements are framed for domestic and regional consumption, although delivered in an international context. Some have described his strategy as a charm offensive in gearing up for the upcoming presidential elections. Others have pointed to his attempt to garner popular support in the Middle East by using the pan-Arab appeal of the Palestinian question.

U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president, however, does more than boost his domestic and regional popularity. It also bolsters his persona which does not enjoy a place of real power in Iran. Often depicted as George Bush's prime antagonist, Ahmadinejad has become the definitive cultural stereotype of a powerful and radical Islamic leader with his finger on the nuclear button. The abundant coverage that he regularly receives is likely to lead publics in the U.S. to form their opinion of Iran and Iranian policy largely based upon their evaluation of the President. However, greater attention to the actual power nexus of Iranian politics might redefine Americans' perceived threat from Tehran, as the President's quirky personality and combative populism are hardly a serious concern for foreign policy. Although a master of inflammatory rhetoric, President Ahmadinejad does not wield much power or influence and does not have decision making authority over the nuclear briefcase or Iran's military. Basing U.S. policy and attitudes toward Iran on the President's rhetoric thus increases the risk of exaggerated threat assessments much to the detriment of conflict resolution with Iran.

Ultimately, events around Ahmadinejad's visit served to increase rather than alleviate tension between the U.S. and Iran and multiple public diplomacy opportunities were wasted. Considering the amount of media attention showered on the visit, such a platform could have been used to raise ideas and propositions on an unofficial level that would have undoubtedly reached the mass audiences in the Middle East and generated a certain amount of goodwill. On the contrary, the attempt to deny Ahmadinejad a public diplomacy coup only contributed to his popularity at home and in the broader Middle East, while the disrespectful treatment he received further alienated Iranian public opinion and played into the hands of critics of American policy. Thus, the opportunities provided by Columbia's public diplomacy forum were squandered.


The following is an aggregation of articles, commentary and public opinion polls on the public diplomacy implications of Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. and their significance in the broader U.S.-Iranian relations.


NEWS ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS

United States

US, Iran Play with Fire
(Ramesh Thakur, Boston Globe, October 4, 2007)
The recent in-your-face introduction by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have delighted the US audience, but it has compounded America’s image problem in the rest of the world.

Iran college asks Bush to speak
(BBC News , October 2, 2007)
An Iranian university has invited US leader George W Bush to speak following his Iranian counterpart's hostile reception at a US college last week. "We're not taking it too seriously," said a White House spokeswoman. She said Mr Bush might have considered the invitation if Iran allowed freedom of expression, did not have nuclear ambitions, and did not threaten Israel.

Blogging Ahmadinejad in Tehran
(New York Times , September 30, 2007)
Despite official harassment and intimidation, Iranian blogs remain a vibrant source of debate and provide a valuable insight into popular opinion inside the country. Bloggers tend to be young, well educated and not very supportive of President Ahmadinejad, who typically attracts followers from the urban poor.

The Bollinger/Ahmadinejad farce
(Rosa Brooks, LA Times , September 28, 2007)
Ahmadinejad was playing to global public opinion, and though he lost some PR points for incoherence and general bizarreness of message ("In Iran, we don't have homosexuals"), he gained some for coming off as a bit more mature than his prissy, infantile host. Bollinger, meanwhile, was playing to a different audience. After taking a beating for giving Ahmadinejad a forum, he was eager to show the media, alumni, concerned Jewish organizations and a raft of bellicose neoconservative pundits that he was no terrorist-loving appeaser of Holocaust deniers. In a narrow sense, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger achieved their goals. Ahmadinejad showed that he could be dignified in the face of crass American bullies, which will play well abroad -- and may even buttress his dwindling prestige in Iran. And Bollinger showed that he can be a crass American bully, which, in our current political climate, is what passes for "courage."

