Abandonment of Iraq Is Wrong - Erik Gustafson

Erik K. Gustafson is the executive director of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), based in Washington, D.C, and serves on the board of directors of Veterans for Common Sense.

Abandonment of Iraq Is Wrong
By Erik Gustafson
The Progressive
May 29, 2005

In April we lost Marla Ruzicka, a passionate American advocate for victims of war, and Sheikha Lameah Khaddouri al-Sakri, a member of Iraq’s National Assembly and an eloquent advocate for women's rights. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, violence has also claimed the lives of 1,214 U.S. service members and at least 21,000 Iraqi civilians as of May 1, 2005.

Under such circumstances, the demand for "immediate withdrawal" is understandable. We want the tragedy to end. But immediate withdrawal is not a policy option. It's a statement of protest in reaction to the worst U.S. foreign policy blunders in a generation.

As the Reverend Jim Wallis of Sojourners eloquently writes in God’s Politics, “Saying no is good, but having an alternative is better. Protest is not enough; it is necessary to show a better way.”

Nowhere is this truer than in U.S. Iraq policy.

Before we can consider a viable alternative to U.S. occupation, we must begin with an accurate assessment of the current situation in Iraq. First off, we must acknowledge that Iraq is not a country in Southeast Asia. Although some worthwhile parallels may be drawn, the U.S. war in Vietnam offers more contrasts than similarities. The insurgency in Iraq has no unified vision, no Ho Chi Minh. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the people suffered under a brutal dictator; now it is a relief to Iraqis that Saddam Hussein is finally gone. When the U.S. left Vietnam on April 30, 1975, it was clear the war would end. In Iraq, it would likely escalate.

Until Iraq has a reliable government and a combat-effective military and police force capable of serving and protecting its people, a U.S. withdrawal would leave a tremendous power vacuum. This would further destabilize Iraq, abandon neighborhoods to organized crime and political violence, and potentially pull rival powers, namely Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, into a wider conflict.

Immediate withdrawal would remove U.S. military protection of Iraq’s transitional government and eliminate an indispensable “force multiplier” for the Iraqi police and military. Unable to match pervasive organized crime and insurgents, Iraq’s fledgling security personnel would abandon their posts en masse. The militias of rival Shiite parties and Kurdish peshmerga would be expected to put the protection of their own members and interests ahead of that of the nation. For the militarily well-organized Kurds, that could mean seizing oil-rich Kirkuk or pushing for independence, either of which could precipitate civil war and foreign intervention.

Without strong national institutions, the rule of law, trust in a lasting power-sharing arrangement, or adequate defense, the transitional government and emerging constitution will not survive. And the threat of intercommunal conflict would grow.

“Those of us who were there in March 1991 while Iraqis were being massacred by Saddam Hussein recognize a moral obligation not to abandon the Iraqi people for a second time," says Charles Sheehan-Miles, a decorated combat veteran who directs Veterans for Common Sense, a progressive national security organization of more than 12,000 veterans.

The U.S. invasion not only sparked violent Iraqi insurgents, it opened Iraq’s borders to foreign terrorists who now pose a threat to international security. As with the careless Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, a precipitous departure by the United States from Iraq would invite Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks operating there to claim victory and solidify its power in the region.

That’s why Howard Dean recently said, “Now that we’re there, we’re there, and we can’t get out.” He noted that Al Qaeda “will set up shop” in Iraq if the U.S. pulls out immediately.

Daniel Byman of Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy writes: “Here is where the Vietnam parallel breaks down. From Iraq, jihadists would continue their worldwide struggle against the United States and U.S. allies in the region: the equivalent of the Viet Cong deciding to strike California and Australia after they had won Saigon. Saudi Arabia in particular would be vulnerable, given the jihadist-linked unrest in that country and its long and open border with Iraq.”

Though we would certainly wish it were different, bringing an end to U.S. military presence in Iraq will not end the violence for the foreseeable future. Foreign extremists and Iraqi insurgents will continue to assassinate government officials, trade unionists, women activists, academics, Shiites, and members of other targeted communities.

Yes, Iraqi leaders want the U.S. to leave, but not immediately.

In January, the United Iraqi Alliance, the leading Shiite party that is close to the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, revised its position from a call for a definitive timetable for withdrawal of multinational troops to an emphasis on the importance of establishing Iraq’s capacity to provide for its own security. This change reflects a growing understanding among Iraqi leaders that without a force capable of guaranteeing some measure of security, conditions would get even worse, no matter who was responsible for creating the situation to begin with.

