|
CA 01
Memorandum submitted by the UK National Commission for UNESCO (UKNC)
1.0 Background
1.1 The UK National Commission for UNESCO (UKNC) is pleased to respond to the Defence Committee's inquiry on the 'Comprehensive Approach' and in particular on how the approach should enable the UK's Armed Forces to carry out their responsibilities with respect to international cultural charters more fully and with greater impact. We would welcome the opportunity to elaborate on or clarify this written evidence when the Committee takes oral evidence in June.
1.2 The UKNC is an independent civil society organisation set up by HM Government in 2004 as the focal point in the UK for policies relating to UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). UKNC brings together a network of over 200 experts in education, culture, natural & social sciences and communication & information across the UK. By working closely in partnership with HM Government, the UKNC enables it to engage a wide range of UK organisations and specialist institutions in the above fields.
1.3 UKNC's Culture Committee has 20 volunteer members, nominated by organisations across the spectrum of the culture sector, including the arts, museums and cultural heritage. The Committee's key aims include (i) to be the formal link between civil society, relevant departments in HM Government (primarily the Department for Culture, Media & Sport) including the Devolved Administrations and UNESCO on matters relating to all aspects of culture; (ii) to advise and work with HM Government on UNESCO's cultural activities which have specific relevance to the UK including UNESCO requests and initiatives, Conventions, World Heritage Sites matters, and cultural education; and (iii) to provide independent and expert analysis, comment and advice to HMG on cultural matters relating to UNESCO, including as input to UK policy-making on key UNESCO programmes and cultural issues.
1.4 The Culture Committee's priority areas for action include detailed consideration of UNESCO's culture-sector conventions. It looks at a range of issues including, inter alia, the impacts of UK ratification of conventions, whether the UK might ratify existing conventions, monitoring and enforcement of existing conventions.
1.5 At present one of the main areas of work for the Culture Committee is related to the identification and protection of the cultural heritage in times of armed conflict. The UKNC provided written and oral evidence to the DCMS Committee reviewing the Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill in June 2008 and is actively working with Government to find a way for this legislation, which did not, at the very last minute, make it into the most recent Queen's Speech, to be passed in order that the UK may ratify the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols of 1954 and 1999 and by doing so join the rest of the major world powers that have already ratified. As part of this work the UKNC is hosting the UK & Ireland Committee for the Blue Shield. The Blue Shield, created in 1999 under the provision of the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention, is best described as the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross.
1.6 There is other good work going on: for example the collaboration on 'Operation Heritage' between the UK's (3) Division and the British Museum.
2.0 Why cultural heritage is important
2.1 Cultural heritage defines a people, a nation, a community, or a group. It is what makes that collection of people different: in anthropological terminology it defines 'the other'. As such, by dint of these distinctions, cultural heritage can be seen as one potential cause of conflict: it is frequently used as a tool of war.[1]
2.2 Cultural heritage can be both intangible (for example, language, songs, stories) and tangible (for example, buildings, archaeological sites, landscapes, objects, pictures, books and archives).
2.3 By providing a sense of place, a feeling of pride, and a sense of dignity, cultural heritage makes us what we are. This is true of the collective as well as the individual: just as an individual without memory is only partially effective as a person so a society without a memory is only partially effective as a society. The vast majority of such common memory is provided by the cultural heritage. The lack of cultural heritage identity can create a dysfunctional society - and therefore a very difficult society to manage. It is no surprise that the creation of a national museum is one of the first five things newly independent nations tend to do. Part of the current problem in Iraq is caused by different groups, with different cultural heritage identities, vying for power. These different identities had been suppressed under Saddam Hussein who instead focussed on the ancient Mesopotamian cultural heritage that he claimed was common to all Iraqis.
3.0 Why cultural heritage protection must be a key component of the comprehensive approach
3.1 Given the above, it makes no sense to ignore the impact of conflict on the cultural heritage. Any comprehensive approach that aims for the creation of a sustainable peace in societies ravaged by war must take cultural heritage into account. However, there are three further reasons why the cultural heritage must be a critical element of any comprehensive approach.