U.S. response plays right into Ahmadinejad's hand
(Mohamad Bazzi, Newsday.com, September 28, 2007)
Arabs admire Ahmadinejad because they believe he is brave enough to stand up to the United States and Israel, he is mindful of his people's interests, and he is in touch with the common man. In whispers, Arabs talk of how the Iranian leader is different from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, who are dependent on American support to stay in power. After his speech this week at Columbia University, Ahmadinejad's stock in the Arab street is sure to rise even higher.

Dreaming of a Dictator: The Perils of Personalization in the Iran Crisis
(Todd Fine, Center for Defense Information, September 28, 2007)
No Hitler, Ahmadinejad is a sagging populist politician using the nuclear crisis to bolster his personal popularity and power within a baroquely complex political system. The Western personalization of Iranian politics through his figure has a deleterious effect on U.S. policy and, via the media, on the actual circumstances in Iran.

The Ahmadinejad show
(LA Times, September 27, 2007)
As the ruckus recedes, the question remains: How much does Ahmadinejad matter? The answer depends on just one thing: To what extent are his views shared by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who really calls the shots in Iran? Ahmadinejad is reported to enjoy the supreme leader's full support. Certainly Khamenei is as rhetorically anti-American and mistrustful of Western intentions as his protege. Yet some see signs -- in Iran's dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the recent release of four Iranian Americans held in Tehran, among other moves -- that the quiet Khamenei may be less eager than the flamboyant Ahmadinejad to provoke a confrontation with the West.

Columbia Still Reeling Over Visit
(Karen Arenson, New York Times , September 26, 2007)
Before Iran's president took the stage at Columbia University on Monday, the university's president, Lee C. Bollinger, sent out an early-morning e-mail message, calling on students and faculty "to live up to the best of Columbia's traditions." Yesterday, many critics questioned whether Mr. Bollinger had met that test himself. Some said Mr. Bollinger's remarks were just the rebuke that Mr. Ahmadinejad deserved. Others said they were embarrassing and offensive. And there were still questions about whether Mr. Ahmadinejad should have been afforded a public platform at a prestigious university.

'Fruitbat' at Bat
(Maureen Dowd, New York Times , September 26, 2007)
We just can't stop being nice to Iran. We help build up the self-serving doofus Iranian president, a frontman with a Ph.D. in traffic management, into the sort of larger-than-life demon that the real powers in Iran — the mullahs — can love. New York's hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Once you've made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can't undo it by belittling him in public. Wouldn't sticks and carrots — cultural fluency, smart psychology and Reaganesque dialogue — be a better way to bring the Iranians around than sticks and stones?

Inflating a Little Man
(Joe Klein, TIME , September 26, 2007)
Ahmadinejad's appearance was a small but telling moment in the rolling overhyped crisis that is George W. Bush's so-called war on terrorism. The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program. And yet this strange little man who brings to mind Peter Sellers more readily than Adolf Hitler — Sellers playing one of his brilliantly befogged simpletons — occasioned a classic, free-range American outrage festival, in which everyone, even Hillary Clinton, happily granted him exactly the opprobrium he desired.

My Dinner with Ahmadinejad
(Richard Stengel, TIME , September 26, 2007)
This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience.

The Iran Impasse
(Washington Post , September 26, 2007)
The furor that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created in New York this week has served his repugnant purposes in a couple of ways. First, like other anti-American demagogues, he has managed to use a visit to the U.N. General Assembly to convey an image of himself as engaged in mano-a-mano ideological combat with the U.S. enemy. Even more important, the Iranian president, who is not his country's principal leader, has managed to distract attention from a question more urgent than his rhetoric about the Holocaust and Israel.

Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks
(Karen Arenson, New York Times, September 26, 2007)
There are many reasons we find Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's policies and pronouncements loathsome. High on that list are his denial of the Holocaust, his call to wipe Israel off the map and his country's sponsorship of terrorism. Equally loathsome is Iran's denial of basic civil rights to its citizens, including the right of free speech. So we are dismayed by the behavior of some of New York's democratically elected representatives who denounced and threatened Columbia University for inviting the Iranian leader to speak there yesterday. We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran's repressive state than by showcasing America's democracy and commitment to free speech.

