Cultural Heritage in the Crosshairs : Protecting Cultural Property During Conflict [1 ed.] 9789004251427, 9789004247819

Citation preview

Cultural Heritage in the Crosshairs

Heritage and Identity Issues in Cultural Heritage Protection

Edited by

Joris D. Kila James A. Zeidler Editorial Board

Charles Garraway, (UK) Patrick Boylan, (UK) Karl von Habsburg, (Austria) Laurie W. Rush, (USA) Thomas Schuler, (Germany)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ichp

Cultural Heritage in the Crosshairs Protecting Cultural Property during Conflict

Edited by

Joris D. Kila James A. Zeidler

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013

Cover illustration: Ras Almergib castle, near Leptis Magna, Libya. Picture by Joris Kila.

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 2211-7369 ISBN 978-90-04-24781-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25142-7 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karl von Habsburg

1

PART ONE

APPROACHES TO CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION IN THE MILITARY Military Involvement in Cultural Property Protection as Part of Preventive Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joris D. Kila

9

Respecting and Protecting Cultural Heritage in Peace Support Operations—A Pragmatic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Michael Pesendorfer PART TWO

CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION TRAINING Cultural Property Protection and the Training Continuum in the U.S. Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 James A. Zeidler Developing a Cultural Property Protection Training Program for ROTC: Methodology, Content, and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 John Valainis Conflicting Memory: The Use of Conflict Archaeology Sites as Training for Operational Troops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Richard Osgood Developing a NATO Cultural Property Protection Capability . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Michael Hallett

vi

contents PART THREE

CPP AND MILITARY PLANNING Aiming to Miss: Engaging with the Targeting Process as a Means of Cultural Property Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Michael Hallett PART FOUR

CASE STUDIES ON CPP AND MILITARY OPERATIONS A Case Study in Cultural Heritage Protection in a Time of War . . . . . . . . . 169 Benjamin A. Roberts and Gary B. Roberts Preserving Cultural Heritage in Time of Conflict: A Tool for Counterinsurgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Cheryl White and Thomas Livoti Heritage Destruction and Spikes in Violence: The Case of Iraq . . . . . . . . . 219 Benjamin Isakhan A Report on Archaeological Site Stability and Security in Afghanistan: The Lashkari Bazar Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Matthieu Murdock and Carrie Hritz PART FIVE

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CPP Holy Places—Contested Heritage: Dealing with Cultural Heritage in the Region of Palestine from the Ottoman Period until Today . . . . . . 263 Friedrich Schipper Urban Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflict: The Case of Beirut Central District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Caroline A. Sandes Antiquity & Conflict: Some Historical Remarks on a Matter of Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Mirjam Hoijtink

contents

vii

Plundering Boys: A Cultural Criminology Assessment on the Power of Cultural Heritage as a Cause for Plunder in Armed Conflicts along History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Marc Balcells Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Joris D. Kila and James A. Zeidler Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures Kila 1. Ras Almergib castle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2. Karl von Habsburg assessing the damage near Ras Almergib castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Pesendorfer 1. Website “Crucified Kosovo” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Zeidler 1. Geographic Areas of Responsibility (AOR) of the six Combatant Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. A Cultural Property Protection (CPP) Training Continuum for the DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. CCHAG Training Products and Services and their position in the CPP Training Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4a. Exterior side of tri-fold CENTCOM Soldier’s Field Card for nine-line CPP documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4b. Interior side of tri-fold CENTCOM Soldier’s Field Card for nine-line CPP documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Instruction page for filling out CENTCOM Soldier Field Card for CPP documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 75 78 86 87 89

Osgood 1. Military Surveyors from 135 Geographic Squadron Royal Engineers recording an historic crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2. A Rifleman from the 1st Battalion, The Rifles records an excavation section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

x

list of illustrations

3. A Rifleman from the 5th Battalion, The Rifles excavates a Saxon grave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4. Battlefield marker at the site of the 1643 Battle of Lansdown entitled “The Looting Soldier” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5. The station at El Alamein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 6. A Corporal from 1st Battalion, The Rifles examining part of Stirling R9313’s gun turret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 7. The excavation of escape tunnel ‘George’ at Stalag Luft III . . . . . . . . . 128 Hallett (Developing …) 1. View of potential CPP organizational relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Hallett (Aiming to Miss) 1. The OODA “Loop” Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 2. Cultural Property Protection OODA Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Roberts and Roberts 1. The Ziggurat at Aqar Quf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 2. Community leaders and entrepreneurs with TFIG personnel at Aqar Quf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 3. The Damaged Café at Aqar Quf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 4. Heritage Preservation Playing Cards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 White & Livoti 1. Feedback loop based on Kilcullen’s (2004) Socio-Economic Dislocation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 2. Freshly dug holes at the ancient city of Isin in southeastern Iraq. . . 212 Murdock & Hritz 1. A fresco from a column within the south palace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 2. Orthorectified photo of Lashkari Bazar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 3. A spatiotemporal survey of Lashkari Bazar from 2006 to 2009 . . . . . 256 Sandes 1. Skopje, Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 2. Souqs and Roman columns in the Old City, Damascus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 3. Ottoman period building, Aleppo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

list of illustrations 4. 5. 6. 7.

xi

The restored Al-Omari Mosque, Beirut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Martyrs Square, Beirut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Rue Weygand, central Beirut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Sarajevo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Tables

Hallett (Developing …) 1. Suggest of course topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 2. CPP specialist activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Roberts and Roberts 1. Range of CERP projects authorized in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 White & Livoti 1. Models for war game scenarios of archaeological/cultural heritage sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

GLOSSARY ACT AFRICOM AIA AOR ANCBS BCD CA CENTCOM CCHAG CCOMC CDM CERP CMO COCOM COIN CP CPA CPP CULP DAFA DIA DOD ERR FTX GIS HQ ICC ICCROM ICOMOS IHL IMCuRWG IMGT INLA INM ISESCO JALLC JF JFTH

NATO’s Allied Command Transformation United States Africa Command Archaeological Institute of America Area of Responsibility Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield Beirut Central District Cultural Awareness or Comprehensive Approach or Civil Affairs United States Central Command Combatant Command Cultural Heritage Action Group NATO’s Comprehensive Crisis and Operations Management Centre Collateral Damage Methodology Commander’s Emergency Response Program Civil-Military Operations Combatant Commands Counterinsurgency Cultural Property Coalition Provisional Authority Cultural Property Protection Cultural Understanding and Language Proficiency Delegation Archeologique Francaise en Afghanistan French Delegation of Archaeology in Afghanistan Defence Intelligence Agency Department of Defence Einsatzsab Reichsleiter Rosenberg Field Training Exercise Geospatial Information Systems Headquarters International Criminal Court International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property United Nations’ International Council on Monuments and Sites International Humanitarian Law International Military Cultural Resources Working Group Iraq Mass Graves Team Iraq national Library and Archive Iraq National Museum Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Joint Analysis Lessons Learned Centre Joint Force Joint Forces Targeting Handbook

xiv JIPOE JNA JPAC LDAC LIDAR MCC MEDEVAC MFAA MNC-I MOD MSEL MSIII MSIV NATO NCO NHPA NGO NSL OMF OODA PACOM PACE PME QA/QC RIP/TOA ROE ROTC RSOI SOFA SOSO SOUTCOM SS STANAG TFIG TRADOC UNESCO USACE USAID USGS USIP UXO

glossary Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment Yugoslav Peoples’ Army Joint Prisoner of War Missing in Action Accounting Command Leadership Development and Assessment Course Light Distance and Ranging China Metallurgical Group Corporation Medical Evacuation Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Multi-National Corps in Iraq Ministry of Defence Master Scenario Events List Military Science Year 3 Military Science Year 4 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Non-Commissioned Officer National Historic Preservation Act Non-Governmental Organization No Strike List Opposing Military Forces Observe, Orient, Decide, Act United States Pacific Command Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange Professional Military Education Quality Assurance/Quality Control Relief in Place/Transition of Authority Rules of Engagement Reserve Officer Training Corps Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration Status of Forces Agreement Stability and Support Operations United States Southern Command Schutz Staffel Standardization Agreement Task Force Iron Gimlet United States Army’s Training and Doctrine Command United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Agency for International Development United States Geological Survey United States Institute of Peace Unexploded Ordnance

INTRODUCTION

Karl von Habsburg As I am writing this introduction the news came that the old Souks of the town of Aleppo in Syria have been burnt down in the course of fighting between the Syrian armed forces of Bashar al-Assad and the so called Free Syrian Army, or FSA, which is the main armed opposition entity active today in the country. It should be said that there are also various other groups operating in Syria. All seem to have different agendas and to make things worse, some do not hesitate to loot, devastate, or even steal cultural objects to buy weapons and ammunition.1 Regrettably, it seems like damaging and destroying cultural property is a phenomenon that currently is taking place on a regular basis in a number of countries and it appears to be intrinsically linked to contemporary conflicts all around the world. This book, Cultural Heritage in the Cross-Hairs: Protecting Cultural Property during Conflict, is the second volume in the series Heritage and Identity: Issues in Cultural Herirage Protection, and follows the 2012 publication of Joris Kila’s Heritage under Siege. Kila’s volume presents an introduction on the subject of Cultural Property Protection (CPP) in times of armed conflict plus an oversight of all stakeholders and parties involved in heritage protection while focusing on military input and obligations. His book was awarded the 2012 Blue Shield Prize that was presented to the author on October 17th, 2012, in Vienna. This second volume consists of five parts for which the titles speak for themselves. Part I is entitled Approaches to CPP in the Military, Part II: CPP Training, Part III: CPP and Military Planning, Part IV: Case Studies on CPP and Military Operations, and Part V: Historical Perspectives on CPP. In addition to the cases presented in Heritage under Siege, several new cases and scenarios are described in this new volume of which a number actually still have not come to an end as I write this, such as the events in Syria as well as the situation in Timbuktu and the demolition of Sufi monuments in Libya. The current iconoclastic trend seems to be developing into a pattern that is becoming especially visible in the region stretching between

1 See for instance: http://world.time.com/2012/09/12/syrias-looted-past-how-ancientartifacts-are-being-traded-for-guns/ [14-10-2012].

