The protection of cultural heritage is often framed as a security issue, calling for urgent action to respond to existential threats. This securitizing trend has been increasing in the recent past, at national and international levels, especially following Islamist attacks in Middle East.
Aerial view of Palmyra, one of the most important cultural sites of the Middle-East
Countries like France and Italy led efforts aimed at taking a leading position, and also the European Union recently began to implement new policies in the field. The war in Ukraine has given further momentum to the securitization of cultural heritage, at least in Europe.
Securitization, however, does not guarantee by itself an effective and sustainable preservation of cultural heritage. In this paper, I examine the process of securitization applied to the sector of cultural heritage, focusing on the recent years. I argue that securitization can bring the most benefits if it is coupled with the respect of integrity and cultural identity.
Introduction
Wars and armed conflicts threaten cultural heritage besides human lives, because artifacts and monuments are often destroyed, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Recent examples include the statues of Buddha of Bamiyan destroyed by Talibans in 2001, the tombs of Timbuktu attacked by Islamist fighters in 2012, and the city of Palmyra severely damaged by ISIS militants in 2015.
One of the two sites destroyed by the Talibans in 2001
Such destruction events often happen for strategic purposes, to exploit their symbolic value for propagandistic reasons, and for looting and smuggling antiquities and artifacts.
After the Second World War, the international community started reacting to these threats of cultural cancellation, gradually taking actions aimed at the preservation and protection of monuments, historical sites, museums, and so forth. The connection between the two dimensions of security and culture is now seen in the strategic approach of many international actors, including countries such as France and Italy, and the European Union.
This connection is often presented as a necessary step forward to ensure peace, security and development. In this paper, I examine the question of whether the increasing securitization of cultural heritage is effective or not to provide stability and effective safety for cultural legacy worldwide.
First, I outline the general theory of securitization and its emergence in the sector of cultural heritage. I also discuss some notable securitization models: France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Then, I focus on the case of the Islamist attacks to cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq between 2013 and 2015, drawing a parallel with the war in Ukraine. Finally, I summarize the conclusions of this study.
Securitization and cultural heritage
The theory of securitization has been mostly developed in the 90s by Ole Weaver and Barry Buzan. It is based on the constructivist idea that security, as a concept, is not independent from the discourse that defines it, but is rather a socially constructed interpretation (Šulović 2010). According to Buzan et al. (1998), security is essentially a matter of survival. An issue becomes a “security threat” when it is presented as an emergency endangering the very existence of the target (state, government, society, and so forth).
This justifies special measures to tackle such threats, often involving the use of force and moving out of the perimeter of normal political procedures. Security threats can involve many sectors: political (e.g. the sovereignty of a state), societal (national and/or religious identity), but also environmental (global climate, biosphere).
Presenting an issue as an existential threat, namely performing a “securitizing move”, is the first step towards securitization. The latter is reached when the audience accepts the emergency actions and the consequences.
The rhetoric underlying securitization is thus based on the message that urgent action is needed to survive the existential threat. In recent years, the protection of cultural heritage has gradually become a security issue of global concern (Russo & Giusti 2018). The problem is not new, though. Indeed, UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the so-called Hague Convention) already in 1954.
Flag of UNESCO
This was the first treaty specifically aimed at the preservation of cultural heritage, in times of both peace and war, including monuments, archaeological sites, works of art, books, and scientific collections.
Across the years, 133 states have ratified the Convention. However, a 4 turning point towards a proper securitization of cultural heritage occurred in 2001, with the demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by the forces of the Taliban government (Russo & Giusti 2018, Puskas 2019).
Later, similar iconoclastic actions by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) further contributed to draw international attention on this matter, leading to stronger responses. UNESCO had a crucial role in this securitization process.
The former Director-General Irina Bokova (2009-2017) described the attacks by ISIS on historical sites and artifacts as “war crimes”, “cultural cleansing”, “crimes against civilization”, and “cultural terrorism” (Russo & Giusti 2018, Puskas 2019). Moreover, Bokova explicitly defined the protection of heritage as “a political and security necessity”.
Therefore, these attacks were framed in terms of a war aimed at the complete cancellation of cultural heritage based on religious or ethnnic background.
The declared goal was to raise global awareness and mobilize the international community. On the other hand, the role of culture was highlighted as “central” for any strategy of peace. On top of these efforts by UNESCO, the securitization of cultural heritage gradually became one of the drivers of cultural diplomacy for a number of countries as well as the European Union (EU).
Securitization models
In recent years, different countries have developed different strategies towards securitization of cultural heritage. In particular, Foradori et al. (2018) discuss the approach of France, Italy, and the United Kingdom (UK), that have different perspectives depending on the national background and political priorities.