In late January, Prime Minister-Elect Ibrahim Jaafari told Trudy Rubin of The Philadelphia Inquirer, “If the United States pulls out too fast, there would be chaos. We would expect Iraq might break up because we don’t have a powerful government to prevent this from happening. So it’s difficult to mention a date until the situation gets back to normal.”

Even the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr falls short of calling for an immediate U.S. withdrawal. Marking the two-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, tens of thousands of his supporters rallied in Firdos Square, Baghdad, demanding only that the U.S. set a timetable for withdrawal.

“You can’t fix a mistake with another mistake," says Zaid Albanna, board president of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center. "Things can get much worse. The U.S. has a moral and international obligation to correct the situation and compensate Iraq and the Iraqi people for all the damage it has created.”

Of course, popular resentment over the lack of security, the failure to hold senior officials accountable for U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the slow rate of reconstruction have led some Iraqis to demand an immediate withdrawal. These failures have also given rise to widespread Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation, both nonviolent and violent. However, the vast majority of Iraqis in the Transitional National Assembly—-including the three largest voting blocs—-do not support a U.S. withdrawal at this time. Instead, they are determined to accelerate the process by which the U.S. occupation is made obsolete.

Over the past two years, the Iraqi people have witnessed massive looting and destruction, the violent deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, skyrocketing crime and unemployment, increased terrorism, contractor abuses, the mismanagement of $8.8 billion in Iraqi oil revenue, and the torture of fellow citizens in U.S. custody. "Stay the course" is not an option.

Fortunately, a U.S. policy shift has been underway for over a year now, thanks to Iraqi leaders, solidarity efforts and popular resistance. Without the change, the Bush administration would still be operating from the original script of U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other neoconservative ideologues. The Pentagon would still be in control of nation-building in Iraq. Paul Bremer would still be in Baghdad. Iraq’s oil sector would be privatized. And there would have been no elections.

Since gaining control of the $18.4 billion aid package for rebuilding Iraq, the State Department has reprogrammed $4.8 billion to support smaller projects that create jobs and job training, rather than large contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton. The changes also redirect funds to Iraqi contractors, rather than expensive Western corporations. And the Bush Administration has accelerated the training of Iraqi security forces. A leading military strategist and critic of Bush's Iraq policy, Anthony Cordesman, reports, “The good news is that very real progress is being made to organize a mix of forces that can deal with Iraq’s critical crime problem, and in creating the kind of combat elements within Iraqi forces that may be able to take on insurgents and terrorists when they get the right leadership, experience, and equipment.”

Yet to overcome the legacy of Saddam Hussein and the post-invasion failures of the Bush administration, far more must change. On the eve of the U.S. invasion, Saddam released tens of thousands of convicted criminals, including murderers on death row. Since then, more than 5,000 Iraqis have been kidnapped and Baghdad city morgues alone have reported more than 14,000 deaths by other than natural causes.

Contributing to violence and organized crime, Iraq’s unemployment rate is as high as 40%. Yet, outside of Iraq’s three Kurdish provinces, a nation of 26 million operates without a functioning judicial system or effective police force.

For those Iraqis held in custody, Human Rights Watch reports: "Iraqi authorities, in particular the Ministry of Interior, practiced torture and ill-treatment of detainees, denial of access by families and lawyers to detainees, improper treatment of detained children, and abysmal conditions in pre-trial detention facilities." On April 11, 2005, Agence France Press (AFP) reported that U.S. forces and Iraqi authorities have 17,000 men and women in custody. Without a functioning court system in place, legal due process is unavailable to most of Iraq's prisoners. Furthermore, roughly 11,000 are being held as "security detainees," without formal charges. One year after the disclosure of the now infamous torture photos from Abu Ghraib, we should not only demand a special prosecutor to investigate and hold U.S. officials accountable, we should work for the development of a legal system that makes a difference in the lives of all Iraqis.

As a progressive, I believe the most responsible way for the U.S. to get out of Iraq is through effective institution building. We must provide Iraqis with the funding and technical assistance they need to build and strengthen the civilian institutions that underpin their fledgling democracy.

We must therefore work to build strong, international support for the following four goals:

• Ensuring the protection of civilians and human rights;
• Building Iraq’s institutional capacity for security, rule of law, and the prevention of corruption;
• Job creation and Iraqi-led reconstruction;
• Increased political inclusion and reconciliation.

Advancing these goals will require the assistance and cooperation of other nations, including Iraq's neighbors. It will also require the resources of the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League and other multilateral institutions. Therefore, the Bush administration must allow greater international involvement in Iraq and exercise the kind of leadership that works with the world, not against it.