2

karl von habsburg

Mali and Syria. The latter appears to be an indicator that Cultural Property is turning in a global security issue and is therefore the subject of attention for military intelligence and international police forces. Contributing to this global security issue are the financial resources generated by insurgents through looting and then selling artifacts on the international antiquities market. These resources are often used to buy weapons and other supplies to continue the insurgents’ operations. Still this kind of heritage-related violation of International Humanitarian Law and respective national criminal legislations brings new opportunities to enforce penal sanctions like those mentioned in The Hague Convention of 1954 and its two Protocols as well as in the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court based in The Hague. The Rome Statute gives the opportunity to bring people to trial on the basis of individual criminal responsibility. We hope that juridical experts will work together, or at least start a debate with cultural experts to interpret cases and experiences from the field and create procedures and methods to bring perpetrators to justice. This emphasizes again the importance of gathering legal evidence in situ not too long after cultural crimes are committed and compiling more caseloads of recent field experiences, incidents and other relevant situations. It goes without saying that the international cultural expert community should help to have these cases processed into academic publications, data for researchers, reports for juridical experts and last but not least the socalled lessons learned for military. The latter is vital, as is argued by various authors in this book, e.g., James Zeidler, John Valainis and Ben Roberts. Why? Lessons learned, a form of knowledge management, are needed to prove to military commanders and political decision makers that CPP, if implemented well, can generate operational incentives, or speaking in military terms, force multipliers for the military.2 At this time there are not enough CPP cases and field situations processed into lessons learned. As is well described in different chapters in this book, cultural heritage protection (including immaterial heritage) in the context of conflict is currently developing quite fast into a very significant topic for various parties involved. Of course this development is triggered by the increasing number of conflicts in the so-called cultural (archaeological) source countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq. It should be noted that concerning Iraq, a country where there is no “official” conflict at this time, there are new rumors (yet unconfirmed) of stealing and looting antiquities from Babel Province. In his chap-

2

See: Kila 2012, Rush 2012, and White and Livoti in this volume.

introduction

3

ter about Iraq, Benjamin Isakhan explores the complex inter-relationships between cultural and historical destruction and identity politics, sectarianism, violence and democracy. Nevertheless this book is a proof of the ongoing research on CPP and I cannot stress enough that this continuous research is crucial to keep track of all developments and trends. But what’s even more important, where possible, are suggestions for solutions to problems encountered during implementation of CPP. It has to be emphasized that the research needs to be multi-disciplinary. I have already mentioned the juridical perspectives but the complexity of the subject also touches upon criminological, sociological, architectural, historical, political and even economic angles, to mention a few, and not to forget the identity-related aspects. In addition, new developments have to be identified and studied; some are presented in this volume such as the Traumascapes and Urbicide (e.g., the demolishing of an urbanization discussed in the chapter by Caroline Sandes), the environmental or natural connections as, for instance, codified in the NATO doctrine document STANAG 7141 EP and addressed in Michael Hallett’s chapter about NATO, and an example of combined natural/cultural heritage as in the Dugong case discussed in Joris Kila’s chapter. The position of cultural heritage in the targeting process in the context of no-strike lists or surgical strikes is addressed by Joris Kila and Michael Hallett. The role of the media and the changing nature of conflicts from symmetric to more asymmetric are also relatively new topics that are especially receiving more attention via the new social media. One of the consequences of this trend is that it results in less control over media coverage by governments but more media influence for bigger audiences (sometimes triggered by smaller numbers of individuals). This development can often turn the destruction of heritage into bad PR for certain regimes. Another issue that is not only relevant but is also gaining importance is selection. Who selects? What? Where? And why? These are just a few of the questions demonstrating that the selection or non-selection of cultural heritage, for instance, in the case of no-strike lists is in fact a sensitive act. At the same time the term cultural property or heritage when used in connection with selection is under debate since it implies ownership by certain parties. For military stakeholders, selection or absences of selection can even back-fire because they can be accused of protecting or not protecting cultural property for strategic reasons or exercising colonial politics if the area an airstrike took place in was a former colony of a certain air-strike coalition partner. These implications are typically subjects that need to be approached from a conceptual academic perspective and at the same time from a practical angle based on field experiences. While

4

karl von habsburg

paying attention to all mentioned aspects and elements, the overarching aim is still to bring the subject of CPP in the event of conflict—including its military perspective—into the academic heritage discourse, and the best way to do this is through academic peer-reviewed publications. This brings me to the fact that even CPP activities involving academic writing about the topic and presenting case studies are not undisputed. When preparing this volume, the editors were confronted with the fact that a chapter for this book was withdrawn by the author because initiation and ownership of the heritage project described in the cases was contested by several parties and the author was afraid that publishing the article could provoke these “contesters” and this would result in termination of the project. This clearly demonstrates that parties want to strengthen their reputation, so actually their identity with appropriating cultural heritage or in this case heritagerelated achievements. Contemporarily literature gives new perspectives on such phenomena. For instance, in the volume Performing the Past, different authors address issues such as the ethics and limits of representation (of the past) and stimulate us to think about the ways collections are presented in museums, the framing or often re-framing of the past or in fact (collective) memory, and thus identity.3 Fritz Schipper’s chapter in the current volume addresses disputed and contested heritage, and especially holy places in the Palestinian and Israeli territories. His piece explores the handling of cultural heritage in Israel/Palestine from the Ottoman period until today. In addition, the history of research on archaeological and cultural heritage in the contested area, and its religious, political and ideological implications are discussed. Selection on the historical museum level is discussed in the chapter of Mirjam Hoitink. Her chapter relates to the current, more abstract, heritage debate. The earlier mentioned criminological angle is addressed by Marc Balcells in his chapter entitled “A Cultural Criminology Assessment on the Power of Cultural Heritage as a Cause for Plunder in Armed Conflicts along History.” His contribution is not only of a high quality, but in addition demonstrates the link between CPP and crimes such as art theft, looting, forgery and illicit traffic of cultural property as well as the connected issue of provenance creation. But there is more in this volume. Between the growing number of initiatives in recent years to stimulate cultural property protection and to better implement it in U.S. military operations (see, for

3 Tilmans, Karin, Frank van Vree and Jay Winter (eds.), Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in Modern Europe, Amsterdam 2010.

introduction

5

example, the chapter by James Zeidler), there is also the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). John Valainis describes in his chapter initiatives for the CPP training of ROTC Cadets and Midshipmen via modules that can be accessed and downloaded from the internet at any time. Richard Osgood and Michael Hallett discuss current CPP training initiatives in the United Kingdom and in NATO, respectively. A new case-study is presented by Matthieu J. Murdock and Carrie A. Hritz, their contribution deals with the Lashkari Bazar, an extensive palatial complex near the Helmand River in Afghanistan and examines various site pressures upon it making use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Last but not least, I want to mention Michael Pesendorfer’s chapter presenting a pragmatic approach concerning CPP not only in the event of armed conflict, but also during peace support operations. His contribution addresses juridical implications from a European perspective. I do hope that this volume will make a valuable contribution for both the multi-disciplinary research on the protection of cultural property as well as for the international heritage debate. I’ll conclude with the words of Friedrich Nietzsche: “existence and the world appear justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon.” And it is this phenomenon, which we call culture, that we are all working for to preserve.4 References Kila, J.D., Heritage under Siege. Military Implementation of Cultural Property Protection following the 1954 (Heritage and Identity, 1). Leiden-Boston, 2012. Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Birth of Tragedy, New York, 1993. Rush, L.W. Cultural Property Protection as a Force Multiplier in Stability Operations: World War II Monuments Officers Lessons Learned. Military Review, March– April, 2012.

4

Friedrich Nietzsche—The Birth of Tragedy.

