Why ratify the Convention now?
7. The original Convention was adopted to protect
cultural property from armed conflict, in the light of "massive
destruction" which had taken place during the Second World
War.[4] Yet the United
Kingdom will not sign the Convention until 2009 at the earliest,
55 years after its adoption. In all, 118 other countries have
currently signed the Convention, including Russia, India, China,
Canada, Australia, almost all European countries, Israel, Iraq
and Iran. Fewer have signed the two Protocols: current tallies
are 97 and 48 respectively.
8. We queried the delay in signing the Convention.
Mr Garraway, International Law Adviser for the British Red Cross,
suggested that the Cold War had been a disincentive;[5]
but dissatisfaction with the terminology used in the Convention
has also been a factor. The Government states in the Regulatory
Impact Assessment which accompanies the draft Bill that the UK
"decided not to ratify the Convention when it was first drafted
because, along with a number of other countries, it considered
that certain terms were too imprecise and that it did not provide
an effective regime for the protection of cultural property".[6]
The Government adds, however, that the adoption in 1999 of the
Second Protocol (which defined offences as well as clarifying
the concept of "imperative military necessity") removed
those concerns.
9. It may also be that the actions of certain elements
of Coalition forces in Iraq during the 2003 invasion left the
UK exposed—rightly or wrongly—to allegations that
its armed forces were not demonstrably working to the same standards
as others in respect for cultural property during operations.
Professor Peter Stone supplied us with a copy
of his book The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Iraq,
which includes chapters by Iraqi archaeological experts on damage
to sites in Iraq before, during and after the invasion in 2003.
A member of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities describes in
detail damage to the city of Babel caused by Coalition forces
digging defensive trenches, scraping and levelling ground, covering
flattened areas with sand and gravel, constructing earth barriers
at entrances to and within the city, and erecting barbed wire
emplacements. Similar destruction took place at Ur, where Coalition
troops were described as frequently visiting the archaeological
remains "without any restraint", driving heavy military
vehicles across the site, damaging the landscape and "almost
certainly" destroying or damaging unexcavated artefacts and
buildings.
1 
