After the American Century

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Neither the Hamas regime nor the Israeli government can be described as innocents. Both have been wronged. Both can be accused of unreasonable violence. Both have committed unlawful acts. Both might be accused before the World Court of war crimes committed during their current conflict. 

Some demand that we take sides, as if this would help resolve the crisis. In particular, some are calling for Nordic universities to boycott Israeli universities. This idea is hardly new, as it has also been advocated by supporters of Palestine in the United States. Such proposals attack the foundation of universities, as institutions that promote freedom of speech, dialogue, and cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War there were still exchanges between universities on either side of the Iron Curtain, notably those of the Fulbright Program. Russian and eastern European professors went to the United States, and Americans went the other way. For half a century all sorts of cultural exchanges, including orchestras, choirs, writers, engineers, farmers, and many more, helped maintain a dialogue between the two sides. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down with scarcely a shot being fired. Decades of cultural exchange played a role in achieving that result. In the current conflict, the Nordic countries are not at war with either side, and the best role they can play is that of honest brokers. This is not a new role. Remember the Oslo Accords of the 1990s?

If you join a boycott in order to support the Palestinians, you are siding with Hamas and with Iran, which is fighting proxy wars and supporting terrorism in the Middle East. If you support the Israelis, then you are joining hands with an extreme right-wing government, whose prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been undermining democratic institutions in Israel, as well as treating the Palestinians unjustly. Boycotting Israel's universities will not bother that government very much, and it will likely please the rightwing extremists who support Prime Minister Netanyahu. Universities are places where moderates can work toward a different and more democratic future than what either Hamas or the right-wing Israeli government are fighting for. The former chair of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson has written, "there is more academic freedom in Israel than in other nations in the Middle East. It is hypocritical and a fundamental betrayal of our mission as academics to advocate boycotting universities not because of their fundamental character but because of the policies of the nation in which they are located."

Yet Michelle Pace's essay in Politiken (29.11.23) calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities. She does not compare them to universities in Syria, Iran, or other Middle Eastern nations that are dictatorships. Only Israel's universities are guilty by geographical association. Her proposal would isolate moderate Israelis, many of whom are professors and students. The actual situation is not fairly described in her essay, which depicts Israeli academic research as being almost identical with government plans and policies. In fact, opposition to the Netanyahu government has been notable in the universities, and they teach not only Jews but also Arabs, Christians, Druze, and agnostics. There are about 320,000 students, including more than 40,000 Arabs, whose numbers were increasing rapidly before the current crisis. A boycott would prevent them from taking a term abroad in Denmark. Is that sensible? Is it defensible to prevent Israeli academics from attending conferences in the Nordic countries, regardless of their point of view? Is a boycott to be extended to their books, journals, or articles, regardless of subject matter? Are medical laboratories to break off cooperative research that has nothing to do with the war? Should Jewish writers, regardless of nationality, to be banned as well? 

Universities struggle to maintain academic freedom, and boycotts are threats to that freedom. The American Association of University Professors has long opposed the use of university boycotts. Of course there are professors in every nation's universities who support their government's actions, but that hardly justifies boycotting an entire university system. 

Boycotting Israeli universities would punish 350,000 students and faculty indiscriminately. By isolating moderates who seek conflict resolution and by taking sides with Hamas, who seek to eradicate Israel, a boycott would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. The university is the wrong target, and a boycott is the wrong weapon. In times of polarization it is crucial to maintain dialogue and free speech so that a resolution can become possible. The goal is not to proclaim virtuous outrage, take sides, and demand a boycott. The goal is to support moderates on both sides and help them to find peace.

During the Vietnam War, protests occurred at universities in both the United States and around the world. The protests were primarily calls for peace. I participated in many of them from 1966 until the end of that war in 1975, and the crowds were singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance." I suggest that Michelle Pace and others who are attracted to a boycott might reconsider their tactics. A boycott is a negation, a refusal to engage in dialogue, and a claim of superior virtue that will anger one side and encourage the other, helping to sustain a conflict. What we need are large, non-violent protests that include not only Palestinians and refugees now living in Denmark but also a broader coalition calling for peace and asking politicians to take an active role as arbitrators. 

Why is Burning Books Defined as Freedom of Speech?

After the American Century

In recent weeks the Koran has been burned several times in Sweden and Denmark, causing outrage in the Moslem world. Crowds have protested, attacked embassies, and denounced the Danish and Swedish governments. In response, Scandinavians point out that their governments have not burned books. Rather, individuals have done so, as is their right, as an expression of free speech.