PART ONE

APPROACHES TO CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION IN THE MILITARY

MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AS PART OF PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION

Joris D. Kila Nations have recently been led to borrow billions for war; no nation has ever borrowed largely for education. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both. Abraham Flexner 1866–1959 This chapter aims to follow up and expand on Heritage under Siege, my 2012 publication that offers an introduction on the subject of Cultural Property Protection (CPP) in times of armed conflict plus an oversight of all stakeholders and parties involved in heritage protection while focusing on the military input and obligations. The argument is made to consider CPP in times of conflict as part of a preventive conservation strategy. In the heritage sector preventive conservation is an important issue and in most cases the term refers to the precautionary or mitigating measures that are taken to prevent or limit damage. In the context of this paper CPP includes risk preparedness including mitigation procedures by the military before operations start as well as continuous (academic) research. Consequently there seems to be an argument for at least parts of the CPP in the event of conflict spectrum to be labeled as a form of preventive conservation. CPP in the context of conflict as a topic for study and research as well as practical implementation is currently developing fast also triggered by the increasing number of conflicts in the so-called cultural (archaeological) source countries (e.g. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq). Apart from arguing the preventive conservation aspect of CPP this article aims at identifying and fine-tuning new developments and trends while giving more cases and, where possible, suggestions for solutions to problems or identified dilemmas encountered during implementation of CPP following the legal instruments provide by international humanitarian law (IHL). In addition the aim is to bring the subject including its military perspective in the academic heritage discourse / debate.

Initial Remarks The rationale for this piece is to shed light on and analyze the current state of affairs concerning Military involvement in the implementation of Cultural

10

joris d. kila

Property Protection (CPP) in compliance with international legal appointments like the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property of 1954 and its protocols. In addition it will be argued that military input concerning CPP in the event of armed conflict can be considered a form of preventive conservation. Let me begin by emphasizing that the legal instruments mentioned above include obligations concerning CPP for the military. This needs further explanation; nowadays it has become clear that dealing or not-dealing with Cultural Property can bring risks related to social disorder and conflict (Huntington, 1993; Bevan, 2006). The fact that the military are a major actor when armed conflicts (and sometimes social disorder e.g. the Egyptian “revolution”) are concerned cannot be ignored. Per definition they are involved in all aspects of armed conflict so this includes Protection of Cultural Property or in a negative sense destruction of Cultural Property that in a wider construct can be aimed at or result in cultural destruction at times causing historical obliteration that in its turn can lead to the damage or eradication of identities. Unfortunately these expressions of iconoclasm that are known throughout history are still happening. There are first reports mentioning shelling of heritage sites in Syria among them the famous World Heritage Site of Crac des Chevaliers and several citadels, mosques, temple and tombs. In this case it still has to be determined whether this is collateral damage or to certain extents iconoclasm or looting. Still things are expected to get worse because the conflict in Syria is expanding and getting more intense.1 As I write this chapter reports are coming in that in Mali or to be more accurate in the town of Timbuktu in the north of Mali mosques and mausoleums containing tombs of Sufi “Saints”, many of these cultural properties recognized by UNESCO and registered on the list of endangered World Heritage sites (e.g. all three historic mosques in Timbuktu), are being damaged or even demolished by members of the extremist Muslim group Ansar ad-Din.2 The extremists regard the shrines as idolatrous. The attacks are reported to have started on June 30 (2012).3 According to different sources the Mausoleum of Sidi Mahmoud Ben Amar and two other tombs are already destroyed.4 The antique wooden 1 Source: Cunliffe, 2012. http://globalheritagenetwork.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ new-report-on-damage-to-syria-s-cultural-heritage [6 August 2012]. 2 Defenders of Faith, the group seeks to impose sharia law across Mali and is accused of having links with Al-Quaeda. 3 Source a.o.: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/02/islamist-fighters-in-timbuktucontinue-destruction-of-citys-mausoleums-heritage/ [2-7-2012]. 4 Source used: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18657463 [3 July 2012].

military involvement in cultural property protection

11

door of the 15th-Century Sidi Yahya Mosque, also known as the “sacred door” was demolished by Ansar ad-Din members. The reason for this was the fact that “People believe that if that door is opened, the world will end” an unIslamic superstition that had to be disproved.5 Islamists also threatened to destroy the ancient mosques if there are saints inside the mosques (several saints are buried inside the city’s three historic mosques).6 And these actions are probably not the end since in Timbuktu there is also a huge collection of so-called Timbuktu Manuscripts in danger. They consist of medieval African documents, ranging from scholarly works to short letters that have been preserved by private households in Timbuktu. The manuscripts were passed down for generations in Timbuktu families and are mostly in poor condition. Some of the manuscripts date back to the 13th century. Many documents are kept in a new big library, built with support of South Africa, three new major private, but publicly accessible libraries and up to 60 other private libraries.7 There is fear that these documents will suffer of attack, damage or neglect caused by the armed struggles or that they will be stolen and end up at the antique markets.8 If so we are also talking about safety and security liabilities because thieves, iconoclasts, groups of opposing forces or in this case Islam extremists that have connections with Al Qaida might see profits that can be used for buying arms and ammunition. Ansar adDin has already taken over the new building of the Ahmad Baba library; some group members are currently (July 2012) living in the building. They removed all the computers and other equipment which could be a threat to the digitized manuscripts stored on the computers or other hard-drives.9 Of course UNESCO and many other organizations protested but without any immediate result although as an extra measure UNESCO is apparently working together on the subject with its Islamic counterpart the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO).10 From the legal 5 Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/world/africa/mali-islamists-exertcontrol-with-attacks-on-mosques.html [3 July 2012]. 6 Based on information from dr. Thomas Schuler in his North-Mali: Heritage Reports, No1 and 2 (16 May and 6 July, 2012) reports for internal use from the ICOM Disaster Relief Task Force (DRTF). 7 Ibid. 8 Just before this book went to the press information came that Islamist insurgents torched two buildings one of them being the Ahmad Baba library containing priceless books and manuscript as French-led troops approached Timbuktu, source: the Guardian 28 January 2013. Later unconfirmed reports stated that the biggest part of the manuscripts were saved because they were hidden before the occupation by the Islamists started. 9 Ibid. 10 See: http://www.isesco.org.ma/ [9July 2012].

12

joris d. kila

front it was International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (born in Gambia) who stated that “those responsible could face prosecution as their actions constituted a war crime”. It is difficult for cultural heritage experts without any formal legal training (like me) to establish if the prosecutor’s statement will carry any weight therefor I will limit myself to discuss two possible legal instruments. Mali is already since 1961 a State Party to The Hague Convention of 1954 and its First Protocol and of course the Muslim extremist group that seized power in the Northern part of the country is not an internationally recognized Mali governmental party so de facto does not classify as a State Party but the transitional government in the capital Bamako does classify and asked the UNESCO World Heritage Committee to place Timbuktu on the list of endangered UNESCO sites because of the unrest in the north. UNESCO agreed and stated that its decision to place both the town and the nearby Tomb of Askia in Gao on its List of World Heritage in Danger “aims to raise cooperation and support for the sites threatened by the armed conflict”. The request Mali’s transitional government made was reportedly what angered the Ansar ad-Din group, who accused UNESCO of cooperating with the Mali government.11 There are legal provisions to hold people responsible for heritage crimes also in the event of non-international conflicts. The Second Protocol of The Hague 1954 mentions individual criminal responsibility12 but this legal instrument does not to apply in this case because Mali has not (yet) signed the Second Protocol. Still the International Criminal Court has options to prosecute crimes such as the deliberate destruction of Cultural Property and Mali is a party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) that is based in The Hague.13 According to the principle of complementarity the ICC complements national legislation of its state parties in cases as described above, in other words if the criminal laws of Mali cannot be enforced or are no longer working the ICC can function as a substitute. Or as the ICC refers to this: “Nations agree that criminals should normally be brought to justice by national institutions. But in times of conflict, whether internal or international, such national institutions are often either unwilling or unable to act ….”14 The 1998 Rome Statute to the ICC

11

Ibid. Second Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property. Chapter 4 Criminal responsibility and jurisdiction. 13 Mali signed the Rome Statute on 17 July 1998 and deposited its instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute on 16 August 2000. 14 Source: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/general/overview.htm. 12

military involvement in cultural property protection

13

constitutes a landmark treaty on individual responsibility regarding international crimes and contains important provisions for crimes against cultural property.15 Relevant are two sections in article 8 of this Statute in which a description is given of certain places and buildings that cannot be deliberately attacked unless they are (made into) military objectives.16 Specifically mentioned are buildings dedicated to religion and historic monuments. In the Timbuktu case the Mosques and tombs classify under both categories. Those who intentionally undertake deliberate acts of violence against the described places and buildings are considered to be guilty of committing war crimes. In fact the Rome Statute generates individual criminal responsibility however in the best case scenario a country in which the cultural property crimes took place has (or is expected to have) already implemented national legislation for investigation and prosecution of such crimes and the Rome Statute (if applicable) works complimentary. In conclusion it seems fair to say that in the Mali casus once more history repeats itself, for instance the Afghan event of the Taliban destroying the Bamiyan Buddha statues is very similar.17 In both cases the acting party’s excuse for the destruction is that of idolatrousness. In addition it forms more proof for what I argued in Heritage under Siege namely that cultural property is vulnerable and available for politicisation and, manipulation which can be clearly seen in the accusations made by Ansar ad-Din to UNESCO being prejudiced in favour of the transitional government and the apparent use of cultural property to damage the opponent’s identity. These expressions of iconoclasm seem to reappear in time and therefore cannot be considered incidents. Dealing with them not only demands for effective legislation but also for direct measures such as the, on several occasions debated and proposed, international military cultural emergency response teams or for that matter any military emergency response.18 When taking into account the recent destruction of cultural property in Timbuktu and in Syria plus the absence of direct emergency resolve it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that internationally not enough is happening regarding input of military organizations in case of cultural property 15

