Destruction of Cultural Property Is a War Crime
News from 04/24/2017
A recent resolution of the UN Security Council has affirmed that the protection of cultural heritage is not just a cultural issue, but also a security problem. Markus Hilgert, director of the Vorderasiatisches Museum of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, talks about the challenges this presents to the international community.
Mr. Hilgert, you are a founding member of the board of the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas. In March of this year, the UN Security Council passed a resolution on the protection of cultural heritage. What is the special significance of this resolution?
Resolution 2347 is the most far-reaching resolution of the Security Council to date, as far as the threat to cultural heritage and the protection of cultural property is concerned. It has significantly raised the profile of this issue, finally treating it as a matter not just of cultural policy, but of security as well. Because the problem must now be viewed in the wider context of international law, which deals with human rights violations and violations of international law, it has become a top priority for the international community. Resolution 2347 states for the first time that the destruction of cultural property is a security problem that negatively impacts development opportunities in affected states.
Thus, for the first time, there is international consensus, based on international law, that cultural property must be protected and that something must be done against international trade in cultural property. Crimes against cultural property can now be prosecuted as war crimes, and even as crimes against humanity.
Consequently, the issue of protecting cultural property is now regarded with greater interest and urgency by the international community. Political awareness of the issue has changed enormously over the last several years. We saw clear evidence of this when, a week after the resolution was passed, the G7 ministers of culture met in Florence and for the first time discussed (among other issues) what the seven leading industrial nations of the world could do to combat illicit trade in cultural property.
Initiatives for cross-border cooperation have sprung up in different countries – what should the international community do to protect cultural heritage in the event of a crisis?
It is essential that we intensify coordination among individual programs. What we're seeing now is that when there actually is a threat to cultural heritage in crisis areas, there tend to be too many players responding, working side by side but largely uncoordinated. There is not enough communication or coordination. These can only be brought about through international cooperation, but that, of course, requires certain standards on how to proceed in conflict situations.
We also need to develop better quality management on an international level for the various programs and initiatives. And when we say today, for example, that we have to increase our consciousness-raising efforts in the political arena, we have to ask ourselves how that can best be accomplished: what professionals should be tasked with the job and how should it be done? So aside from the problem of coordination, there is also a problem of expertise and quality management. This is a gargantuan task, and getting the funding needed to actually succeed is an additional challenge.
Is there an opportunity here for new partnerships? You have been appointed to the board of the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas (ALIPH), for example – would they be a good partner?
ALIPH represents an advance in cultural heritage protection, seeking to accomplish through financial means what UN Security Council Resolution 2347 (passed before ALIPH was established) tackled through policy. So in addition to increased international awareness of security issues, we are now seeing attempts to create a financial framework that will enable resolutions like this to be properly implemented. ALIPH, which was initiated by France and the United Arab Emirates with ongoing additional support from private foundations and corporations, is a good example of how public-private partnerships can work to support, promote, and finance programs aimed at protecting cultural property in crisis situations.
While partnerships like these collect funds that go toward protection campaigns, they also serve to raise awareness among policy makers and the public. And it's here that I think this new fund has enormous potential. If it's successful in supporting and promoting projects, it can attract new sponsors. At the same time, it can make the public aware of the issues and help to establish certain standards, which could, among other things, require relevant programs and activities to be coordinated with international organizations such as UNESCO. In other words, the money would be used as a lever to address the two great challenges that I mentioned earlier: establishing quality standards and coordinating projects at an international level.
ALIPH already has funds amounting to 80 million euros, and we naturally hope to add to that. I'm also a member of the Advisory Group of the Cultural Protection Fund, a fund established by the British government in 2015, which currently has 30 million pounds at its disposal. The great challenge facing the experts from cultural preservation institutions who serve on these types of advisory board is to ensure that funding goes to projects that are not just politically symbolic. We also have to develop methods that allow effective action to be taken against illicit trade in cultural property and we have to refine technologies, like 3D technology, that can really be used effectively across the world.
The Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation) is one of the cultural preservation institutions that you just spoke of. What courses of action are available to these institutions, as far as the protection of cultural heritage is concerned?
Cultural preservation institutions are indispensable in this effort: they are a key link to the public that we need to reach and the consciousness-raising work they do is therefore very important. They can join campaigns like UNESCO UNITE4HERITAGE, a campaign aimed primarily at generating awareness among young people. Really, all cultural institutions can and should draw attention to threats to cultural pluralism. Germany unfortunately represents an important market for illicit trade, for example – a situation that cultural institutions can certainly help to change. They have to create public awareness that buying things either blindly or unscrupulously, without any regard for ethical standards, really does destroy culture – if not primarily in Germany, then certainly in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Mali, Yemen and many other places where cultural heritage sites are being plundered for gain. Another reason that it is so crucial to create public awareness is that important political decisions are most likely to be made when there is corresponding pressure from the public.
Apart from war and crisis situations, where do you think the challenges lie for cultural property protection in Germany?
First of all, it's important that we develop emergency plans (for natural disasters, for example) that are as comprehensive as possible. In events like these, it must be clear where cultural property can safely be taken, and that society is able to summon the necessary human resources. This also involves the area of scientific policy, as we must coordinate efforts at a federal level to ensure that the skills and experience needed to protect cultural property effectively are available. The fields of study that can provide this expertise must be strengthened and expanded. They include ancient studies, conservation and restoration science, and law, among others. Here too, the level of consciousness must be raised among policy-makers and the public as the first step toward achieving this goal.
The interview was conducted by Kristina Heizmann