Iran's Media Assail President's Treatment
(Nazila Fathi, New York Times , September 26, 2007)
Iranian state television on Tuesday sharply criticized the way President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been treated during his Columbia University talk and asserted that he had triumphed over his adversarial hosts, whom it described as Zionist Jews. Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, denounced on the state-run news channel the inhospitable treatment of Mr. Ahmadinejad. "He is the president of a country," he said. "It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way."

U.S. loses home-field advantage in its jousts with Ahmadinejad
(Eric Trager, The Philadelphia Inquirer , September 25, 2007)
Give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad credit: He understands the American public far better than our leaders understand the Islamic publics to which he is appealing. In attempting to reach out to American students, Ahmadinejad has done what American diplomats have failed to do on campuses throughout the Middle East. For American public diplomacy, the results have been disastrous, as these campuses—always catalysts for the political movements shaping the region—have become unchecked hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. With each small victory in public diplomacy, Ahmadinejad's stature grows throughout the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad v. Bollinger: Words Were Spoken, But What Was Said?
(Ru S. Freeman, CommonDreams, September 25, 2007)
An invitation is a communication, expressed both formally and politely, to an individual, asking that they attend a festivity or event of ones own creation. In this case, Columbia University's president, Lee C. Bollinger, chose to ask a visiting foreign dignitary to grace his campus with his presence. A guest who accepts such an invitation does not envision that they will be publicly humiliated and attacked by their host for the amusement of other attendees. How embarrassing then that such a thing could occur, at so prestigious a venue as Columbia University, so publicly and at the center of such media attention. How much worse, however, is that not one newspaper in this country chose to point out that Lee C. Bollinger acted appallingly and disgracefully?

Ahmadinejad Does New York
(Pierre Tristam, CommonDreams, September 25, 2007)
Even assuming that Ahmadinejad was the enemy, that's only more reason to speak with him face to face, not less, or at least to hear him out. The guy had the guts to submit to open questions from a hostile university and New York audience. When's the last time George W. Bush had that courage? Bush never goes within a mile of an audience that hasn't been filtered, interrogated, pre-screened and pre-judged.

Iranians decry Columbia leader's harsh speech
Bollinger said Ahmadinejad behaves like a 'petty and cruel dictator'
(MSNBC, September 25, 2007)
Iranians expressed dismay Tuesday at the tough reception given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and only fueled the image of the United States as a bully. In the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim. He complained about Bollinger's "insults" and "unfriendly treatment" but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion. Some critics of Ahmadinejad in Iran warn that U.S. demonizing of the Iranian president has only strengthened his hand and boosted his falling political fortunes. Ahmadinejad, they say, keeps influence through his image as standing up to the world's superpower.

Who's Afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
After all the trembling, the Iranian president got a bruising instead of a boost.
(Jesse Walker, Reasononline, September 25, 2007)
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University yesterday, he did not emerge with the "propaganda victory" that neocon pundit Bill Kristol assured us he would receive. Sadly, however, Iran's president did win a propaganda victory throughout much of the world outside the USA.

Propaganda Coup
(Alan W. Dowd, FrontPageMagazine, September 25, 2007)
It has been a very successful trip for Ahmadinejad. And by that measure, it's hard to see how giving him a platform was the right thing to do.

Our view on Ahmadinejad in New York: Let Iranian president speak — to showcase U.S. values
(USA Today, September 24, 2007)
The Columbia invitation represents an opportunity of another, more important sort. The public display of Ahmadinejad getting to taste two fundamental pillars of democracy — free speech and the right to protest — should speak volumes about what the United States stands for, and what he and Iran don't. The contrast with how the United States treats critics hopefully won't be lost on the Iranian people.

Ahmadinejad in America
(Washington Post, September 24, 2007)
It is difficult to see how the United States would benefit from having a "dialogue" with a jihadist despot who denies the Holocaust and is arming to the teeth.