France adopted a maximalist, strategic approach aimed at building a position of global leadership in the protection of cultural heritage (Foradori et al. 2018). The first important step was taken in 2013, with the military intervention in Mali under the aegis of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The mission MINUSMA (United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali) included, for the first time in the history of UN peacekeeping operations, the mandate to protect cultural and historical sites from destruction and looting. This commitment was confirmed by President Hollande.
French soldiers in Mali
France also contributed, together with Italy, to the adoption of the first UNSC resolution condemning the destruction of cultural heritage and calling upon member states to safeguard and preserve cultural heritage in peril (S/RES/2347 2017).
Another major step forward was the establishment of a partnership with the United Arab Emirates, and especially the creation of an international fund for the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict, and of an international network of safe havens. This partnership led to the creation of the International Alliance for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflict Areas (ALIPH) in 2017.
ALIPH is an international, public-private foundation, and is a polylateral institution in that it includes both governmental representatives and non-state entities, such as private donors and experts. Italy also showed a maximalist approach, although less strategic and anti-hegemonic compared with France (Foradori et al. 2018).
Italy mostly contributed to the matter with the development of a “cultural peacebuilding” doctrine, based on the inclusion of a cultural component in mandates of international missions in conflict areas.
As a result, Italy and UNESCO signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2016, establishing the Italian Unite Heritage Task Force (nicknamed the “Blue Helmets of culture”), including both Carabinieri and civilians, for the protection of cultural heritage in high risk areas.
Carabinieri engaged in the protection of cultural heritage in the Middle East
The task force has operated in Italy, Iraq, Mexico, Croatia, Albania, and Lebanon, especially to develop emergency plans in the event of natural disasters.
The UK, on the other hand, showed a minimalist approach (Foradori et al. 2018). It finally ratified the Hague Convention in 2017, and raised financial support through the British Council. The latter can be considered as a quasi-non-governmental organization (QUANGO), in the sense that it is funded by the government and its goals are aligned with those of the British state. However, it mostly aims to mobilize soft power avoiding to resemble or recall the colonial past of the country. Also because of the Brexit turmoil, the UK developed a “fluid” attitude adjusting to the existing threats to cultural heritage, rather than a strategic approach akin to that of France.
The EU has also recently begun to implement a new strategic approach to the protection of cultural heritage in conflicts and crises (EU 2021).
The EU recognises the rising importance of cultural heritage connected with that of cultural relations, because the access to cultural heritage is a human right guaranteed by international law.
The main principles of engagement are to promote the international legal framework to protect cultural heritage, to foster partnerships (e.g. with UNESCO) and multilateralism, and to support a multi-track approach involving national and local actors.
A concrete example is the EU Advisory Mission EUAM Iraq, launched in October 2017 and extended until April 2024, aimed at providing strategic advice on Iraq’s security sector reform.
The protection of cultural values is among the key tasks, for example tackling illegal excavations and traffic in cultural goods.
International reactions: ISIS 2015 and Ukraine 2022
ISIS took control of parts of Iraq and Syria starting from 2013, following the Syrian civil war. This triggered large-scale destruction and looting of archaeological sites and areas of great historical importance, such as the city of Palmyra.
Such events generated a general outrage, especially because of the strong impact of visual imagery and social media communication, and prompted the process of securitization (Russo & Giusti 2018, Puskas 2019).
As mentioned above, the UNESCO Director-General pointed at the ISIS attacks as an existential threat not only to cultural heritage, but also to global security.
Part of the Palmyra site
On a similar note, the Italian and French governments also referred to the attacks as a “global security issue” and a threat to civilization. The former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also condemned the ISIS actions as “war crimes” and an “attack to humanity as a whole” (SG/SM/16570-IK/701 2015), appealing to the international community to undertake exceptional measures.
The severe damages to Palmyra in 2015, in particular, caused strong reactions on the international level (Russo & Giusti 2018). Russia’s intervention was particularly noteworthy.
Indeed, Russia provided significant military support to the Syrian troops that regained control of Palmyra in 2016. The rescue of the ancient city was presented as a victory of the Russian-Syrian coalition against ISIS, and contributed to improving the reputation of President al-Assad and President Putin as defenders of culture against barbaric violence.
However, this action was not exempt from criticism, because it led to further militarisation of the area. It also increased the risk of drawing even more attention to symbolic places and turning them into battlefields.
The securitization of cultural heritage in Iraq and Syria is partly explained by the somehow shocking modalities used by ISIS, which destroyed religious sites and ancient monuments with bulldozers and explosives, under the claim that they contradicted the basis of sharia (Ghorashi 2015). Furthermore, ISIS controlled a region with a size comparable with that of England, which included 20 percent of Iraq’s 10,000 cultural heritage sites in the UNESCO list, and at least 41 major sites were destroyed as of 2015 (Ghorashi 2015).