As a historian, I note that book burning has usually been practiced by dictatorships and intolerant regimes. The Nazis come to mind. I do not recall many examples of books being burned by people who habitually read and write books. I doubt that those who are burning the Koran have read it, and it is also unlikely that those who ban or burn Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses have read that either. 

As a writer, I find book burning an insulting practice. One should debate about a book that causes offense, not destroy it. And in the age of digital communication, multiple copies proliferate, so burning a text is rather pointless as it will hardly be eradicated. 

As a citizen, I dislike book burning because it is almost always a populist stunt designed to short-circuit reasoned discussion. In Denmark, for example, a rather surprising number of people seem convinced that to restrict or ban burning the Koran would be a defeat for free speech and a victory for undemocratic Moslem regimes.

What nonsense. The real discussion ought to be about whether burning books is free speech. I submit that burning any book is the strongest possible manifestation of a refusal to discuss it or acknowledge any value in it. I would like to see a law that severely restricted the public burning of any book, by prohibiting such acts unless permission had been granted after a review of a 500-1,000 word statement that justified the proceeding. That is the length of a typical book review, and such a statement would have to convince a panel appointed by the government that (1) the applicant has read and understood the book, and that (2) there is a convincing argument for the destruction of the text. 

In other words, I would like to insist that there be reading, discussion, and collective decision-making before any book can be burned. This is a serious act, and it should not be a spontaneous one in a moment of anger or a way to make headlines without actually making a convincing argument. As currently practiced, I regard book burning as a form of hate speech, intended to insult and inflame, not to inform or debate

There is one further consideration. The right to free speech is not a right to irresponsible speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Free speech entails responsibility for one's statements, which is why it does not include a right to slander someone or to spread falsehoods that damage another person's reputation.  

For a small, right-wing minority in Sweden or Denmark to burn the Koran in front of a Moslem nation's embassy seems very much like screaming "Fire" in order to create panic, provoke fear, and increase polarization. Why do journalists and politicians keep on saying that this is "free speech"? 

Paying for climate disaster or for nuclear weapons?

After the American Century

One of the sore points in the UN climate negotiations is the question of who should pay for floods and other disasters that are intensified or even caused by global warming. Pakistan has been especially insistent that it needs international aid to rebuild after intense flooding. I am not against this idea in the abstract, but note the following points.

(1) A nation is responsible for preparing for disasters. It ought to keep sea walls and dikes in good repair, for example. It should also restrict building on a flood plain which will almost certainly be inundated in the foreseeable future.  This point also applies to provinces or states within nations. When Florida allows extensive building close to the sea, while at the same time removing large mangrove trees which are an effective defence against storm surges, it should not be able, when disaster strikes, to ask for billions in aid. Regions and a nations have a duty to protect their citizens, and this means they should prepare for possible disasters. I cannot say whether Pakistan fulfilled its duty to be prepared, but it is fair to ask the question and investigate before handing over billions of dollars.

(2) In 2019 the nations with nuclear weapons spent about $73 billion on their arsenals. Some nations that are asking for free disaster aid are also nuclear powers, notably Pakistan. Should it continue to make large investments in atomic bombs rather than make that money available as disaster aid? Would not loans to such a nation be, in effect, assistance to their nuclear programs?  Supposedly, such weapons are for national defence, but in practice the bombs are in storage, available just in case. The estimated annual cost of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is $1 billion. It also was costly to develop the weapons in the first place, and took almost twenty years before the first bomb was tested successfully in 1998. The total expense of Pakistan's nuclear program is therefore at least $30 billion. Had they used that money to prepare for flood disasters, it would be roughly twice the $15 billion they now are requesting in free disaster aid.  India has spent more than twice that sum on nuclear weapons  in the last quarter century, so it might have had more than $60 billion for environmental projects and disaster aid.

On the whole, if all the money now spent on nuclear weapons could be reallocated to curbing global warming, by 2035 it would amount to $1 trillion.

I am amazed that any nuclear state has the nerve to ask for free aid to protect its people from environmental disasters. If they have billions for weapons of mass destruction, then they do not need charity when disaster strikes. Rather. they need to rethink their priorities.

On this basis, I suggest that the following nations should not be eligible for free disaster assistance:

    The United States

    China

    Britain

    Russia

    France

    India

    North Korea

    Iran

One might want to add more nations to this list, depending on their annual budget for conventional ams.