N.Y. site transcends boundaries
(James Carroll, Boston Globe, September 24, 2007)
Today's rebuff to the current president is of a piece with a long history of omni-political denigration aimed at Tehran. After all, it was when the reform-minded Khatami was Iran's leader that George W. Bush, in 2002, hung that nation on the "Axis of Evil." The extremist Ahmadinejad rode to power on Iranian reactions to the steady insult from America. This new insult reinforces him at home, just as moderate, relatively pro-Western opposition forces are jelling there.

Candidates Speak Out On Ahmadinejad Visit
(CBS News, September 24, 2007)
On the day that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University in New York, U.S. presidential candidates offered reaction ranging from support for academic freedom to harsh criticism of the university for inviting the Iranian president to speak.

Candidate (Duncan Hunter) Threatens Federal Money Over Ahmadinejad Columbia Speech
(Byron Wolf, ABC News, 24 September, 2007)
Duncan Hunter, the Congressman from California, joined other Republican Presidential candidates over the weekend in condemning the upcoming address to Columbia University by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Hunter went a step further by pledging that if the speech goes forth he will introduce legislation in Congress to cut off federal assistance from the University.

Legislatures May Act on Columbia
(Jacob Gershman, The Sun, September 24, 2007)
As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution."

U.S. Focus on Ahmadinejad Puzzles Iranians
(Michael Slackman, New York Times, September 24, 2007)
In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts. Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president's power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
(Juan Cole, Salon, September 24, 2007)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited. Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.

Facing Scorn, President of Iran Is Defiant to His Critics
(Helene Cooper, New York Times, September 24, 2007)
Mr. Ahmadinejad's much talked-about appearance at Columbia came as the opening act of a week of dramatic theater here as the United Nations General Assembly opened its annual session. Online tickets had evaporated in 90 minutes last week, they said, almost on par with a Bruce Sprinsteen concert. "I'm proud of my university today," said Stina Reksten, a 28-year old graduate student from Norway. "I don't want to confuse the very dire human rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom."

Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East
(Jeffrey Fleishman, LA Times September 24, 2007)
The president of Iran, who has made a point of defying the West and Israel, has won admiration even among Sunni nations.
(Subscription required)

Backstage at the Ahmadinejad Show
(Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, September 24, 2007)
What's really driving the Iranian president's Western charm offensive? A savvy political strategy for Ahmadinejad—and despite what the White House says, Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East outside Israel—is to appear just as reasonable with the West as Rafsanjani.

Columbia Does the Right Thing with Ahmadinejad
(Brian Lehrer, New York Public Radio, September 22, 2007)
New Yorkers are choosing up sides over Columbia University's plan to hold a forum on Monday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. WNYC's Brian Lehrer says in his opinion, Columbia is doing the right thing. The world will see a free society at work, where demagogues get exposed. The United States stands to look strong, not weak, by showing the world our values: seeking truth and accountability based on FREEDOM of speech, not denial of speech. Denial, as we know, is Ahmadinejad's claim to fame.

