Letter Bombs
In Digger 31, we published an article about Archaeologists
for Human Rights (AFHR) who were advertising for archaeologists
to join them in Iraq to excavate the mass graves of
those killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Here are some
of your responses:
Useful Links
Archaeologists
for Human Rights
Forensic
Archaeology
Bounemouth
University Forensic Course
FCO
travel Advice - Iraq
AFHR SUPPORTING
ILLEGAL OCCUPATION
The Iraqi based activities of AFHR
may, and probably should, be taken as indirect support
for the illegal military occupation and economic colonisation
of that country. The investigation of the killings and
human right abuses of Saddam Hussein's awful regime
is commendable, but it would be naive not to be concerned
about the political implications during ongoing military
conflict. Any activity that uses the opportunities opened
up by the invasion of Iraq is likely to provide the
political prospects for further human abuses by the
occupying army, whose humanitarian record is not better
than that of the former Iraqi butcher.
DON’T GO!
I've worked since 1996 as a forensic
archaeologist and anthropologist, both in the UK and
overseas, for UK police forces, the MoD, the Foreign
Office, and the UN; I've worked in Bosnia and in Kosovo,
and I think I have a fair experience of these situations.
My advice to anyone considering working in the set-up
that is currently proposed by AFHR is: DON'T GO.
There are good ethical and professional
reasons for concern about the proposed AFHR excavations,
but in addition there are very strong safety concerns.
Insurance is currently fourteen thousand pounds per
month for anyone from the UK working in Iraq, and for
good reason. If you are a civilian, you are a target,
especially if you are working to retrieve and record
evidence of past crimes on this scale.
You need training on mines, on booby-traps,
on behaviour in crisis situations. The advice not to
drive marked vehicles chills me, they should not be
out without a full military escort. Driving in war-zones
is a skill in itself, not just an off-road burn-up.
This is not cowardice on my part, but experience and
knowledge. I've been in enough dangerous situations
for work to last me a lifetime, and a long lifetime
is what I'd prefer to have. This is not exciting, nor
a big adventure. Going to Iraq at the current time would
be, in my personal and professional opinion, stupid,
foolhardy and possibly one of the last decisions you
might make.
If you want to move into forensic archaeology, look
at the reputable organisations around internationally
- Bahid, Inforce, CIFA. And never, ever, work in a war
zone without full backing of an international organisation
such as the UN, full training, and the back-up of experienced
team-members to work along the inexperienced.
Laura Sinfield, Forensic Medicine
Section,
School of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University
of Edinburgh
Links:
International
Forensic Centre of Excellence for the Investigation
of Genocide (the Inforce Foundation)
The
British Association for Human Identification
Centre
for International Forensic Assistance
MISLEADING AND FLIPPANT
As you may be aware, there is a bit of debate surrounding
your article on AFHR. Much of the concern revolves around
The Digger's misleading portrayal of the work and flippant
attitude, especially concerning security. I feel that
The Digger should feel a moral obligation to present
the work in Iraq accurately.
I have worked as an archaeologist in the UK and as
a forensic archaeologist in the Balkans since 1999.
Armed police and military security were always provided,
with de-mining and security assessments conducted at
every crime-scene and exhumation site. Grenades, plastic
explosives and live munitions have been routinely uncovered
and crowds of people hostile towards the work are not
uncommon. Iraq presents further concerns of potential
chemical contamination of graves, the uncertain threat
of depleted uranium, for instance.
There are many in forensics who want to disassociate
themselves from AFHR out of concern of inexperience
and lack of information about security. However, I had
been contacted by AFHR and am considering assisting
them with their work once unanswered questions have
been resolved.
My objection to your article is that it does not at
all project the seriousness and concerns related to
the work to be done in Iraq. This is not the message
that archaeologists seeking to get experience in forensics
should be hearing, it is terribly misleading.
Derek Congram
EDITOR'S REPLY:
In our defence, our article did draw attention to Foreign
Office advice that 'the threat to British nationals
from terrorism in Iraq remains high.' We pointed out
that the Red Cross and the UN have evacuated most of
their foreign staff and that Irbil where AFHR are based
has been the target of suicide bombs. We referred to
armed guards provided for the archaeologists and characterised
Iraq as a 'warzone.'
In our necessarily brief article, we wanted the archaeologists
involved to speak for themselves. We left readers to
draw their own conclusions about whether AFHR’s intentions
are naive and foolhardy or not, and whether there is
adequate provision both for the work and for safety.
March 2004