The international media echo was thus huge, also because of ISIS’ own propaganda against multicultural civilisations. This ultimately led to a general consensus within the UNSC on the need to protect cultural heritage, despite initially profound differences of opinion (Russo & Giusti 2018).
This seems to be a peculiarity of the securitization of cultural heritage: it rises little to no dispute, as there is a universal condemnation of the destruction of cultural legacy (Cuno & Weiss 2020).
The attacks on cultural heritage are generally part of a strategy to undermine political authority and values, often in the framework of nationalism or tribalism (Cuno & Weiss 2020).
The ubiquity of social media contributes to the issue, allowing the attackers to maximally exploit the symbolic meaning of such destruction.
This kind of dynamic is not a unique feature of ISIS attacks. In fact, we may argue that the ongoing war in Ukraine shows some similarities. As of April 2022, according to the Ukrainian Culture Foundation, more than 150 cultural sites were damaged or destroyed, including monuments, museums, theaters, libraries, and worship places (Daniels 2022). Similar estimates were provided by independent international institutions like UNESCO.
Russian soldier during the initial phase of the so called “Special military operation”, launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in 2022
As a response, the Executive Director of the Global Heritage Fund and the Secretary General of Europa Nostra released a joint statement, defining this destruction a “desperate attempt to erase collective history and identity”, and calling for international 8 support to the Ukrainian people.
The UNESCO Director-General repeatedly condemned the attacks on Ukraine cultural sites. The United States Department of State declared that “the destruction of Ukraine’s cultural heritage is an attack on the identity of the people of Ukraine”.
On 27 June, 2022, the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) released a statement that included a condemnation of the deliberate targeting of Ukrainian cultural sites, describing it as “an attempt to wipe out Ukraine’s history and cultural identity” (G7 2022).
This shows that the threats to cultural heritage in Ukraine is framed as a security issue.
Conclusions
We are observing a securitizing trend in the field of cultural heritage, especially in recent years.
Even if the strategic approach adopted by different countries or the EU shows dissimilarities, we can conclude that this subject is becoming more and more relevant for cultural diplomacy, especially in countries that aim to take a leadership position.
In particular for the EU, the connection between the two dimensions of security and culture is a significant novelty in the strategic approach to peace, security and development (de Vries 2021).
Cultural heritage clearly needs protection, as the recent example of ISIS dramatically shows. However, this apparently simple statement is not free from controversy (Cuno & Weiss 2020).
For example, a historically relevant site could also become a “legitimate” military target if it hosts armed fighters; or it could be surrounded by civilians, raising questions on the priority of protection.
Still, a security approach is likely necessary, especially in times of growing nationalism fueling conflicts worldwide. Preventive actions are potentially of great importance, for example listing catalogs, collecting data, raising awareness among the population through education, and providing technical support and capacity building.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a crucial testbed for this security approach, especially concerning the EU, whose help has been repeatedly invoked by Ukrainian institutions.
One of the biggest challenges, however, is the protection or restoration of cultural heritage within the country itself, without removals.
An example of this problem is the debate between Greece and the UK concerning the Parthenon Marbles.
Parthenon marbels at the British Museum
One of the arguments made by the British government against their restitution is that Lord Elgin, by moving the Marbles to England at the beginning of the 19th century, ensured their preservation from attacks and from air pollution (Ampela 2022).
On the other hand, the Greek side argues that the Marbles are an integral part of the Parthenon, and that the new Acropolis Museum would be well prepared to protect them.
This debate indicates that, to properly ensure the safety of cultural heritage, it is important to design mechanisms (both legal and technical) to preserve not only physical existence, but also cultural identity. A “responsible” securitization process that will manage to incorporate both elements will probably be the most beneficial.
* Konstantina Pilafà is the president of the Hellenic Institute of Cultural Diplomacy in Rome. Raised in Athens, she holds a Master’s Degree in Public and Cultural Diplomacy from the University of Siena, following a degree in European Civilization. Previously, she studied Preschool Education in Athens and specialized in the field of Special Needs Education. She is a Hi.K.E.R. (Hippo Kinesio-Educational Rehabilitation) therapist licensed by the International Institute of Therapeutic horse riding in Athens. (https://www.italienspr.com/kostantina-pifala)
FONTE: https://www.reportdifesa.it/cultural-heritage-a-new-sector-of-securitization
.jpg)
.jpg)
Commenti
Posta un commento
Partecipa alla discussione