Source: Hector 2010. This can be the case if for instance anti-aircraft guns or other weapons or snipers are installed in such places. 17 Another much earlier example from the Netherlands is the big iconoclastic outbreak of 1566, the so-called “beeldenstorm” caused by a religious conflict between Calvinists and Catholics based on accusations of idolatrous worshipping resulting in large scale damage to church interiors and monasteries. 18 See for instance: http://www.uscbs.org/get_involved.htm [3 July 2012]. 16

14

joris d. kila

protection in the event of conflicts. It should be noted however that in the U.S. CPP training of troops and planners is progressing in a slow but steady pace and there is for instance a good communication and cooperation with the U.S. entity responsible for no-strike lists containing cultural heritage sites and objects. The Branch Chief of this department19 created a format in which everyone (e.g. academics, restorers, and conservators) can put their information including, if available coordinates of cultural properties that should be avoided during air-strikes and other military operations. The same department was involved in the successful heritage nostrike list initiative during the recent Libyan airstrikes. Since the military seem well aware of caveats and restrictions under IHL, national law and military regulations misuse of such data supplied by civilian experts seems unlikely. The U.S. IMCuRWG representative20 managed to get Cultural Resource Protection into NATO’s Joint Analysis Lessons Learned Center (JALLC) Program of work. Within this Program an analysis will be done in order to better institutionalize cultural resource protection in the Operational Planning Process while simultaneously identifying training requirements and necessary changes to NATO policy and doctrine. The U.S. AFRICOM is developing theater-wide guidance for the protection of African cultural property. The civil affairs annex (Annex G) to the Theater Campaign plan is in the process of comprehended with a supporting CPP appendix containing rules, obligations and legal references.21 This way it is ensured that the guidance is harmonized with international law and the command’s strategic direction. The appendix will be integrated into existing guidance and processes, in this case Civil Affairs Operations/Civil Military Operations and civil information management. To a wider extend its contents fits the comprehensive approach and stimulates joint cooperation.22 Resuming to the presented arguments relating to military participation in CPP; four basic reasons can be distinguished for the established military stakeholder ship.23 First: the military operate during all phases of a conflict including circumstances in which civil experts and local police cannot function and often they are among the first that are present in a conflict area. Second: the military have the logistics and tools to operate in cultural emer-

19 20 21 22 23

DRI-8, Operational Environment Analysis Division of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Source: information to the author from Commander Mike Hallett. This was the situation in July 2012. U.S. Africa Command. Not all military or military institutions recognize that they are stakeholders.

military involvement in cultural property protection

15

gency situations. Third: they must comply with national and international legal obligations. Fourth: there are good military motives from the tactic and strategic perspectives to protect Cultural Property, in other words there are military deliverables at stake the so-called force multipliers.24 Examples: the U.S. did not protect the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad from looting and damaging and were confronted with bad PR diminishing Force Acceptance. NATO got good press for using cultural no-strike lists during Operation Unified Protector which was a form of good strategic communication. Nevertheless a basic condition is that the military, while not sufficiently trained about CPP and not (yet) having within their midst special cultural property protection officers, realize the following as put into words by Laurie Rush: “Deployed personnel in unfamiliar environments must realize that members of local communities are the ones who should assign value to cultural properties in their landscape”. Simply put, first do research or go to your local reach-back capabilities before determining what is perceived as cultural heritage in a certain area of responsibility.25 As already demonstrated in the Mali case there are several conflicts or postconflict situations at present that are so violent that the condition of important cultural properties in these conflict areas is unclear or at least under threat of damage and destruction. Though attempts were made e.g. discussions with UNESCO and several Ministries or Departments of Defense as well as suggestions in publications to get mechanisms in place to assess situations like these there is no way or only limited possibility to do this now in conflict areas. Examples are Egypt (ongoing looting), Libya (post-conflict lootings and thefts), Mali (Timbuktu Tombs and Manuscripts, World Heritage Sites), Cambodia (fighting in the Preah Vihear Temples), Afghanistan (e.g. the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas and the National Museum in Kabul), Iraq (e.g. Babylon) and Syria (e.g. damage to Crac des Chevaliers, several mosques, museums and citadels like the one in Palmyra). Several recommendations have been given in studies and reports to create appropriate international cultural assessment (SWAT) teams e.g. civilian units

24 The term Force Multiplier refers to a capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment. 25 Rush, Laurie. W., Cultural Property Protection as a Force Multiplier in Stability Operations. Military Review, March–April 2012 pp. 36–43. http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/ MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120430_art008.pdf [5July 2012].

16

joris d. kila

for natural disasters and military or militarized units for manmade disasters. Although IMCuRWG and ANCBS three times gave a good example by sending small assessment teams to conflict areas (e.g. Egypt, Libya) the international community did not follow up on their initiative. Outlines for a systematic institutionalized approach or designs for overarching governing institutions presented vary from UNESCO, an organisation perceived as too political and bureaucratic, to NATO, even new combinations of international military cultural experts were suggested. Their work should include drafting procedures and plans for civil handover capacities.26Nonetheless these initiatives come too late to save Syria’s cultural heritage. Although at the time this is written no verifications in person or via on the ground assessments were possible there are reports and (to certain extents) proof of large destruction. A report by Emma Cunliffe supported by the Global Heritage Fund and presented in May 2012 mentions different types of damage, more or less in concordance with the categories I have distinguished in earlier publications27 Damages addressed in Syria are a.o. from shelling (bombardments), army occupation (camps and firing positions), terrorism (opposing forces), looting, uncontrolled demolition (like for instance happened in Al Hatra-Iraq). World Heritage Sites like the Ancient Villages of Northern Syria, Crac des Chevaliers, cultural properties in Damascus and Aleppo and Palmyra are amongst the sites confirmed of being damaged and then there are several film clips that can be found on the internet showing destruction at tentative World Heritage Sites such as Apamea and the citadel of Qal"at al-Mudiq. And there is much more destruction listed. “Concerned citizens within the country, expatriates and Syrian heritage organisations are monitoring the damage as best they can and sending as much information as possible to the outside world”28 since the international community is inactive because of the danger and political pitfalls.29 In addition there are reports of smuggling of artefacts, theft, iconoclasm (tombs, crusader castles) and break-ins. Remarkable is the fact that the current situation in Syria shows the increasing use of strategic located (from a military perspective) sites like citadels, towers, castles that already are (historical) fortifications positioned

26

Kila 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, Rothfield 2008. E.g. Kila 2012. 28 Quoted from Cunliffe 2012 p. 4. 29 A chance was missed by not including cultural (militarized) experts in the UN observers mission in Syria although, IMCuRWG and ANCBS asked UNESCO to facilitate this and offered to go with the observers. Source: emails from both organizations to UNESCO. 27

military involvement in cultural property protection

17

high in the terrain. Perhaps it is wise to give protection of such sites higher priority in risk preparedness plans while taking into account the so-called military necessity implications such sites can evoke.30 As becomes clear from the presented summary of countries in turmoil, we can see a “prevalence of contemporary wars in weak or failed states, and a multiplicity of actors engaged” (van der Auwera 2012).31 This implies that per case many different groups, religions and consequently various cultural properties maybe involved. I want to add dictatorial ruled states to the weak and failed states and do sense another prevalence namely for archaeological source countries (countries with an abundance of archaeological resources e.g. Iraq, Syria and Egypt).32 A lot of these source countries are at the same time, sometimes to an extent, developing countries that are urged to concentrate on internal economic matters and therefore do not have enough financial resources to sufficiently manage their own cultural resources. Countries with sufficient financial means and an interest in global archaeology (at times based on previous colonial ties with certain areas) are active in source countries thus interpreting the host country’s or local community’s heritage from a different, often Western perspective. Here we find a potential for the emergence of complicated situations that ask for professional and ethical considerations, and another budding opposition between global and local archaeology and heritage studies creating a dilemma between conducting professional activities according to Western standards versus the incorporation of culturally relevant modifications.33 Nevertheless, the lack of sufficient heritage management and maintenance can be caused by political reasons too for example Libya was not a poor country but former dictator Kadhafi considered archaeology a colonial activity that was not important. On the one hand this was reason for him not to abuse cultural property in battle but on the other hand, as a result

30 In this situation Military Necessity forms part of a basic conflict of interest between military necessity that is used as a reason to solve (or end) a conflict as soon as possible and civil interests in CPP related to matters like identity, economy and science in post-conflict conditions. 31 Auwera 2012. 32 To be understood also as cultural resources. 33 Source: Introduction: Contemporary Archaeological Resource Management and the ‘Liberals’ Dilemma’ Francis P. McManamon, Jodi A. Barnes, and Andrew Stout in Managing archaeological resources: global context, national programs, local actions/edited by Francis P. McManamon, Andrew Stout, and Jodi A. Barnes. Walnut Creek 2008.