Finally, we need to guarantee there will be an end to U.S. military presence in Iraq. To do so, the Bush Administration must issue an unequivocal declaration that the U.S. has no long-term interests in the territory or natural resources of Iraq, has no intention of maintaining permanent military bases on Iraqi soil, and will fully withdraw either at the request of Iraq’s government or once Iraq is able to provide for its own security, whichever comes first.

This statement would help to restore America’s standing in the world, address widespread Iraqi fears and suspicions about U.S. intentions, and create conditions that shift support away from insurgency toward participation in Iraq’s new government.

On the home front, such a statement is something all progressives can call for, alongside a key constituency too long absent from the contemporary peace movement, Iraqi Americans. Together we can create the conditions necessary for a responsible U.S. withdrawal (not abandonment) and for a fully independent, stable and democratic Iraq. That should be our goal.

Erik K. Gustafson is the executive director of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), based in Washington, D.C, and serves on the board of directors of Veterans for Common Sense.

© 2005 The Progressive

A boycott will only strengthen the Israeli right (David Newman & Benjamin Pogrund)

This piece cogently explains the multiple ways in which the campaign to "boycott" Israeli universities and to blacklist Israeli academics is (at best) politically idiotic and counter-productive. In the process, it usefully confronts some pervasive myths concurring the analogy between this academic "boycott" and the academic boycott of apartheid-era South Africa that are often drawn upon by blacklist supporters.

The purpose of a boycott has to be carefully thought out because it might not serve the cause it is meant to help, as was seen in apartheid South Africa. Britain played a leading part in the academic boycott of that country and those who supported it certainly felt emotional satisfaction at doing what they thought was the right thing. The effects on the ground, however, were calamitous: the English-language universities traditionally depended for their life blood on infusions of lecturers from abroad, especially Britain, to bring fresh thinking, energy and courage. But they did not come, because of the boycott and because the South African government discouraged them, and this contributed to a steep decline in university resistance to apartheid.

But read the whole thing.

--Jeff Weintraub
====================
The Guardian
Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Comment
A boycott will only strengthen the Israeli right
This self-defeating campaign of double standards is strangling liberal voices
David Newman and Benjamin Pogrund
Wednesday May 25, 2005
The Guardian

We are opposed to the continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We are equally opposed to the, at best misguided, at worst immoral attempts by the Association of University Teachers to boycott the Israeli academic community. Such a boycott would do irreparable harm to the tenuous, but growing, Israeli-Palestinian relations and joint research at almost all of Israel's universities. For those of us who are active in the pro-peace, anti-occupation movements in Israel, the boycott only serves to make our work almost impossible. If there is a public space in Israel where liberal voices can be heard, it is the universities.
As far back as the pre-Oslo days, when the Israeli government forbade all relations between Israeli citizens and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the first significant links were forged through academic contacts. These links have grown during the past decade in the many ongoing dialogues and negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian academics, particularly in the difficult period since 2000 when almost all formal political dialogue between the sides ceased.
It is ironic that it is precisely these voices of liberalism which are under attack by the voices of rightwing patriotism in Israel and elsewhere, in an attempt to delegitimise all pro-peace and anti-occupation voices, even to the extent of seeking to have some of them dismissed. But, to their great credit, the Israeli academic establishment has refused to take this easy option, most notably in the case of Haifa professor Ilan Pappe. Instead, it strenuously defends freedom of expression as a basic right for all Israeli and Palestinian academics.
The boycott attempts from abroad only serve to strengthen the voices of the Israeli right, and their simplistic arguments that the British academic community is collectively anti-semitic and - in the words of one senior Israeli professor on the eve of Holocaust day this month - is guilty of repeating what the Nazi-era Germans did to Jewish academics. This knee-jerk, somewhat hysterical, reaction goes down well with the Israeli Jewish public, large sections of whom remain convinced that they stand alone against a hostile world that wishes for nothing more than the extinction of the Jewish state.
The fact that some of the AUT boycott leaders have categorically stated that they see the state of Israel as being "illegitimate" brings into question the real motives behind their action. The boycott leaders may not see themselves as antisemitic, but they are guilty of inadvertently feeding into a growing anti-semitism on British campuses and helping to create a feeling of insecurity among Jewish students, who no longer feel safe in what should be one of the most secure and free public spaces of any society.
Why do they pick on Israel? Why are they silent about transgressions of freedom in other parts of the world? If they want to concentrate on the Middle East, why do they not take a stand about those states that openly declare their desire to destroy Israel, a state created by the United Nations, or which systematically deny equal rights to ethnic and religious minorities, women and political "others"? Why do they falsely seek to equate the oppression suffered by black people in apartheid South Africa with Israel today? Yes, there are economic and political inequalities in Israel/Palestine, and academics are actively involved in redressing some of these injustices and promoting affirmative action programmes. Why do the boycott instigators continue to falsely claim that Zionism is effectively racism? This was tried once at the UN and was eventually dumped, but it is still used as a means of delegitimising the existence of the state, as the instigators of the boycott are clearly intent on doing.
The purpose of a boycott has to be carefully thought out because it might not serve the cause it is meant to help, as was seen in apartheid South Africa. Britain played a leading part in the academic boycott of that country and those who supported it certainly felt emotional satisfaction at doing what they thought was the right thing. The effects on the ground, however, were calamitous: the English-language universities traditionally depended for their life blood on infusions of lecturers from abroad, especially Britain, to bring fresh thinking, energy and courage. But they did not come, because of the boycott and because the South African government discouraged them, and this contributed to a steep decline in university resistance to apartheid.
And the idea that certain universities or, for that matter, certain academics (such as those opposing Israel government policies, or Arab professors) would be free from the boycott, is obnoxious. Is the AUT really prepared to be party to such a process of selection, based on political views or ethnic background?
In a letter from the European commission last week, the EU made its position very clear, stating that "'boycotting' behaviour against Israeli scientists is totally unproductive and worrying ... is unacceptable in project(s) funded by the European Union. The European commission will do its utmost to discourage such an unacceptable way to penalise scientists from wherever they come from". Boycotting Israeli academics would bring into question the basic right of British institutions to benefit from European, or any other form of funding that assumes equality of access and opportunity by all, regardless of national, religious or ethnic origin and affiliations.
If the AUT is really concerned about the plight of the Palestinians, it should be investing time and effort in promoting more, rather than less, Israeli-Palestinian cooperative projects in the fields of health, education and technological advancement. It should be inviting Israeli and Palestinian scholars to take part in joint research projects; it should be hosting joint forums of political and social dialogue; and, most important, it should be using its research expertise to contribute to the furtherance of peace and conciliation between the two peoples. By trying to promote a boycott, it is only serving to worsen relations between the two peoples and to open itself to charges of double standards.

