We, undersigned, appeal to all university staff to undertake a one-day teaching moratorium in the event of war on Iraq.
As of 3 March, 754 staff and academics have signed a declaration against war with Iraq. Students and staff, we believe, have serious doubts about the shifting case for war: from proscribed weapons, to terrorism, to the hawkish evangelism of the 'moral case'. On the National Day of Action against the war on the 31 October 2002, lecturers at SOAS in London called off their lectures and instead dedicated the day to a forum of discussion on the present crisis. We ask you to take a similar stand.
In recognition of widespread opposition to war, and in response to serious concerns about its justification and legitimacy, we ask you to abstain from giving lectures on the first teaching day after the start of a bombing campaign or land invasion of Iraq involving UK troops. If an attack begins during the vacation, the moratorium would occur on Thursday Week 1 of Easter Term. We ask you instead to give that time over for a teach-in or discussion forum on the war and related issues. This might include topics of relevance to your teaching subject. For instance, lecturers in medical science might wish to talk about the medical and socio-medical effects of war. Scientists and engineers may want to discuss their responsibilities in using science and technology to promote security, reduce war and prevent weapons proliferation.
In addition, several departments have already discussed the possibility of organising discussion sessions or teach-ins for their whole department, as an appropriate response to the outbreak of war. We urge other departments to consider similar actions. We call upon the intellectual resources of the university to stand up to the political and intellectual dishonesty with which war on Iraq has been pursued.
No conclusive case has been made in favour of military action. The absence of evidence that Iraq poses an immediate threat to international security represents a clear legal imperative against a pre-emptive war. There has been no "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" [UN Charter Article 39]. In contrast to a host of other countries, there is as yet no evidence of substantial Iraqi proscribed weapons. Still less is there evidence for Iraq's intentions to use any proscribed weapons it might possess, a move which would be suicidal under current international scrutiny, and an act it has never undertaken in the past without the sanction of a major power. Nor have non-violent means been proved "inadequate" [UN Charter, Article 42]. Inspections continue, and the last report of the inspectors on 14th February was positive about the progress currently made. Statements by the US and the UK about 'time running out' point not to the imperatives of the UN, but to their own timescale, which is currently undermining efforts towards peaceful disarmament.
Meanwhile the 'moral case' conceals a policy choice between sanctions and war that fails to prioritise the interests of the Iraqi people. Sanctions have been the single most powerful prop for the Ba'athist regime, providing a blanket scapegoat for Iraq's troubles, and making internal opposition impossible through government control over the population's basic food rations. War risks further massive suffering. Recent UN planning documents state that 1.26 million children under 5 "would be at risk of death from malnutrition", while "the collapse of essential services in Iraq...could lead to a humanitarian emergency of proportions well beyond the capacity of UN agencies and other aid organisations".
This false choice rejects the pursuit of peaceful strategies to provide sustained international assistance for the Iraqi people against a terrible regime. As academic study so often demonstrates, there are no easy answers. But our government's professed desire for peace is belied by their refusal to consider seriously other options: it has rejected enhanced inspections, or a proper incentive structure rewarding compliance on armaments and internal reform with the easing of sanctions, and allowing the economic conditions and civil society within which internal opposition could operate. Instead, through twelve years of sanctions, the UK and US governments have created the tragic situation where, because of weakened infrastructure and economic dependence upon the Iraqi government, a military 'quick fix' for the people of Iraq may be an attack on the Iraqi people's ability to survive.
Our government and the US administration have, moreover, failed to provide any solid plans for a democratic settlement after a war. Meanwhile Iraqi opposition groups' rejection of Turkish troops in Iraqi Kurdistan and a US military governorship have been contradicted by US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Nor do they appear committed to minimising civilian casualties, a lack of concern emphasised by the fact that the US has so far committed only $56 million to humanitarian relief - the equivalent to just 73 minutes of their current military expenditure. According to DFID, the UK has to date provided only £3.5 million extra to UN and other agencies for use in Iraq.
In short, the security case for war has involved a dangerously uncompromising pursuit of war alongside a litany of questionable evidence, from the UK's plagiarised 'intelligence' dossier to Colin Powell's contested weapons claims. The moral case presents an impoverished and misleading policy choice between sanctions and war, both jeopardising innocent lives.
A war waged without justification or democratic legitimacy challenges the intellectual honesty upon which this university is grounded. We ask you to answer that challenge by supporting this initiative.
If you would like to endorse the moratorium in your department, please sign below
Name Department