18

joris d. kila

the country’s cultural heritage is currently in a state of neglect and needs maintenance and restoration.34 Seen from all (multiple) angles protection of cultural property forms an integral part of the entire complex of mechanisms linked to risk preparedness, conflict and conflict resolution that is taken into account in planning and implementing peace keeping and stabilization operations. Unfortunately CPP, apart from a few examples of good practice like in Austria, is rarely considered or implemented during military operational planning and consequently it is not envisaged for the missions following such planning that include post conflict activities and handing over to civilian parties. In Heritage under Siege I introduced the subject of Cultural Property Protection and the perspective of military involvement or at least military obligations, to the academic discourse as well as to military scientific researchers, lecturers and those engaged in cultural policies and decision making.35 In addition I described, and to certain extend tested, mechanisms, conditions and measures in the field while giving case examples. These case studies are meant to trigger discussions and need to be studied from multiple perspectives like the legal, art historical and military strategic angles, consequently lessons learned can be drawn from them. Yet due to the many recent conflicts in cultural (archaeological) source countries, developments are going rather fast and correlate with changing situations concerning warfare or fighting e.g. symmetric versus asymmetric combat as well as new approaches to conflict resolution, military planning and operations and developments in conservation, restoration and assessment of sites, objects and monuments e.g. 3D virtual reconstructions, GIS (geographic information systems) and satellite remote sensing. To make matters even more complicated the status and nature of what falls under cultural heritage is subject to change too e.g. cultural landscapes, the question how people memorialize the past culminating in places of memory or lieux de memoires,36 the so-called Traumascapes37 (e.g. Ground Zero New

34

Kila 2012. Ibid. 36 Introduced by Pierre Nora, Les Lieux de Mémoire (7 parts, 1984–1992). 37 See Tumarkin 2005. “In the world we inhabit, traumascapes are everywhere. They are the physical sites of terror attacks, natural and industrial catastrophes, genocide, exile, ecological degradation, and communal loss of heart. They are part of a scar tissue that stretches across the world, from Hiroshima to Auschwitz, Dresden to Srebrenica, Sarajevo to New York, Bali, London, Jerusalem, and New Orleans. Traumascapes are haunted and haunting places, where visible and invisible, past and present, physical and metaphysical, come to coexist and share a common space….” 35

military involvement in cultural property protection

19

York) and intangible heritage that includes traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, e.g. oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events and skills to produce traditional crafts.38 Just as we have the UNESCO initiated Hague 1954 Convention that protects tangible heritage there is a UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003).39 The mentioned changing heritage classifications also have an effect on the sensitivity and potential explosiveness of cultural heritage in relation to media information and communication. To give an example the media input regarding the Baghdad Museum looting made the already low international support from within society for the Iraq War almost disappear.40 In spite of the fact that the United States tried to limit the damage, they got saddled with the image of a “destroyer of culture” that remains intact until today. In addition today’s new media started to play key roles since they are capable of provoking negative (inter)national reactions or triggering positive media coverage, whereas the latter can generate military force multipliers like enlarging force acceptance. One should not underestimate the influence of bloggers and websites that can be driven either by individuals or by specific interest groups they have a great potential to influence opinions. A current example of the weight such new media or to be more specific the social media can carry is the 2011 revolution in Egypt. The social media’s influential powers became eminent through the particular role that they played in terms of intensifying awareness and creating support among anti-government protesters.41 Additionally the input of social media helps to spread cognitive dissonance by connecting opinion makers, community leaders and protesters to common citizens thus swiftly increasing the group of people who become willing to take decisive action. Examples of internet platforms potentially capable of doing so are networks like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter42 and You Tube.43

38

Source: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00002 [1 June 2012]. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html [1 June 2012]. 40 Especially the CNN images of looters and museum staff in the shambles of the museum. 41 Exactly What Role Did Social Media Play in the Egyptian Revolution? by Simon Mainwaring | 02-14-2011 | http://www.fastcompany.com/1727466/exactly-what-role-did-socialmedia-play-in-the-egyptian-revolution [28 may 2012]. 42 See the article of Nicolás R. Laracuente on archaeology and Twitter in AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology Volume 2–2012 pp. 81–99. http://www.arqueologiapublica.es/ index.php [28 May 2012]. 43 A derivative of this is called Viral Marketing also named “going viral” referring to 39

20

joris d. kila

All transformations and developments depicted above are even so difficult to monitor and analyse. As a consequence opportunities to benefit from potential positive results can be missed or chances to avoid negative developments overlooked therefore on-going research resulting in publications appears to be crucial. Identified Dilemmas and Oppositions While studying the whole composite that determines safe guarding and protection of Cultural Property in compliance with IHL it seems fair to make the observation that in general terms there seem to be more forces working against each other than operating shoulder to shoulder or at least supplementing their respective input and expertise. These opposing conditions cause predicaments in which not only the main conflicting forces or warring parties are involved but also CPP stakeholders that are, or should be working together to protect heritage without being occupied with matters like competence struggles among peers and competition while defending market shares. These phenomena are often found in the community with an intrinsic interest in cultural resources protection.44 An important reason for this kind of behaviour within circles of cultural experts and academia is the lack of financial resources and the right skills and networks for successful fundraising. Of course this is all related to the current economic recession but it is also a consequence of the general perception (certainly among the military and politics and certain classes in society) that culture or cultural objects and projects are considered expensive, unnecessary or too luxurious in today’s economy. Today’s financial dilemmas restraining CPP have an even more rigorous effect since they also affect the instrumental community that has (or had) considerable resources and jurisdiction to operate in theatre. Seen from the CPP perspective the instrumentals are the Military, International Organizations, NGOs and Governmental institutions. It has been established that in spite of legal obligations like The Hague 1954 it rarely happens that instrumentals initiate military involvement in CPP and consequently it’s financing.45 Therefore it is normal practice that an intrinmarketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in awareness concerning brands or certain topics. Viral in this context is used to point at the selfreplicating spreading process of viruses. 44 Rothfield ed. Antiquities under Siege chapter 19 Scott, R. Feil: Engaging Interagency Processes to protect Cultural Sites. NY 2008. Kila 2012 Heritage under Siege (Brill) see chapter 4. 45 Kila 2012.

military involvement in cultural property protection

21

sic party has to convince the instrumentals to deal with CPP. In order to achieve this but at the same time taking into account the bad economic situation that currently affects both sides, it is very important to emphasize and prove to the instrumentals that CPP “yields benefits to their operations”. These benefits have to be translated into credible military terminology using terms like smart defence, force acceptance, joint cooperation, centers of gravity and force multipliers such as situational awareness.46 In fact this is all part from what argued in Heritage under Siege47 namely that part of a basic solution is to balance the various interests of all stakeholders involved in CPP.48 Notwithstanding this it seems time to think about balancing their responsibilities as well. This is should be enough reason to continue as much as possible to describe and analyse all (over time changing) interests concerned. An overarching heritage protection problem that contributes to creating oppositions and has to do with competence and status of parties involved is the issue of selection or to be more precise; what will be protected and how e.g. what sites will be put on no-strike lists. It goes without saying that internationally there is general consent about certain, often old, heritage that is considered important for the whole of mankind but that does not mean that there is an automatic agreement or recipe that deals with what should always be protected no matter what. Sure there are lists like the World Heritage List49 and the World Monuments Fund Watch List but concerning their interpretation and degree of importance, relevance and consequently priority to be considered for use they are subject to historical, political, military and religious influences or dominance and market positions. Furthermore there are no strong instruments to enforce these lists or what they legally represent. Beyond that another aspect to consider is the fact that although the supply of legal (of known legal provenance) antiquities that can be acquired by museums and collectors is not really growing (unless from theft and looting) there are still items or places transforming in or labelled as heritage due to the influence of politics and impacted by artcollectors, producers of art (artists), excavating archaeologists, the creation

46

Centers of Gravity is a military term. Ibid. 48 Co-inspired by a presentation of COL Mark Yanaway, CA, USAR, Civil Affairs Planning Team Chief, presentation Balancing Stakeholders January 8th at the AIA Annual Meeting 2011 CHAMP Workshop in San Antonio, TX, United States. 49 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list [1 June 2012]. 47

