Columbia University shamed itself when its president clumsily attempted to vilify Ahmadinejad, writes Hassan Nafaa* I followed closely the controversy surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's invitation to Columbia University. The Iranian president was invited for an open debate with faculty and students as part of the "World Leaders Forum" that the university has been organising since 2003. Although Columbia University came under immense pressure to cancel the invitation, it went ahead with the debate, which took place 24 September. I watched the proceedings live on television, but relied for the purposes of this article on the transcriptions of the encounter as published on the website of Columbia University. Since he came to office in 2005, I took a personal interest in Ahmadinejad, the plain-dressed man who came from nowhere to take centre stage in Iranian politics. Ahmadinejad edged one of Iran's most seasoned politicians, Rafsanjani, out of the way and managed to replace the moderate and widely respected Khatami. My curiosity was such that I made an extra effort to understand this man who, despite appearances, turned out to be extremely complex and at times reckless. Judging Ahmadinejad's remarks about the Holocaust to be unhelpful and irresponsible, I criticised him in the media, including the Arabic-language Iranian channel Al-Alam. My point was that the Iranian president gave Tehran's enemies ammunition and opportunity to blackmail and blockade his country. Perhaps someone was trying to create another "Saddam" in order to find a reason to attack Iran and liquidate its regime, I speculated. But my annoyance with some of Ahmadinejad's statements did not prevent me from finding an excuse for his behaviour, especially in the light of the arrogance and extremism of the current US administration. This administration was -- in my view -- at least partly responsible for undermining Khatami's reformist plans, and is therefore to blame for the revival of conservatism in Iran. President Bush tends to act like a man receiving revelations from heaven. At one point, he suggested that his policies paved the way for the return of Christ, so one must not be surprised when Iranians put in office a man who believes that his own policies will hasten the return of the "hidden imam". In such a context, and with a "cold religious war" taking place between Bush and Ahmadinejad, Columbia University's invitation could have been an opportunity to break through the vicious circle of extremism and counter-extremism. It could have been an opportunity to discredit absolutist ideological ideas and those who see the world as a battlefield between pure goodness and pure evil. As it turned out, the organisers of the event had other things on mind. Had Columbia University offered Ahmadinejad a chance to see another aspect of America -- one that differs from the views held by the Bush administration -- the encounter could have helped defuse international tensions. But the university failed that test, and its president, Professor Lee Bollinger, made several major errors. Bollinger's first error was to abandon routine formalities. The standard practice for a university president in such an occasion is say a few words welcoming the guest and explaining why he was invited to campus and what the university hopes to achieve. Then the guest would make a speech and take questions from the audience. But the university president decided otherwise. He launched into a diatribe befitting a public prosecutor, casting Ahmadinejad as a defendant. Such an approach was demeaning to Columbia University, and backfired. Bollinger made Ahmadinejad look like an innocent man who had been set up. Bollinger's speech was all wrong. He insulted Ahmadinejad, calling him "a petty and cruel dictator," and said that he was "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated" to deny the Holocaust. Bollinger's views mirrored the views of the US administration, and at times surpassed them in extremism. At times, the Columbia University president sounded less of an academic than of an official spokesman of the US government. He blamed the Iranian government for the current crisis. "Why have women, members of the Bahaai faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?" he asked, adding that the Iranian government was "undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders." Bollinger put himself firmly on the side of Israel and the Zionist movement. He even apologised for those "pained" by the university's invitation of Ahmadinejad. "You should know that Columbia is a world centre of Jewish studies -- in partnership with the YIVO Institute of Holocaust Studies -- do you plan on wiping us off the map too?" he asked the Iranian president. The audience was not allowed to participate in the dialogue except through written questions. And those questions seemed to express one view, as if Columbia University was a homogeneous intellectual entity, one that doesn't allow diversity or difference of opinion. With the exception of some instances in which the audience vaguely clapped to some of Ahmadinejad's comments, the whole event seemed like a clash between two cultures that have nothing in common: an Eastern one led by the Iranian president and a Western one led by Columbia University. Having listened to the proceedings live on television, I had the impression that it wouldn't have been different had it taken place in an official agency affiliated with the US administration, such as the White House or the State Department. This alone was a proof of the damage Columbia University did to its reputation. Throughout the "dialogue", I didn't hear a word of criticism of US foreign policies. I didn't hear a word about the crimes the US administration committed and is still committing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Guantanamo, and secret detention centres set up by US intelligence services in Eastern Europe. So why did Columbia University go ahead with the encounter in the first place? Bollinger obviously wanted to reinforce the image of the university, especially among its students and faculty, as an independent institution with a tradition of free speech. Interestingly, Bollinger felt the need to stress that, "this event has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. It is consistent with the idea that one should know [one's] enemies [and] have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil." Bollinger also wanted to portray Ahmadinejad as a man incapable of argument and lacking the intellectual courage of true leaders. Bollinger wanted to confront the Iranian president with two difficult choices: either to change his declared views in a show of intellectual courage, or to avert pointed questions through lies and excuses. Bollinger also aimed to undermine the popularity of Ahmadinejad at home through casting him as a reckless leader who cannot promote Iranian interests, in the hope of dashing his chances in any future elections. Remarkably, Bollinger cited Iranian specialists as saying that Ahmadinejad's avoidance of difficult questions during last year's encounter with the Council on Foreign Relations undermined his popularity at home and lost his party the municipal elections this year. I have no way of determining how the event will affect Ahmadinejad's popularity at home. What is clear to me is that many in the US elite live in a world of illusions. Everything about the encounter could only boost Ahmadinejad's image at home and abroad. And any comparison between Ahmadinejad's remarks and those of Bollinger would give the former a definite advantage on the latter. The Iranian president came across as the more polite, genteel and moderate of the two. Meanwhile, Columbia University came across as being brainwashed and rigid in its ways. The Iranian president refrained from stooping into insults. His words were those of an academic -- at home he teaches a course to graduate students -- who has respect for science and truth. Ahmadinejad pointed out that the Iranian nuclear programme was peaceful and in strict conformity with international law as well as under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He said that he doesn't deny the Holocaust, but is against closing the door to further investigation on that matter, and against imprisoning those who challenge conventional views on the Holocaust. The Iranian president said that his country was not helping terrorists but was itself a victim of terror. He pointed out that the US supports a terrorist organisation that killed 4,000 innocent Iranians last year alone. As for Israel, he said that he didn't want to wipe it off the map, but was calling for the Palestinian people to exert self-determination. Iran can only recognise Israel once the Palestinians are permitted to decide on their future, the Iranian president said. * The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