President Bollinger's Statement About President...]]> 2007-10-21T22:15:00-08:00 The diffusion and evolution of new technology has profoundly changed the practice of public diplomacy. Originally considered an activity only practiced by states, private actors have increasingly begun to invest in public diplomacy related initiatives. This is what Jan Melissen calls “the new public diplomacy.” NGOs, companies, and social movements have embarked upon large campaigns via the Internet, satellite TV channels, and radio with the expressed intention of mobilizing foreign public opinion. Importantly, these new actors have forced governments to engage with them; they challenge governmental authority and have been able to impact the political agenda and the decision-making process. On July 7, Live Earth kicked off a three-year campaign to combat global warming by organizing massive pop concerts all around the world. Live Earth represented an attempt to combine both old-fashioned and cutting-edge trends in social mobilization. The concert followed established patterns followed by previous events like Live Aid and Live 8 by bringing celebrities on stage to highlight a cause. The new component in the Live Earth formula was the rationale behind the initiative. The Alliance for Climate Protection wanted to raise awareness about global warming among the international public so that they will in turn pressure their governments to act upon and reform current environmental policies. As Marc and Craig Kilberburn wrote in The Toronto Star, “Al Gore simply bypassed policy-makers and took his message of conservation straight to the people.” In contrast to previous events, Live Earth’s goal was not to pressure governments directly but to mobilize the public. Interestingly, media coverage failed to report that Live Earth represented the launch of a three-year campaign and instead focused only on the event itself. Live Earth events took place in eight cities around the world (i.e. Washington, DC; East Rutherford, NJ; London, Shanghai, Hamburg, Johannesburg, Tokyo, and Sydney.) Each event received the tacit support of their local governments. This was particularly important in the case of China, because Live Earth was the first such event endorsed by the government. Moreover, Live Earth coincided with the Chinese government’s launch of several initiatives to combat climate change. Although the Chinese government has been criticized because it still refuses to release an environmental report. In the West, Live Earth suffered from various criticisms centered on the carbon footprints and the related hypocrisy of some of the performing artists. The strongest opponent of the event turned out to be Bob Geldof, organizer of Live Aid and Live 8. He downplayed the relevance of the initiative. “To make us aware of the greenhouse effect,” he wondered, “everybody’s known about that problem for years. We are all f*****g conscious of global warming.” According to Geldof, “Live Earth doesn’t have a final goal. I would only organize this if I could go on stage and announce concrete environmental measures from the American presidential candidates, Congress or major corporations. So it’s just an enormous pop concert.” Others, particularly those from developing countries, depicted Live Earth as out of priority. Many African commentators considered Live Earth as a slight, considering global warming as secondary to the humanitarian situation in the continent. Others characterized the event as a Western extravaganza designed to promote greater environmental consciousness. In response to the event, representatives from several African governments (Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) publicly acknowledged how seriously global warming could affect the continent. Although the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey found that environmental issues do not rank highly on the overall list of African concerns.. Some Western scientists also spoke out, arguing that global warming should not be the international priority, but rather global attention should be focused on clean water programs, malaria, or AIDs. In Germany, Greenpeace criticized the fact that Daimler-Chrysler was Live Earth’s main partner, because they objected to the car company’s environmental record-. A few days prior to the event, Al Gore introduced a seven-point pledge outlining how individuals could take small steps in their daily-life to better the situation. Even though the Alliance for Climate Protection claims that millions of people have already signed the pledge, very few officials or governments have publicly expressed their commitment. There have been a few exceptions. In the United States, Harry Reid, Democratic Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, announced that they had signed the pledge a few hours after Gore introduced it. While government officials have hesitated to sign the pledge, several governments have capitalized on Live Earth’s momentum by announcing initiatives featuring environmental reforms and international cooperation. The government has boosted its cooperation with the European Union on environmental issues. Australian Prime Minister John Howard addressed the issue on a video posted on YouTube before announcing a new set of environmental reforms. Australia announced new policies just days after Live Earth occurred in Sydney. These