22

joris d. kila

of new sites of memory, religious places and new museums to mention a few. Therefore selection is an issue too contributing to creating oppositions such as the economic, iconic and art historical values of cultural heritage versus the humanitarian law doctrine of military necessity. This contradiction is very relevant for the scope of this article and will be addressed more in detail later. As recognized many current conflicts take place in archaeological source countries and consequently generate extra problems and dilemmas. For instance troops of coalition forces involved in peace keeping or other type of operations can be confronted with market driven looting, theft and smuggling of cultural goods or forgeries.50 It can happen that such acts are initiated by or at least an indirect consequence of individuals from the so called market (for antiquities) countries, this leads to the opposition that military from these countries (e.g. U.S. UK and Northern Europe) have to prevent acts that are indirectly caused by their civilian fellow countrymen. In addition it is possible that these military themselves take cultural objects as souvenirs. An indication, certainly not meant to be a complete listing, of (identified) dilemmas that can occur in the process of protecting cultural heritage in the event of conflict seems in place to present an idea of possible interactions that can come about in CPP implementation strategies. To illustrate the situation in the field some practical examples are added. As described in Heritage under Siege51 some dilemmas are directly connected to certain CPP parties or stakeholders nevertheless there are also common quandaries, and for that matter common denominators52 that 50 Looting, stealing and smuggling of artifacts is market driven following the international rising demand for antiquities. Any increase of the supply offered for trade, can only come from illegitimate sources. Buying items encourages increase of theft and pillaging and helps to finance the conflict. CPP is in this context an instrument to deny resources to the opponent thus a Military Force Multiplier. There are more aspects to looting. For instance its reference to Elginism: an act of cultural vandalism. A term connected to the actions of Lord Elgin who transported the Parthenon Marbles from Greece to London between 1801 and 1805. Now it also applies to other cultural objects, usually artefacts taken from poorer nations to richer ones. Controlling looting can be both a humanitarian activity as well as a military Force Multiplier. 51 Kila 2012. 52 As far as they are linked to the military sphere, such denominators can be used to demonstrate to the military that parties hold things in common. E.g., militaries too are interested in cultural heritage. Military museums, collections, and war monuments and their preservation and conservation are excellent examples. The same goes for historical battlefields, bunkers etc. Another example: CPP can help to deny the enemy that wants to sell stolen and loot cultural objects, financial resources to buy weapons etc.

military involvement in cultural property protection

23

increasingly become more influential such as the financial excuse used to explain the lack of implementation of CPP especially when military participation is at stake. What most dilemmas have in common is that they are based on- and driven by oppositions. These oppositions can be found on different levels and between various parties or even between individuals or cultures within one and the same organization. During on-going research about implementing CPP I found that some oppositions change according to circumstances and developments while others remain but are, due to new developments or tools, at a certain stage easier to overcome. To give an example; there are oppositions between air and land operations and related antagonisms based on cultural differences between the military personnel executing them (army and air force) but also contradictions in the way these different operations harm or can potential inflict damage to cultural property. For instance the destruction of cultural property became more devastating when aerial bombing and long-distance weapons were introduced in World War I. This resulted in the destruction and damaging of a large amount of cultural property in Belgium and eastern France but World War II was even more traumatic, due to systematic aerial bombardments.53 Nevertheless today and especially within the modern concept of asymmetric warfare54 with a prevalence for precision bombing we find that aerial strikes can have a less damaging effect on cultural property once CPP experts have access to (and convince) either the military operational planning process or military and political decision makers to provide them and then in particular the targeting experts, with cultural no strike lists before air operations begin in order to adjust their targeting plans. An example of good practice in this respect took place during the recent conflict in Libya with as proof the case of the Ras Almergib site this casus will be discussed here.

53 Source: Threats to Cultural Heritage in situations of international and non-international armed conflict—Real world and fictitious case studies, Michael Pesendorfer in Protection of CP in Peace Support Operations, international workshop Bregenz June 2006, www .bundesheer.at. 54 As opposed to symmetric warfare.

24

joris d. kila The Initiatives for a Cultural No Strike List Concerning Libya and the Casus of the Roman Ras Almergib Fort55

An Example of Good Practice56 Introduction: in the beginning of March 2011, unrests started in Libya that swiftly developed into a full-fledged inter-state conflict. Initially the fighting included bombardments and shelling carried out by the warring parties, later aerial strikes and a no-fly zone operation by NATO were carried out. Within the context of CPP it should be noted that Libya is a party to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict since 1957, and signed the Second Protocol of this convention in 2001. The country has five World Heritage sites, designated by UNESCO: the ancient Greek archaeological sites of Cyrene; the Roman ruins of Leptis Magna; the Phoenician port of Sabratha; the rockart sites of the Acacus Mountains in the Sahara Desert; and the old town of Ghadamès, an oasis city. On 14 June 2011 UNESCO called parties involved in the armed conflict to ensure the protection of the World Heritage site of the Old Town of Ghadamès and its immediate surroundings. UNESCO also appealed to the parties involved not to expose the world heritage site of Leptis Magna to destruction and damage. Apart from these world heritage sites, the Libyan coast that has a rich underwater cultural heritage should be taken into account since it has numerous archaeological and historical sites from pre-historic times to the Second World War. This cultural heritage is hugely important in developing the understanding of Mediterranean history. Other important cultural heritage sites in Libya include the Jamahiriya Museum; which is Libya’s national museum containing an extensive collection of history and archaeology. It is located in Tripoli’s Assaria al-Hamra, or Red Castle/Fortress, the Museum of Libya on the Algeria Square in Tripoli, the Medina (Old Quarter of the city of Tripoli) and the Libyan Archives.

55 Sources: Blue Shield/ IMCuRWG Libya reports http://www.blueshield.at [13 June 2012]. Cori Wegener (USCBS) and personal observations in situ by the author. 56 The author tried to make a list of all individuals that were instrumental in coordinating, compiling and guiding the no strike list for Libya, if anyone is omitted this was not intentionally in such case please accept the author’s sincere apologies. Instrumental for the no strike list were (in random order): Dick Jackson, Paul Green, Patty Gerstenblith, Nancy Wilkie, Cori Wegener, Laurie Rush, Tim Melancon, Andrew Cohen, Andrew Wilson, Paul Bennett, Hafed Walda, Susan Kane, Sam Carrier, Joris Kila, Thomas Schuler, France Des Marais, Gaia Jungeblodt, Philip Kenrick, David Mattingly, Katia Schörle, Charles Le Quesne, Tom Elliott, Karl von Habsburg, Mike Hallett.

military involvement in cultural property protection

25

In March 2011 the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield (USCBS) began coordinating and collecting information initially using contacts of (U.S.) Blue Shield board members later American info gathering spread to Oberlin College and eventually included many other archaeologists from which coordinates of important archaeological sites, museums, libraries, archives and relevant cultural and historical sites were obtained. In addition information was gathered from various International Committee of the Blue Shield especially on museums, libraries, archives and other sites. In the U.S. the first draft list was send to the Special Assistant to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters and to Air Combat Command. Members of the Combat Commands Cultural Historical Action Group (CHCAG) were engaged in disseminating lists and information to several parties through the USAF/Air Combat Command. The Institute for the Study of the Ancient World of New York University (NYU) was instrumental in collating and reduplicating the data and preparing the list submitted to the Department of Defense (DOD). It should be noted that the Libya No Strike List was received by the U.S. DOD before the No Fly Zone was instituted. As a next step International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS) colleagues in Paris were involved. IMCuRWG shared the data (some 200 coordinates) with a Staff Officer of the Strategic Plans uand Policy department of NATO’s Allied Command Transformation Center (ACT) in Norfolk, Virginia. The UK MoD had, via different routes, also been provided with all of the information given to the United States. UK experts from the Society for Libyan Studies, the University of Oxford, Kings College and the RPS Group added valuable data. In the UK the list was then forwarded to the Joint Staff, and the Joint Staff Legal forwarded them to the targeteers. IMCURWG also provided the operational staff of the Dutch Armed Forces with the coordinates and extra information. The Netherlands took part with F16s under NATO command in imposing the no-fly zone over Libya backed by the United Nations Security Council. Though requested by IMCURWG during handover, the actual use of the data was not confirmed by the Dutch Ministry of Defense (MoD). Crucial was that the No Strike List was forwarded on to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and consequently the information was entered into the targeting computer which shares info with NATO. In fact this was an important achievement that enabled the civilian CPP networks to establish a kind of working relationship that provides for future no-strike lists (e.g. Syria, Iran) to be entered into the (shared with NATO) system on short notice of course taking into account all sorts of legal and ethical considerations as listed in different legal and professional rules.

26

joris d. kila

Figure 1. Ras Almergib castle. Photo by Joris Kila, 29 September 2011.