3.2 First, the cultural heritage is fast becoming one of the key drivers for national economies through developments in, mainly, international tourism. In 2002 there were 715 million 'international arrivals' in the world; the World Travel Organisation projects that this figure will rise to nearly 1.6 billion by 2020. In 2002 tourists spent US$643 billion; we can only anticipate a huge increase in such spending by 2020. By extrapolation from statistics some 80% of 'international arrivals' are travelling, at least in part, to see cultural heritage. If a conflict is allowed to destroy the cultural heritage (through direct targeting, collateral damage, or looting of museums and archaeological sites) combatants are effectively removing one potentially key driver for economic recovery post-conflict[2]. This is obviously a situation that should be avoided if at all possible.
3.3 Second, through their experience in Iraq, many military officers now regard protection of cultural heritage as a 'force multiplier' rather than as a burdensome addition to their responsibilities. Anecdotal evidence is now very clear that if occupying troops allow cultural heritage to be damaged that attacks on patrols increase and civilian cooperation significantly decreases.
3.4 Third, it is now established that some profits from the looting of archaeological sites in Iraq have been used to fund the so-called 'insurgency' and allegedly the wider Al Qaeda network. By protecting the archaeological sites deployed troops would be cutting off this source of funding.
4.0 What needs to be done?
By the military:
4.1 One of the conclusions of the Comprehensive Approach Workshop held in Brussels on 8 March 2007 was to stress "the importance of personal contacts and networks and the potential of joint training and exercising to facilitate better mutual awareness and bridge some of the gaps (e.g. different mindsets) between civilian and military actors". It is key that military staff be appointed with the responsibility to liaise with the cultural heritage sector generally and at all stages of an operation (pre-deployment, deployment, and post-conflict). Such staff need to be trained regarding the importance of the cultural heritage to the comprehensive approach.
4.2 Such training should not be restricted to these liaison staff but should become a core part of general training for all troops, from senior officers to junior ranks. Specific pre-deployment training should also be developed for different potential theatres.
4.3 These staff should also liaise with those archaeologists already employed by Defence Estates who already carry out limited cultural heritage awareness training.
By the cultural heritage sector: 4.4 The cultural heritage sector needs to establish an effective UK & Ireland Committee for the Blue Shield that will be in a position to work with the Ministry of Defence to develop training programmes aimed at all levels of our Armed Forces. This is underway but further funding is required.
4.5 The cultural heritage sector needs to actively engage with the Ministry of Defence to assist in delivering training.
By Parliament: 4.5 Parliament needs to reactivate the Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill that was lost from this session in order that the UK may ratify the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols of 1954 and 1999.
5.0 Conclusion The Defence Committee's review of the 'Comprehensive Approach' provides the UK with an opportunity to become one of the key international leaders in this field. The USA is considering a proposal to create a formal Cultural Heritage Planning and Training Office within its Department of Defence and the Netherlands Ministry of Defence is considering a report recommending the appointment of Cultural Heritage personnel to its central staff following a recent seminar in The Hague. The UK MoD is supportive of closer collaboration with the cultural heritage sector.
We should welcome the opportunity to work more closely with the UK MoD to deliver these recommendations and help create an effective comprehensive approach of which the UK could be proud.
12 May 2009 [1] For example, during the Second World War the German SS had its own Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Inheritance) unit that included archaeologists and other cultural heritage experts whose sole aim was to justify the expansion of Nazi Germany to the mythical size of the Greater Germany of prehistory. This Unit was also responsible for the so-called anthropological experiments carried out in concentration camps to prove the belief that Nordic/Germanic people were an "extraordinary biological phenomenon". More recently, cultural heritage has been specifically targeted in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the destruction of one mosque in Ayodhya, came close to provoking war between India and Pakistan. As recently as March 2008 so-called 'Afghan insurgents' were caching weapons in cemeteries, attempting to take advantage of US rules of engagement that forbid entry into cemeteries under normal circumstances.
[2] In terms of looting of archaeological sites, it has been estimated that at Sipan (Peru), after careful excavation, the subsequent display of both artefacts and site now generates something in the region of $14 million a year in tourist revenue, a far cry from the $250,000 the looters are thought to have earned for their initial finds.
|