· David Newman is professor of political geography at Ben Gurion University in Israel and co-editor of the journal Geopolitics; Benjamin Pogrund is director of Yakar's Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem and formerly deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg.

This is a blacklist, not just a "boycott"

As I have argued from the beginning of this affair, it is both foolish and inaccurate to simply accept the word "boycott" as a description of what the AUT is doing. Calling this an academic boycott, as if that's all it involves, is a form of ideological mystification (and, in some cases, self-deception)—at least, in terms of the normal 20th- and 21st-century meanings of the word "boycott." This is, above all, an academic blacklist, and it would be useful as well as truthful to say so.

(If there were any ambiguity about this at all—which there is not—the fact that individual Israeli academics are offered an exemption if they actively express satisfactory political views should make the reality clear to anyone.)

I put the matter as follows while corresponding about the MESA anti-blacklist statement with David Hirsh & Jon Pike, the two British academics who run the website "Engage" website.

I think one of the most important things about this excellent MESA statement—aside from the fact that it exists, which is already huge—is that it twice explicitly uses the word "blacklist" (as I do in my petition). I would advise you and everyone else to emphasize that word, too, now that MESA has publicly legitimated it. It cuts through the euphemisms of "boycott," and brings out the reality of the situation.

The term "boycott" is used to create a spurious mental association with apartheid-era South Africa, and to convey the impression that these measures are somehow targeting only institutions (not people). "Blacklist" should serve the useful purpose of reminding people of McCarthyism (to which the NY Academy of Sciences statement referred explicitly), which is the more accurate analogy, while making it clear this action targets individual academics & their academic freedom (& livelihoods).

Geertz long ago explained how all this works in "Ideology as a Cultural System," and Lakoff has been hammering home the same point more recently ... but it's something that every political & marketing consultant knows, too. That is, it's crucial to frame the issue your way and not let the other side frame it their way—and it helps if your way of framing it is also more accurate and illuminating, as I believe is the case when one calls this blacklist a blacklist.

Yours in struggle,
Jeff Weintraub

[P.S., February 2006:  Along similar lines, an excellent piece by Jon Pike on the Engage website, "The Myth of the Institutional Boycott," convincingly demolishes the pretense that this is somehow a purely institutional boycott that doesn't target any actual people. In reality, as opposed to disingenuous propaganda, the point of these measures is precisely to exclude Israeli academics from international academic and intellectual life. That's a blacklist. Pike accepts the word "boycott," which I think is unfortunate, but the substance of his analysis is cogent and correct.]