UNESCO also became involved, but that happened long after the bombing began on 19 March.57 On the top of a hill not far away from Leptis Magna near the city of Khums, in fact overlooking Khums and Leptis Khadafi’s forces placed a radar station. There is also a little Roman fort on this hill top called that carries the Arabic name Ras Almergib. The radar station was protected by a circle of five antiaircraft batteries, which were placed next to the Roman walls still standing up varying from 2 to 3 meters in height. When a cultural emergency mission team from the ANCBS and IMCuRWG58 visited the location the 29th of September in 2011, it found six heaps of metal rubbish: All military installations had been completely destroyed. The mission members59 checked the Roman walls and the vaults situated next to the anti-aircraft weapons. There were a few visible signs of the attack on the walls: small surface scratches obviously caused by pieces of shrapnel of a bomb / rocket or by scattered 57

Source: an email to the author from Cori Wegener (USCBS) dated 9 January 2012. ANCBS: Association of the National Committees of the Blue shield, IMCuRWG: International Military Cultural Resources Working Group. 59 Dr. Hafed Walda, Dr. Joris Kila and Karl von Habsburg. 58

military involvement in cultural property protection

27

Figure 2. Karl von Habsburg assessing the damage near Ras Almergib castle. Photo by Joris Kila, 29 September 2011.

parts of the destroyed anti-aircraft battery. But no cracks, or fallen stones or bricks were found. The local archaeologists accompanying the team found the visit to the top a great moment since it was their first time at this location to which access was strictly forbidden under the former regime. The Ras Almergib case serves as verification that NATO did execute precision bombardments also called “surgery strikes” when cultural property was at stake in Libya. The case demonstrates the importance of providing cultural coordinates to the military in this case NATO air strike planners. Still we have to stay realistic, during a civil-military panel discussion at the yearly American Institute of Archaeology Conference (AIA) in January 2012 in Philadelphia military participants noted the importance of prioritizing, both to avoid an overwhelming number of site coordinates and to give the military a sense of priorities in case of the need to make a decision on military necessity grounds.60

60 Source http://aiamilitarypanel.org/events/champ-workshop-at-2012-aia-annualmeeting/cultural-heritage-information/.

28

joris d. kila

The above indicates that it is essential for cultural property protection experts to have some knowledge of the whole phenomenon of what is called targeting in the context of military operations and of lists of no-strike entities known as the No-Strike list (NSL). In addition there is such a thing as a no-strike process that is actually part of a no-strike and collateral damage estimation methodology. Respective DoD or MoD policies govern the management of such a process in which weapon effects, mitigation options, and collateral damage are aspects to be considered. The cooperation with the military regarding coordinates opens the door for more collaboration concerning new technical possibilities created by the use of such advanced technologies as satellite remote sensing and GIS. This way it will be possible for cultural specialists to have access to satellite imagery and create in advance (risk preparedness and preventive conservation) cultural data to be included in (layered) geospatial data.61 Resuming to outlining a number of identified dilemmas and oppositions it should be said that they vary within a broad range so a complete list cannot be given. It is more useful to illustrate what different sorts of, sometimes unforeseen opposing factors can bring about in the process of preparing and implementing CPP. When looking at military operations as a domicile to incorporate planning and execution of CPP one can find contradictive interests such as activities during conflict versus preparations in peacetime sometimes also undertaken by different entities within or outside military organizations. There is symmetric warfare62 versus asymmetric warfare63 and operations include military exercises in peacetime that should generate lessons learned from the whole spectrum of operations. This spectrum comprises offensive, defensive, stability, and support operations. All these types of operations have their own, often different critical needs and dynamics and challenges. Therefore CPP should be embedded taking into 61 Geospatial data is information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural or constructed features and boundaries on the earth, typically represented by points, lines, polygons, and/or complex geographic features. This includes original and interpreted geospatial data, such as those derived through remote sensing including, but not limited to, images and raster data sets, aerial photographs, and other forms of geospatial data or data sets in both digitized and non-digitized forms. [Source: EPA’s National Geospatial Data Policy, August 2005, EPA is United States Environmental Protection Agency.] 62 Symmetric warfare is conventional warfare against an opponent of comparable might, using similar weapons on a known battlefield. http://www.worldwidewords.org/ turnsofphrase/tp-asy2.htm [6 June 2012]. 63 In asymmetric warfare defenders fight on their own terms, not those of the enemy all guerrilla activity, especially urban terrorism, falls within this definition. Source: see above note 17.

military involvement in cultural property protection

29

account various aspects, phases and positions in the operational spectrum as well as the sort of anticipated violence for a certain operation. Oppositions that can occur are for instance military experts versus civilian nongovernmental organizations and the dual roles for the military mindset e.g. fighter/destroyer and heritage protector at the same time, professional military versus reservists plus the difference in culture, terminology and operational practice between the U.S. and the European armed forces.64 Another identified dilemma within the civilian sphere is cultural heritage as of value for art history and archaeology versus cultural heritage as a symbol of identity and an instrument for political legitimization. As established the way armed conflicts are executed and resolved has changed e.g. symmetric versus asymmetric conflict. One big change is that at present we are faced with an increase in the urge for nations, peoples and groups to redefine or confirm themselves as a distinctive entity. This creates tensions of which the identity aspect is in the center while at the same time opposing and contradicting movements in international processes of identity shaping and character maintenance play a role in other words, different groups or entities do not want their (sometimes fictitious) identities to be “polluted”. At the same time some groups want to appropriate or at least claim (parts of) other group’s identities. This not only leads to several claims or even law suits e.g. the Goudstikker collection (restitution of Nazi-Confiscated Art), the Elgin Marbles that are in the British Museum (Greece versus UK), the claim concerning the Nefertiti Bust now in Berlin (Egypt versus Germany) but causes the cultural sector or especially cultural property to be used for political legitimization. As a result a wide range of groups have raised (contested) claims for cultural properties in the name of cultural identity while demanding official recognition. So far all impediments and differences mentioned contribute to the complexity of the whole CPP situation in relation to armed conflict and cause most parties to keep at a distance resulting in lack of allocated financial means, insufficient research, scarce field experience and consequently expertise on the subject. As a result there is ample attention for developments that indicate aspects that go beyond just heritage protection such as the sensitivity of cultural property in relation to identity and dispute. This identity aspect of cultural heritage is vital since it is not only one of the three key elements (identity, authenticity, and uniqueness, referred to

64 Culture from this perspective can be for instance corporate culture, national cultures or ethnic culture, status in society of military within a certain country.

30

joris d. kila

as uniquity) in the (civil) scientific heritage debate, but is also a driver for many contemporary conflicts and disputes in which parties or even nations have a tendency to appropriate cultural property for political reasons or more specifically to add to or to strengthen their identity. Apart from such political motives the protection and destruction of cultural property65 can also form part of identity formative processes as can be seen especially in intrastate66 conflicts that took place in former Yugoslavia (damaging the Old Town of Dubrovnik), Iraq (damaging Babylon) en Afghanistan (demolishing the Bamiyan Buddhas) and recently Mali. These types of conflicts have in common that they are often for the bigger part, culturally determined. In some cases iconoclasm67 is practiced when parties try on purpose to destroy or damage their opponent’s (both tangible and intangible) expressions of identity. Clear illustrations of this iconoclasm besides the ones already mentioned are the destruction of the Mostar Bridge in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the damage done to the library of its capital Sarajevo and concerning intangible heritage bans on certain languages and national hymns. Such actions are sometimes referred to as (im) material identity rape. The term rape is frequently used in contemporary literature on heritage and looting e.g. the Rape of Europa (Nicholas-1994) about European destruction of cultural property during WW II and the Rape of Mesopotamia (Rothfield-2009) about Iraq. Clearly there is a military interest in expanding their knowledge base on the subject including cultural aspects as part of a conflict’s root causes and in all different functions and surrounding mechanisms regarding identity. Bevan demonstrates this connection when stating that a strategy to accomplish the defeat of the enemy is to “exterminate this enemy by obliterating its culture.” and by culture he means identity.68 His scope is relatively wide since the threat to common objects, especially buildings, is considered a threat to identity as well as to the collective memory maintaining a group’s consciousness. All the same this leads to a more comprehensive idea of the already addressed places of memory (including the traumascapes) that can more or less be considered containers of identity. This idea not only adds

65 When using the term “cultural property”, I use the same definition as in Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention. 66 A key characteristic of intrastate conflict is the deliberate targeting of violence on civilians. Many casualties in intrastate conflict are non-combatants. Source: US.AID Information Bulletin December 2000. 67 Term originally used for the demolition of religious symbols, or, by extension, established dogma or conventions. Now the term is also in use for damaging or destructing cultural expressions. 68 Bevan 2006.

military involvement in cultural property protection

31

to the complexity but also to the refinement of the subject. This level of complicating refinement enlarges the gap between civil and military heritage expertise and consequently increases the need for research, dialogue and transfer of knowledge between the civilian and military spheres this could be initiated by Military academies and research institutes, NATO and civil academia. To elaborate on this and at the same time put it simple: the subject’s vulnerability urges further research on the military perspective, including military and legal implications of CPP. In the process it should be taken into account that the current civil scientific heritage discourse aims at creating and maintaining a corpus of theoretical writing that addresses multiple connotations in the context of changing and progressing insights on the topic of heritage and identity perspective is more advanced than any existing heritage debate that involves the military aspects. In this respect there is a contemplative gap between the civil and military viewpoints that can be closed through education, study and debate. A Case of Good Practice of NATO and Austria From 19 November to 2 December 2011 an important event took place at the Austrian National Defence Academy in Vienna. The Austrian Ministry of Defence, in cooperation with NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT based in Virginia U.S.) and the International Military Cultural Resources Working Group (IMCuRWG) organized the first ever NATO affiliated Pilot course on Cultural Property Protection in accordance with The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict and protocols and NATO’s STANAG 1741 EP. Already in the official invitation document NATO stated that “Lessons identified from recent operations (including in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya) indicate that NATO’s Cultural Property Protection (CPP) capability remains suboptimal, and that CPP activities are insufficient to fully achieve the Hague Convention aim. Actions to enhance NATO’s CPP capability are therefore required. This includes promoting not only a deeper understanding of the legal issues associated with Cultural Property Protection, but also of the practical activities in the field associated with protecting sites, preventing looting, and working with local actors to improve their own cultural property protection capabilities.” In the last decade Austria organized multiple courses and seminars on CPP but intensified its efforts this time by cooperating with NATO and including international participants both military as well as civilian. This

