Tuesday September 19, 2006

Column:

Freedom of speech is overrated.

Freedom of speech is especially overrated in the international diplomatic arena.

In reality, all countries are not equal. Every country does not have the right to say whatever, whenever, wherever. The simple fact of existence does not entitle a country to say what it wants. Neither does membership in the United Nations.

When a country's mouthpiece, that country's leader, steps verbally over the line of acceptability and civility, that leader should be reprimanded. In diplomatic circles, that country should be shunned. In economic spheres, that country should be isolated. In cultural exchanges that country should be excluded. And if the international community-at-large is too timid to take a stand, the United States should do so. Yes, the United States, big brother, the most powerful civilized nation in the whole wide world. When the world turns a blind eye the United States has the responsibility to illuminate the way.

There is no force great enough to prevent a country from promoting a belief or adopting an attitude or even codifying a law that is contrary to the accepted norms of international behavior. But that country should not be given an open invitation to stand on a soap box outside its own boundaries and preach. Not anywhere. That rhetoric should not be offered up before the entire world in the forum of the United Nations. That type of performance has no place in the hallowed hall of the General Assembly. Those pronouncements should not be allowed refuge under the cloak of the right of freedom or freedom of speech.

The United Nations is supposed to protect the rights of those who suffer under abuse. The United Nations is not supposed to protect the abuser of those rights. Protecting the abuser of human rights is not under United Nations jurisdiction. Protecting the rights of the abuser of human rights is repulsive, repugnant, immoral and inhuman.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations is the perfect example. When he stands before the member nations gathered in the great hall he speaks his mind, he spews forth his venom. Invitation or not, president of a country or not, the question is: Should this man be permitted to enter the United States of America in order to address the United Nations?

How would you decide? Remember, the decision to physically allow the president of Iran entry into the United States or to disallow him that entry is a decision that will shape international policy and diplomacy for years to come. The decision is not ground breaking, the precedents have already been set. It is, however, a decision that will echo not just throughout the United Nations but around the world.

The precedent for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at the United Nations is a form of roundabout logic, legalese and diplomacy. Ahmadinejad himself was privy to the benefits of this precedent last year.

In order for anyone, even those people who travel on diplomatic passports to enter the United States, they are required to be issued a visa. Last year Ahmadinejad received a special visa from the United States to attend the General Assembly. The special visa allowed the president of Iran to travel only within an eighteen mile radius of the United Nations. This special visa was designed as to accommodate those leaders who would be visiting the UN. The eighteen mile radius allows them to land in any of the New York area airports, check into a hotel, get to the UN and then get out. This law was the legal way around the special and deeply problematic role that the United States has as host country for the United Nations.

The precedent not to allow Ahmadinejad into the United States even to speak before the United Nations was set in 1988. That's the year the Reagan administration said "no" to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

By 1988 it was obvious to everyone in the US administration and much of the Western world that Arafat represented hatred and terror. Ronald Reagan took a firm stance and upheld his convictions. The State Department refused to grant Arafat even the special 18-mile visa. In response and in the defense of the right of Yasser Arafat to murder Israelis and Jews around the world, the United Nations moved the General Assembly to Europe where Arafat was welcomed and from where he could address the august nations of the world.

That decision by the United Nations underscored two key issues. It emboldened the no-goodniks by sending out the message that the United Nations would protect their rights to murder and even provide them a platform from which to speak of their evil deeds. And it gave evidence to the fact that the United States would neither sponsor nor support that platform in any way. It showed all the nations of the world that the United States understood the limits of diplomatic free speech.

Ahmadinejad has only one goal - to take over the world. He has only one objective - to take over the world. He has only one speech to deliver - explaining why Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy and why ideologically Iran and like-thinking nations should take over and replace the United States as leaders of the world. He might be speaking before the United Nations but he is spinning for the benefit of Muslim and Arab nations. He uses rhetoric that will torque up the intensity in his own region and satiate his colleagues and cohorts sense of independence and need for power.

How would I decide? I would not allow Ahmadinejad to enter the United States. No questions. No explanations. No guilt.