Invitation to join a defense of academic freedom

--------------------------------------
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/11807.html
--------------------------------------
CLIOPATRIA: A Group Blog (History News Network)
Thursday, May 12, 2005 (updated)

RALPH E. LUKER: Petition Condemning the Boycott of Israeli Academics ...

Penn's Jeff Weintraub has created an on-line petition in support of the American Association of University Professors' condemnation of the British Association of University Teachers' boycott of the Israeli universities, Haifa and Bar-Ilan, and blacklisting of their faculty members. Mechal Sobel, one of Cliopatria's Contributing Editors, is a faculty member at Haifa. I have signed the petition and urge others to consider doing so. Robert Abzug, Joyce Appleby, Omer Bartov, Gail Bederman, David Beito, Robert Bellah, Peter Berkowitz, David Bernstein, Michael Berube, Ian Buruma, Oscar Chamberlain, Juan Cole, David Brion Davis, Morris Dickstein, Sherman Dorn, Jonathan Dresner, Ellen Carol DuBois, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Henry Farrell, Herbert Gans, Norm Geras, Todd Gitlin, Nathan Glazer, Steven Horwitz, KC Johnson, Tony Judt, Ira Katznelson, Michael Kazin, Margaret L. King, Harvey Klehr, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Jacob T. Levy, Deborah Lipstadt, Charles Maier, Elaine Tyler May, Joanne Meyerowitz, Richard Rorty, Roy Rosenzweig, Vicki Ruiz, Hugo Schwyzer, Christine Stansell, Michael Walzer, Jon Wiener, Leon Wieseltier, and Alan Wolfe are among the prominent academics who have already signed the petition. See also: AAUP, Juan Cole at Informed Comment, Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber, David Velleman at Left2Right, Steve Horwitz at Liberty & Power, Hugo Schwyzer, and Sharon Howard and KC Johnson at Cliopatria.

Posted by Ralph E. Luker on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 7:14 AM

The APSA should condemn the AUT blacklist

An open letter to Prof. Ira Katnelson, President-Elect of the American Political Science Association.  I sent a similar letter to Prof. Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, President-Elect of the American Sociological Association. —Jeff Weintraub

[Update:  The APSA did indeed condemn the AUT blacklist, along with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and a number of other academic associations, universities, and other groups and individuals on both sides of the Atlantic.  I am sorry to say that the American Sociological Association failed to do so, but in 2007 it tardily redeemed itself by condemning a renewed blacklist proposal that had been endorsed by the national council of the AUT's successor organization, the Universities and College Union (UCU).  Better late than never.]

==================================================
To: Prof. Ira Katznelson
President-Elect, American Political Science Association
From: Jeff Weintraub, APSA member
Re: The blacklist of Israeli academics approved by the Association of University Teachers in Britain

Dear Prof. Katznelson,

I'm sure you're aware of the recent vote by the Association of University Teachers in Britain to institute a blacklist of Israeli academics (beginning with those from Haifa University and Bar-Ilan University, but with the agenda of working toward a comprehensive blacklist of Israeli academia).

This push to blacklist Israeli academics is a re-run of a previous blacklist initiative in 2002 that (rather disgracefully) had some practical impact but failed to get official AUT approval. This time around, the sponsors have made some tactical adjustments, though the ultimate goal remains the same. The same AUT meeting that voted, as a first step, to blacklist Israeli academics from certain specific universities also voted to "circulate to all local associations" a proposal for a total blacklist of Israeli academics. If this proposal is not met with outrage and overwhelming repudiation, then the notion of punishing academics for the policies of their governments may come to seem acceptable—which would be unfortunate for all of us.

I believe that scholarly and academic associations like the APSA should strongly and immediately condemn and repudiate this action--without getting into political debates for or against Israeli policies, anti-semitism & anti-Zionism, or other related issues, but strictly on the grounds that this action constitutes a blatant assault on basic foundations and principles of academic freedom.

=> Of course, there are many reasons why this blacklist is morally, politically, and intellectually indefensible. But one of its most striking features is that it is a stunning example of what Julien Benda once called "the treason of the intellectuals"—that is, assaults by intellectuals (or, in this case, academics) on their own fundamental interests and vocation. It should not be hard for academics to grasp that blacklisting other academics because of their nationality and/or their affiliations attacks a key foundation of academic freedom. And if academics make it clear that they don't take the principle of academic freedom seriously, then why should anyone else take it seriously?