movements play to domestic changes in Australia’s domestic public opinion. According to a recent Worldpublicopinion.org survey, 92 percent of Australians now favor measures to combat global warming. Initiatives to fight climate change were not limited to countries that hosted a Live Earth show. India is set to launch a program called “Green India,” which was described as “one of the world’s largest forestation efforts in recent times.” According to a recent HSBC global survey, 60 percent of Indians are really worried about climate change. Several NGOs tried to capitalize on the current mood as well, by actively sponsoring Live Earth and its mission, such as WWF and I Count. International organizations also shared enthusiasm with Live Earth initiative. The United Nations Development Program particularly welcomed the Shanghai concert; because it has been deploying important efforts to assist China to reduce its energy consumption. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also announced that the UN would hold a debate on climate change on September 24 that would “give strong political impact and guidelines” to the December climate change conference in Indonesia. In the aftermath of Live Earth, many commentators openly questioned the relevance of the event, but few of them focused on Live Earth’s public diplomacy successes. As one commentator argued in The Boston Globe, “It seems that the potential to influence nearly a third of the world's population to engage the issue and change their behavior outweighs the negative impact, and given what’s at stake that’s a leap of faith worth taking.” The following is an aggregation of articles and commentaries published on Live Earth. The links are divided into four sections: (1) articles presenting Live Earth and its public diplomacy purposes (2) articles criticizing Live Earth (3) articles emphasizing how governments, international organizations and NGOs capitalize on the momentum (4) and public opinion polls. LIVE EARTH AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY PURPOSES Al Gore, Kevin Wall, Pharrell, Mana, Cameron Diaz Launch Unprecedented Campaign, Concert To Combat Climate Crisis (Press Release from Live Earth, February 2007) Detailing a historic effort to engage billions of people across the globe, Kevin Wall, Al Gore, Pharrell Williams, Maná, Cameron Diaz, and the MSN Network today launched Save Our Selves (SOS) – The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis. The announcement was made at the California Science Center. “Our climate crisis is the paramount challenge facing humanity. SOS is more than a global distress call. SOS will give the world the tools we need to answer that call with meaningful action. The most important part of SOS is how individuals, corporations, and governments respond,” Wall said. “Our climate crisis affects everyone, everywhere, and that’s who SOS is aimed at. Only a global response can conquer our climate crisis. SOS asks all people to Save Our Selves because only we can.” Taking the first step (Dan Hancock, China Dialogue, June 15, 2007) Can rock concerts change the world? It is a question that was asked repeatedly last summer when “Live 8” asked for a mass movement to fight global poverty. This time around the question being asked is “can rock concerts save the world?” I spoke to Live Earth’s official spokesperson Yusef Robb about reducing the event’s carbon footprint, educating rock stars – and changing the day-to-day behavior of the entire world… Gore urges '7 Point Pledge' ahead of Live Earth (Associated Press, MSNBC, June 29, 2007) Al Gore on Thursday called on people around the world to sign a "7 Point Pledge" promising personal action in curbing global warming. The former vice president unveiled the pledge at a press conference to promote Live Earth, the July 7 event of concerts stretching across the globe. Gore was joined by Live Earth founder Kevin Wall and Cathy Zoi, the CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection. Moving Beyond Kyoto (Al Gore, New York Times, Times Select, July 1, 2007) We - the human species - have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us. Our home - Earth - is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings. Can a global concert change the world? Live Earth hopes so (Jake Coyle for Associated Press, Newsday, July 2, 2007) Live Earth is ambitious by any standard: eight concerts featuring the biggest names in music, playing for a 24-hour period across the globe, all for the cause of global warming. But like its template - 2006's Live 8, the global concert devoted to poverty in Africa - the mission of Live Earth is somewhat amorphous. Its aim is to “trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis.” Whatever Live Earth's accomplishment on Saturday, it will be difficult to measure. Former Vice President Al Gore, who partnered with Kevin Wall in founding Live Earth, believes the world needs to rise up as one giant vox populi to influence “a new political reality.” Live Earth: How global warming became cool (Terra Daily, July 5, 2007) Once embraced only by tree huggers but now by Madonna, Sting and other stars, global warming had a turbulent ride before being adopted as a celebrity campaign issue in Saturday's Live Earth concerts. For much of its history, climate change has faced indifference or ignorance, thanks mainly to