
So, he came. Ahmadinejad. I’m sure most of you have seen it on the news (and some of you were at Columbia with me).
There’s so much to say:
-Was it appropriate to invite the leader of a country that consistently violates human rights, and thereby giving him a platform to speak?
I believe it was. If living up to human rights was the merrit to judge leaders on, Bush wouldn’t get to travel much (no futher comparison intended). I believe that dialogue is the only way forward if we want to proceed in international relations (and most other aspects of life, really). it’s easy to talk to the ones we agree with- I found it important to be confronted with Ahmadinejad’s oftentimes distorted view on reality (as an example, he is the man behind the question in the title above). And equally important: to challenge him with our views. I actually think both happened.
Is he the second Hitler?
There were many, many demonstrators outside Columbia. Some were cool, some were fun, some were less fun, and some were quite frankly ridiculous. There were a big group of people who had posters with pictures merging Ahmadinejad and Hitler, shanting how the first is the resurrection of the latter. I think comparisons like that are not only silly; they’re stupid and potentially dangerous. I should have liked to see what had happened had I used Hitler to make a point about a leader I don’t like. I’m quite sure the same group of people would have haunted me down the street and accused me of many terrible things.
So, what did he say?
You can see most or all of the spech and questions here.
The points I would highlight are:
-There are no homosexuals in Iran (maybe true: according to human rights groups, homosexuals have been reported to be hung in Iran) At the same time, he explained why death penalty is a good thing.
-Iran is welcoming not only talks with the US, but also a Columbia University delegation to Iranian universities. (I know I’ll apply for a seat)
-He didn’t deny the holocaust, but he did question it. And rethorically asked why the Palestinians should pay the prize for a (potential) crime, they had no stakes in.
-He didn’t confirm or reject the idea of ‘wiping Israel off the map’. He said he believes the issue (whatever that is exactly) should be dealt with by democratic elections with participation by all groups in israel: Jews, Muslims and Christians alike.
-He talked, quite convincingly so, about the number and rights of jews in Iran and thereby tried to shake off the image as antisemite.
All in all a very interesting event, I thought. Some of you have probably heard of President Bollingers introduction - even my cousin Niels in Denmark did. I personally found it extensively rude and not very constructive. On the other hand: how should he have introduced Mugabe? Putin? (Bush?) Mostly, I found it weird to invite someone to speak and then treate him in such a condescending manner. I was looking forward to Ahmadinejad being confronted with hardcore criticism, but this was a weird, almost infantile way of doing it. See Bollinger’s intro here
Ok, I think that’s all for now. I think I will attach a letter Bollinger sent out to all Columbia students. Look for a page to the right. It (tries to) explain(s) why Ahmadinejad was invited in the first place.
Comments are very welcome. I know we have discussed this a lot at SIPA (most seem to agree on the basic points, though). Maybe the discussion can continue here.
Hakuna Matata