In fact, with respect to the principle of academic freedom, the current proposal for a blacklist of Israeli academics is actually worse than the previous one. According to the earlier proposal, an Israeli biologist would be blacklisted simply for being Israeli. According to the current proposal, an Israeli biologist would be blacklisted unless he or she explicitly condemns Israeli policies (in an acceptably strong manner)—that is, it imposes an explicit political test.

The implications of this blacklist thus constitute an attack on core principles of academic freedom everywhere, not just in western Europe (and not just for Israelis). Therefore, people who have any concern with maintaining academic freedom (even if they do happen to be hostile to Israel) should strongly and immediately condemn this travesty.

=> A statement of this sort was just issued by the New York Academy of Sciences (below). I believe this is an example that should immediately be followed by other academic and scholarly organizations in Europe and North America, if only because (whatever one thinks about Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict) fundamental questions of academic freedom are at stake.

In particular, I would urge the APSA to issue a strong an unequivocal statement condemning the AUT blacklist and the principles behind it. I hope this will be possible.

Thanks,

Jeff Weintraub
Visiting Lecturer
University of Pennsylvania

cc: Prof. Lisa Anderson, Council
Prof. Rogers Smith, Council
Prof. David Vogel, Council

=======================

Thu Apr 28 10:08:05 2005 Pacific Time

New York Academy of Sciences Issues Statement on Boycott of Israeli Universities by British Group

NEW YORK, April 28 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Committee on Human Rights of Scientists of the New York Academy of Sciences has released the text of a letter to the Association of University Teachers (AUT) of the United Kingdom calling upon the organization to "rescind and withdraw its call for a boycott of Israeli universities, passed by AUT delegates on April 20, 2005."
The letter, from Joseph Birman, the chair of the Academy's committee, notes that the call for boycott "contradicts the most basic tenets of academic life which have been repeatedly reaffirmed by international bodies, including those to which the United Kingdom adheres." The letter is addressed to Angela Roger, president of AUT, and Sally Hunt, the association's general secretary.
The full text of the Academy letter follows.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
April 26, 2005
Dear President Roger:
The Committee on Human Rights of Scientists of the New York Academy of Sciences urgently calls upon the Association of University Teachers (AUT) of the United Kingdom to rescind and withdraw its call for a boycott of Israeli universities, passed by the delegates on 20 April 2005. This call for boycott contradicts the most basic tenets of academic life which have been repeatedly reaffirmed by international bodies including those to which the United Kingdom adheres.

The International Council for Science (ICSU) of the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) has promulgated protocols on the Free Circulation of scientists and other academics, and cooperation amongst academics, which have been ratified by all UN members (including the UK), and go back to the 1930s and the League of Nations. The very integrity of academic life and the possibility of progress depend on free, open, and voluntary cooperation between academics in different nations.

We call attention to the "Commentary" in Nature (vol. 421, 23 January 2003) by four prominent UK academics: Colin Blakemore, Richard Dawkins, Denis Noble and Michael Yudkin entitled "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?" This commentary reaffirmed the importance of the UNESCO-ICSU protocols in the most emphatic manner. It points out, that short of preventing (sic) a nuclear war, even extreme circumstances do not support boycotts. Also relevant is a statement by ICSU Chairman James C. I. Dooge and Executive Director Peter Schindler writing in 2002 on "Israeli Scholars." They "urge all scholarly communities and not least those in science and technology" to heed the words of the London Evening Standard of 10 July 2002: "Intellectual communities world-wide are in the business of fostering international understanding and co-operation, not of penalizing each other for the shortcomings of their governments." And on August 27, 2002, in response to earlier boycott proposals, the Council of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), among other learned bodies, issued a "Statement on the Critical Importance of Continuing International Cooperation in Science," a title which speaks for itself.

Cooperation between nations in the Middle East already exists in the functioning SESAME project (opened in Amman Jordan in the last year) which brings scientists from the region together, including Jordanian, Palestinian, Israeli, Egyptian and others from Arab countries. Another example of international cooperation in the Middle East has been the conference on "Frontiers of Chemical Sciences: Research and Education in the Middle East" held in Malta in December 2003. It brought together scientists from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Arab countries representing all areas of the Middle East. Six Nobel Laureates served as leaders on a subject of common interest. Scholarships for any interested Arab students were offered by the President of Technion and a joint Israeli-Palestinian proposal on water purification was written and submitted to USAID-MERC. Other common projects on desalination, health care, and many other regional issues involving Israeli-Palestinian cooperation are ongoing at universities, hospitals and institutes in Israel and elsewhere.

