Response to "Relations between Archaeologists and the Military in the case of Iraq"

Abstract

 The present discussion involves only those who work with the military and not for them. In the latter case, the ethical considerations are partly different and perhaps even more subtle.  Dr Curtis distinguishes two phases in an armed conflict: Pre-Conflict and PostConflict. His decision to cooperate with the military depends on the phase of the conflict. I would like to add another phase to that model: Peri-Conflict, defined as during the period of fighting or conflict. Today, conflicts have become increasingly interrelated. Modern wars have no limits; attacks on civilians and relief workers and other abuses of international humanitarian law have become deliberate strategies. Many conflicts are ‘frozen’ and the status of many countries is often described as ‘a stable situation of instability’ (quoted in Volberg Ruhr 2006). Under these altering circumstances, the phases of conflict are easily shifting from peri-conflict to postconflict and back again. This situation makes it much more difficult for archaeologists to decide what position to adopt, as they have no way of predicting the extent of the violence and thus the necessity of working directly with the military.  The first and most crucial question in this discussion is whether a mission is sanctioned by international law. It should be crystal clear that archaeologists can only cooperate with the military if a peace mission is approved by the UN Security Council, the European Union, NATO, the African Union or any other generally accepted international body.  Humanitarian principles, ie the moral responsibility to address human suffering wherever it is found, can be translated to our profession. For archaeologists, it should read that we have the moral obligation to assist in the protection of cultural heritage of any origin all over the globe. This principle should be accepted by all who partake in this discussion.