Coatsworth: “[Bollinger] was fulfilling an institutional function”

NEW YORK – It’s not everyday that one has the opportunity to hold a lively Question-and-Answer session with one of the world’s most notorious leaders.  For John Coatsworth, Dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, coming face to face with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was a rare opportunity to put this controversial leader on the hot seat with regard to a number of issues ranging from his views on the Holocaust, to Iran’s nuclear armament and more.             

Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia this week sparked an international debate over whether a man who has referred to the Holocaust as “a myth” and has called for the “elimination” of Israel should be granted an invitation to such a prestigious university.  Columbia went ahead with the program, but to many, the concerns of Ahmedinejad’s critics were satisfied during the blistering introductory remarks delivered by the university’s President Lee Bollinger.             

In this exclusive interview, Coatsworth discusses with Vivian Salama his debate with Ahmedinejad, as well as the controversy surrounding his visit, and Bollinger’s equally controversial speech.   

Vivian Salama: What was your overall impression of President Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia? 

John Coatsworth:  There was indeed a debate that seemed to involve principally a relatively small number of people that were unhappy that Columbia had invited President Ahmedinejad.  Even if that number is small in relation to the population, it was a group that was extremely unhappy with what we had done.  The group itself included some people who were related to the Armed Forces.  I got several emails from people who were either in the Armed Forces in Iraq, related to people in Iraq. A much larger number of emails were from people who were concerned about Ahmedinejad’s views on Israel and the Holocaust.  Then there were a number of emails from people who had strong feelings based on some patriotic sentiments.

 Q: What’s your overall assessment of the exchange you had with President Ahmedinejad during the Q&A portion of the program? 

Coatsworth:  I was asking questions on behalf of students.  I wasn’t able to cover all the questions.  I felt President Ahmedinejad to be like many politicians who preferred to answer questions that you don’t ask rather than the ones you do.  I was quite prepared for that and not at all surprised when he responded with an answer that was either inappropriate or off the point.  When he did, it just prompted me to ask the question again.

 Q: What would you liked to have asked him that was not asked or addressed in the forum? 

Coatsworth:  If the forum had been limited to just us, I probably would have asked more about Iranian relations and conditions under which [Ahmedinejad] would be willing to cooperate with United States in achieving peace and stability in the region. I think we could have gotten into a discussion that would have gone on longer but one in which we would have had a more clearer idea of how the Iranians want this whole thing to evolve – so that was a disappointment if you will. 

Q: Many people have criticized Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger for the rather tough remarks he made during his introductory speech.  What’s your take on it? 

Coatsworth: There are three things I can say to this. 

First, we did prepare the Iranians for the fact that [Bollinger] would be sharply challenging the policies of Ahmedinejad at the very outset of the talk

Second, I think the President of the university felt an obligation to distinguish between the invitation we had extended to the speaker on the one hand and endorsing his views on the other. Columbia’s institution does not endorse the views that he sighted in his presentation.  That was an important point for the President to make

Third, I think President Bollinger’s introduction was directed not so much to the people in the auditorium, but to those who had raised objections to the talk itself.  Those were the people he was addressing with those remarks.

Q: Do you think that was fair? 

Coatsworth:  The issue that was raised in most of the comments we received following the event and in the newspapers and emails was the question of courtesy.  I think the comments had been divided between those who believed he was confronting President Ahmedinejad and those who felt his remarks were discourteous – undermining the civility of the event. 

It was meant to be a forum for exchange of ideas.

There were certainly concerns of both sides.  [Bollinger] was fulfilling an institutional function and his approach was appropriate given the circumstances.  It is not my place to second guess him

Q: Do you think the event was a success – especially given the hype before and after the forum? 

Coatsworth: I think it was an educational success in many ways.  It certainly provoked discussions on campus about free speech and how important it was.  It also raised awareness with regard to the nature of US-Iranian relations and what kind of regime Iran is and how we should deal with it in the future

It certainly was an interesting experience for students who feel there is a need to engage those kinds of ideas – especially for those who may go on to hold government or policy making positions in the future.

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

The letter below is a brilliant rebuttal from the Iranian academic community in response to the blistering introductory remarks by Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger to a talk given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Monday afternoon.  Below this, I posted my remarks following the forum with regard to Bollinger and the controversy surrounding the invitation to Columbia’s World Leaders’ Forum. 

For anyone who is interested, you can also refer to the following links to read my coverage of the event:

Newsweek: President Ahmedinejad Goes to Columbia

Washington Post/PostGlobal: Ahmedinejad Provokes Important Discussions

[exerpts from Bollinger's introduction]

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

TEHRAN – Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger’s insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.The following is the full text of the letter.

* * * *

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University PresidentWe, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in
Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks
prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent speech at Columbia
University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by
the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all
of the country’s political parties and groups participated. To assess the
quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the
poll dated June 2005.

Your 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.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by
extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers
can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were
the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims
result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and
further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and
those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a
scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of
our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere
of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the
truth.

Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad
from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV
networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while
refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the
principle of freedom of speech?

Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran’s national
government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah’s
dictatorship?

Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the
1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical
weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own
people?

Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of
Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it
oppose Iran ’s proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a
general referendum?

Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even
with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between
the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you
justify the Bush administration’s efforts to disrupt investigations concerning
the September 11 attacks?

Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO)
despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the
responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why
does the US refuse to allow Iran ’s current government to act against the MKO’s
main base in Iraq?

Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did
international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the
invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the
weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely
undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons
in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of
Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than
Israel?

Why is the US displeased with Iran’s agreement with the IAEA and why does it
openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the
nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other
scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your
colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including
intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of
Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the
Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their
guests.