The ill-advised AUT boycott resolution would damage or destroy all these activities. The AUT resolution, by selecting individuals and universities for boycott, is a very clear reminder of "McCarthy-like" tactics of accusation which were the shame of the United States some 40-50 years ago. We remind those members of the AUT who voted for boycott that this year--2005-- has been declared by the United Nations the year to celebrate the centennial of the extraordinary contributions that Albert Einstein made to physics, science and international cooperation. We call upon the AUT to take immediate steps to rescind their regressive vote and join forward-looking academics the world over in voting for cooperation and not boycott.

The New York Academy of Sciences is an organization of more than 23,000 members worldwide, building communities and advancing science since 1817.

Sincerely,
Joseph L. Birman
Chairman, Committee on Human Rights of Scientists
New York Academy of Sciences
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contact: Fred Moreno, NYAS Communications, 212.838.0230 x230, fmoreno@nyas.org
The Academy's Committee on Human Rights was created in 1978 to support and promote the human rights of scientists, health professionals, engineers, and educators around the world.
The New York Academy of Sciences, founded in 1817, is a worldwide, nonprofit membership organization committed to building communities and advancing science.
Media Contact: Fred Moreno, 212.838.0230 x230, fmoreno@nyas.org

The ASA should condemn the AUT blacklist

To: Prof. Cynthia Fuchs Epstein
President-Elect, American Sociological Association
From: Jeff Weintraub, ASA member
Re: The blacklist of Israeli academics approved by the Association of University Teachers in Britain

Dear Prof. Epstein,

I'm sure you're aware of the recent vote by the Association of University Teachers in Britain to institute a blacklist of Israeli academics (beginning with those from Haifa University and Bar-Ilan University, but with the agenda of working toward a comprehensive blacklist of Israeli academia).

This push to blacklist Israeli academics is a re-run of a previous blacklist initiative in 2002 that (rather disgracefully) had some practical impact but failed to get official AUT approval. This time around, the sponsors have made some tactical adjustments, though the ultimate goal remains the same. The same AUT meeting that voted, as a first step, to blacklist Israeli academics from certain specific universities also voted to "circulate to all local associations" a proposal for a total blacklist of Israeli academics. If this proposal is not met with outrage and overwhelming repudiation, then the notion of punishing academics for the policies of their governments may come to seem acceptable--which would be unfortunate for all of us.

I believe that scholarly and academic associations like the ASA should strongly and immediately condemn and repudiate this action--without getting into political debates for or against Israeli policies, anti-semitism & anti-Zionism, or other related issues, but strictly on the grounds that this action constitutes a blatant assault on basic foundations and principles of academic freedom.

=> Of course, there are many reasons why this blacklist is morally, politically, and intellectually indefensible. But one of its most striking features is that it is a stunning example of what Julien Benda once called "the treason of the intellectuals"--that is, assaults by intellectuals (or, in this case, academics) on their own fundamental interests and vocation. It should not be hard for academics to grasp that blacklisting other academics because of their nationality and/or their affiliations attacks a key foundation of academic freedom. And if academics make it clear that they don't take the principle of academic freedom seriously, then why should anyone else take it seriously?

In fact, with respect to the principle of academic freedom, the current proposal for a blacklist of Israeli academics is actually worse than the previous one. According to the earlier proposal, an Israeli biologist would be blacklisted simply for being Israeli. According to the current proposal, an Israeli biologist would be blacklisted unless he or she explicitly condemns Israeli policies (in an acceptably strong manner)--that is, it imposes an explicit political test.

The implications of this blacklist thus constitute an attack on core principles of academic freedom everywhere, not just in western Europe (and not just for Israelis). Therefore, people who have any concern with maintaining academic freedom (even if they do happen to be hostile to Israel) should strongly and immediately condemn this travesty.

=> A statement of this sort was just issued by the New York Academy of Sciences (below). I believe this is an example that should immediately be followed by other academic and scholarly organizations in Europe and North America, if only because (whatever one thinks about Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict) fundamental questions of academic freedom are at stake.

In particular, I would urge the ASA to issue a strong an unequivocal statement condemning the AUT blacklist and the principles behind it. I hope this will be possible.