skeptics who challenged the sometimes-sketchy evidence and fossil-fuel lobbyists who dismissed it as nothing more than a greenmongering scare. Live Earth fighting concert fatigue (Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2007) Exactly how often can you stage a once-in-a-lifetime event? That’s the challenge Saturday for the organizers of Live Earth, the latest in a long line of huge concerts-for-a-cause. This time the issue is global warming — which is fitting considering the event isn’t generating quite as much heat as hoped. That’s despite all-star lineups with such A-list rock, pop and hip-hop acts as Madonna, the Police, Justin Timberlake, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Kanye West and more than 100 others on stages in eight cities around the world, including East Rutherford, N.J.; London; Johannesburg, South Africa; and Sydney. ‘This is just opening shot’ (Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times, UK, July 8, 2007) Once he was the nearly man of American politics, but this weekend Al Gore, Bill Clinton’s former sidekick, made it clear he was back, no longer just a politician but a phenomenon: the first global green celebrity. As the Live Earth concerts rolled out around the globe, each blessed with Gore’s presence, either live or on giant screens, it became clear that the failed presidential candidate has metamorphosed into a prophet. Live Earth takes direct approach (Craig and Marc Kielburger, Toronto Star, Canada, July 9, 2007) The concerts, a mix of music and activism, were an environmental call to action that reached upwards of 2 billion people. Despite the impressive showing, Live Earth has one high-profile critic. Charity concert guru Bob Geldof – the rocker behind Live Aid and Live 8 – called the concerts a "waste of time" because they had no specific goal for politicians or corporations. But that was the point. What made Live Earth unique was that it was geared toward ordinary citizens, not senators and CEOs. Forget hypocrisy, Live Earth brought message to billions (Joan Anderman, Boston Globe, July 9, 2007) It’s hard to imagine a better setting for Live Earth, a.k.a. the Concerts For a Climate in Crisis, than the petrochemical corridor of the New Jersey Turnpike. We’re late to the game and we’ve got to start somewhere. That’s what’s so annoying about the criticism being leveled at Live Earth, ranging from the energy consumed and waste generated by the event itself to the vagueness of its goals. It seems that the potential to influence nearly a third of the world’s population to engage the issue and change their behavior outweighs the negative impact, and given what’s at stake that’s a leap of faith worth taking. CRITICISMS AGAINST LIVE EARTH Live Earth? It's a waste of time, Geldof tells Gore (Cahal Milmo, The Independent, UK, May 16, 2007) He may have made the definitive film on climate change and come within a hanging chad of becoming the most world's most powerful man but Al Gore's status did little to protect him from another force of nature - Bob Geldof. The unloved former US vice-president, turned unlikely hero of the environmental lobby, found himself the target of withering criticism yesterday from the singer-campaigner for copying his "Live Aid" format for a series of concerts to raise awareness of global warming. Geldof, who invented the simultaneous global charity gig with Live Aid in 1985, accused Gore of doing little more than organizing a worldwide musical extravaganza to state the obvious when Live Earth - a series of seven concerts across the world spanning 24 hours - takes place on 7 July. Live Earth: deaf to reality (Bjørn Lomborg, Guardian, UK, July 3, 2007) The organisers of next Saturday's Live Earth concerts hope that the entire world will hear a crystal clear message: climate change is the most critical threat facing the planet. Planned by former US vice-president Al Gore, Live Earth will be the biggest, most mass-marketed show of celebrity activism in history. But making global warming the world's top priority means that we shuffle other major challenges down our “to do” list. Some climate change activists actually acknowledge this: Australian author Tim Flannery recently told an interviewer that climate change is “the only issue we should worry about for the next decade.” Tell that to the four million people starving to death, to the three million victims of HIV/AIDS, or to the billions of people who lack access to clean drinking water. Live Earth criticized for ignoring African issues (Mail & Guardian, South Africa, July 6, 2007) Mitigation, mitigation, mitigation -- the need for action to halt climate change will be hammered home at eight Live Earth concerts on seven continents on Saturday. In Johannesburg, that message has dictated the choice of materials in what is being billed as a carbon-neutral concert, right down to the biodegradable drumsticks and guitar picks. But to focus exclusively on preventing future pollution is to overlook an aspect of climate change that is deemed more critical in Africa, according to experts. White Lies At Live Earth: DaimlerChrysler Kisses Green Goodbye (Sebastian Knauer, Spiegel Online, Germany, July 6, 2007) Carmaker DaimlerChrysler may appear as a green world savior at Live Earth on Saturday, but the PR push comes as the company scraps a number of its much-lauded programs to create eco-fri