Thanks,

Jeff Weintraub
Visiting Lecturer
University of Pennsylvania

cc: Prof.. Troy Duster
President, ASA
cc: Prof. Caroline Persell
Vice-President, ASA
cc: Prof. Lynn Smith-Lovin
Vice President-Elect, ASA
cc: Prof. Michael Burawoy
Past President, ASA

cc: Prof. Philip Kasinitz
President-Elect, Eastern Sociological Society

===============================

Thu Apr 28 10:08:05 2005 Pacific Time

New York Academy of Sciences Issues Statement on Boycott of Israeli Universities by British Group

NEW YORK, April 28 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Committee on Human Rights of Scientists of the New York Academy of Sciences has released the text of a letter to the Association of University Teachers (AUT) of the United Kingdom calling upon the organization to "rescind and withdraw its call for a boycott of Israeli universities, passed by AUT delegates on April 20, 2005."
The letter, from Joseph Birman, the chair of the Academy's committee, notes that the call for boycott "contradicts the most basic tenets of academic life which have been repeatedly reaffirmed by international bodies, including those to which the United Kingdom adheres." The letter is addressed to Angela Roger, president of AUT, and Sally Hunt, the association's general secretary.
The full text of the Academy letter follows.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
April 26, 2005
Dear President Roger:
The Committee on Human Rights of Scientists of the New York Academy of Sciences urgently calls upon the Association of University Teachers (AUT) of the United Kingdom to rescind and withdraw its call for a boycott of Israeli universities, passed by the delegates on 20 April 2005. This call for boycott contradicts the most basic tenets of academic life which have been repeatedly reaffirmed by international bodies including those to which the United Kingdom adheres.
The International Council for Science (ICSU) of the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) has promulgated protocols on the Free Circulation of scientists and other academics, and cooperation amongst academics, which have been ratified by all UN members (including the UK), and go back to the 1930s and the League of Nations. The very integrity of academic life and the possibility of progress depend on free, open, and voluntary cooperation between academics in different nations.
We call attention to the "Commentary" in Nature (vol. 421, 23 January 2003) by four prominent UK academics: Colin Blakemore, Richard Dawkins, Denis Noble and Michael Yudkin entitled "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?" This commentary reaffirmed the importance of the UNESCO-ICSU protocols in the most emphatic manner. It points out, that short of preventing (sic) a nuclear war, even extreme circumstances do not support boycotts. Also relevant is a statement by ICSU Chairman James C. I. Dooge and Executive Director Peter Schindler writing in 2002 on "Israeli Scholars." They "urge all scholarly communities and not least those in science and technology" to heed the words of the London Evening Standard of 10 July 2002: "Intellectual communities world-wide are in the business of fostering international understanding and co-operation, not of penalizing each other for the shortcomings of their governments." And on August 27, 2002, in response to earlier boycott proposals, the Council of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), among other learned bodies, issued a "Statement on the Critical Importance of Continuing International Cooperation in Science," a title which speaks for itself.
Cooperation between nations in the Middle East already exists in the functioning SESAME project (opened in Amman Jordan in the last year) which brings scientists from the region together, including Jordanian, Palestinian, Israeli, Egyptian and others from Arab countries. Another example of international cooperation in the Middle East has been the conference on "Frontiers of Chemical Sciences: Research and Education in the Middle East" held in Malta in December 2003. It brought together scientists from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Arab countries representing all areas of the Middle East. Six Nobel Laureates served as leaders on a subject of common interest. Scholarships for any interested Arab students were offered by the President of Technion and a joint Israeli-Palestinian proposal on water purification was written and submitted to USAID-MERC. Other common projects on desalination, health care, and many other regional issues involving Israeli-Palestinian cooperation are ongoing at universities, hospitals and institutes in Israel and elsewhere.
The ill-advised AUT boycott resolution would damage or destroy all these activities. The AUT resolution, by selecting individuals and universities for boycott, is a very clear reminder of "McCarthy-like" tactics of accusation which were the shame of the United States some 40-50 years ago. We remind those members of the AUT who voted for boycott that this year--2005-- has been declared by the United Nations the year to celebrate the centennial of the extraordinary contributions that Albert Einstein made to physics, science and international cooperation. We call upon the AUT to take immediate steps to rescind their regressive vote and join forward-looking academics the world over in voting for cooperation and not boycott.
The New York Academy of Sciences is an organization of more than 23,000 members worldwide, building communities and advancing science since 1817.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Birman
Chairman, Committee on Human Rights of Scientists
New York Academy of Sciences
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contact: Fred Moreno, NYAS Communications, 212.838.0230 x230, fmoreno@nyas.org
The Academy's Committee on Human Rights was created in 1978 to support and promote the human rights of scientists, health professionals, engineers, and educators around the world.
The New York Academy of Sciences, founded in 1817, is a worldwide, nonprofit membership organization committed to building communities and advancing science.
Media Contact: Fred Moreno, 212.838.0230 x230, fmoreno@nyas.org