32

joris d. kila

initiative demonstrated that the Austrian MoD was, and still is one of the few military institutions that really implement The 1954 Hague Convention and then especially the articles on dissemination, training and education. Aside from this several other components made this course stick out. For instance a serious contribution was made to lift the subject of CPP and the military perspective on CPP into the international scientific discourse. Via a workshop the practice of military planning and the conditions, restraints and possibilities for CPP officers to function within the military planning process were studied and debated. Outcomes showed many problems and impediments but also opportunities to make such participation possible, not only in Austria where it is already happening but also internationally such as in NATO- or UN led operations. To actually experience the planning process an exercise was presented and tested with all participants that took place in Wiener Neustadt. During the course new case studies were introduced by different speakers. These cases were based on recent asymmetric conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya. Some of the examples presented were commented by legal experts during the course. This course demonstrated the need for education and dialogue and in addition stressed the importance of international cooperation. Joint Strategies and International Cooperation for Implementing CPP 69 It seems clear that international cooperation concerning the military responsibility in CPP is necessary as well as joint cooperation. Financial and personnel resources are too scarce to be able to achieve a comprehensive solution as an individual country. By joining forces it will be possible to work on this subject more efficient on issues as training, joint exercises, interagency cooperation, research, academic education, in theatre assessments and the development of educational tools. The perks are timely implementation (important given the current conflicts where heritage is at risk), efficiency and saving money. In addition there is a certain synergy that can derive from working together internationally. Overall CPP can generate the so-called force multipliers or in other words it can help to reach the end state

69 Joint in this context stands for integration of the various service branches of a state’s armed forces.

military involvement in cultural property protection

33

of a military mission sooner while at the same time contributing to postconflict reconstruction for instance by stimulating tourism (monuments, antiquities) and as a tool to strengthen national identities. When going deeper in these incentives that roughly stand for time and money, two angles from which to assess and study the importance of international cooperation in the field of CPP become apparent for military and policy makers. One is the perspective that such cooperation brings more efficiency meaning in this case that it is both cost-efficient as well as time efficient. The latter brings the advantage that today’s cultural emergency situations e.g. Syria and Mali can potentially be dealt with on short notice without first doing research, training military cultural experts and recruiting new staff. The second angle is cultural diplomacy. First we need a more comprehensive understanding of the term cultural diplomacy: It is not a new phenomenon, throughout time, explorers, musicians, and travelers like Marco Polo played a role as informal cultural ambassadors. Cultural diplomacy is defined as “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding.”70 In fact it is also a first means to restore or open contacts with countries after conflict or with countries that have subversive governmental systems or ideological ideas or as Richard T. Arndt puts it: cultural diplomacy is “the first resort of Kings”.71 This opens possibilities and opportunities from within a military setting. Still as I argued in Heritage under Siege,72 it should be taken into account that any cultural diplomacy policy will not be taken seriously if the implementing country has a reputation to destroy cultural property during military operations or has a reputation for not implementing legal instruments such as the directives of the Hague Convention of 1954. The following case example demonstrates that one still has to be very careful: in an article in the Chicago Tribune73 Eric Nemeth suggests there is a potential for proactive protection of cultural artifacts, particularly in light of the U.S. ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention in 2009. He claims that U.S. foreign policy can transform risk to cultural property (loss) into diplomacy (gain) by insisting that military interventions, even those the U.S.

70 Source: Milton C. Cummings, Jr. Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey, Washington, D.C: Center for Arts and Culture, 2003. p. 1. 71 Arndt, Richard T., Cultural Diplomacy: The First Resort of Kings, American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, Dulles (VA) 2005. 72 Kila 2012. 73 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-07/news/ct-perspec-0607-artifacts20120607_1_hiram-bingham-iii-artifacts-collateral-damage [15 June 2012].

34

joris d. kila

is not militarily involved, include a strategy for securing museums, monuments and archaeological sites as well as avoiding collateral damage to such sites. Although this is an excellent idea that with some flexibility even can be considered mandatory under IHL Nemeth forgets or in any case doesn’t mention that the U.S. did not ratify any of the Hague 1954 Convention’s protocols meaning that using this legal instrument to promote certain ethical driven values could backfire to the U.S. if any opponent should want to use or emphasize the fact that U.S. evokes a treaty while the U.S. at the same time does not want to carry full responsibility for the treaty (Hague 1954) itself. The sanctions for instance are in the protocols 1 and 2 (1954 and 1999) that the U.S. did not want to sign and ratify. Nevertheless the Convention is fit to be used for strategic communication and cultural diplomacy but it is strongly recommended that only parties that fully endorse the treaty and its protocols should do this. In fact when used for diplomatic purposes a good track record of really implementing the convention of the country utilizing the treaty for diplomatic purposes should be conditional as well in which case not many countries that are states-party would classify. Still promoting CPP with diplomatic motives or even economic reasons is good but one should be careful in making reference to certain legal instruments. Exploring the Link between Cultural and Natural Resources to Get CPP Embedded in Military Structures that Have to Deal with Environmental Procedures and Obligations Years of practical experience showed that it is difficult to make successful appeals to the military to start implementing the Hague 1954 even while presenting and explaining the advantages that CPP and more in general the cultural and ethical values intermingled with CPP can bring. One of the challenges was, and still is the vagueness of terms that contain the word culture like cultural heritage, cultural affairs, cultural awareness, cultural property, cultural identity, cultural diplomacy etc. The terms heritage or property when used in the context of CPP during conflict contain juridical and material aspects. In the legal sense cultural heritage is often referred to as cultural property in which case cultural heritage should be seen as a “specialis” under a “generalis”. Cultural properties in danger of damage or destruction during today’s asymmetrical conflicts involve monuments, (objects from) graves (such as quite recent in Mali), archaeological sites, artifacts, museums, archives and libraries. These objects and sites are often

military involvement in cultural property protection

35

owned and taken care of by states whereas the terms property and heritage can suggest or indicate disputed or claimed ownership. Not only can these associations play a role in a legal and political (conflict) sense but in case of (alleged) state-ownership they can be confusing which can evoke risk avoiding behavior amongst military decision makers. Still there are more conceptual approaches that emphasize on the idea of heritage.74 This heritage idea is to the same extent subject to change as related ideas of identity, status, social values, philosophical significance and economic value. Finally there is a tendency to attach different meanings to the term culture including religious connotations. Simon Gunn puts it quite sharp in his book History and cultural Theory “the term culture creates immediate difficulties. It is notoriously vague and slippery possessing several different meanings”.75 However there is at least one common denominator that is in itself not disputed namely culture as a resource or as Bourdieu called it within a different context: cultural capital.76 The term resource is normally more associated with natural “capital” but it in fact opens the door to a new approach that involves natural resources and simultaneously tackles a problem that has not been mentioned yet namely the lack of organizational structures to house CPP capabilities within the military. Institutional embedding of such competences on shorter notice while waiting for permanent CPP dedicated positions to be created seems important in the light of today’s cultural heritage disasters related to armed conflict. Environmental structures and guidelines can provide solutions for quick embedding, either temporarily or permanent. There is an obvious link between CPP and the environmental sphere where the term resource is frequently used e.g. natural- water- and land resources. Dealing with environmental issues is accepted within the military systems and military personnel are familiar with the concept of handling resources with care. This creates an important opportunity to make CPP implementation in a wider sense possible within military organizations. To put it more directly existing organizational structures that are established to house environmental capabilities and connected budgets can be used to institutionalize CPP. In addition there are legal instruments and regulations such as one of NATO’s STANAG doctrines. To be more precise the regulation that directly addresses NATO’s military members is the NATO STANAG 7141 74

Gillman 2010. Gunn 2006. 76 See Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, The Inheritors: French Students and their Relation to Culture, Chicago 1979. 75

36

joris d. kila

EP doctrine77 in which natural and cultural resources are considered characteristics of the environment that have to be taken into account in relation to NATO led military activities.78 In the U.S. in 1990, legislation passed Congress establishing the Legacy Resource Management Program that provides financial assistance to the Department of Defense (DoD) efforts to preserve U.S. natural and cultural heritage. The program assists the DoD in protecting and enhancing resources while supporting military readiness. The program supported and sponsored a lot of CPP activities among them the famous U.S. Military CPP playing cards. Another important provision that was fitted in existing military environmental management is the Regulation Number 200-2 Environmental Quality (U.S.) CENTCOM Contingency Environmental Guidance. It states that U.S. CENTCOM forces will actively prevent pollution and respect the natural, historical and cultural resources of the host nation.79 Regulation 200-2 contains essential guidance, best management practices and environmental enforcement capability for heritage preservation for U.S. base camps and all contingency operations within the USCENTCOM Area of Responsibility.80 The institutionalized and codified connections between cultural and natural resources open new perspectives for international, joint and multidisciplinary cooperation especially the earlier mentioned embedding of CPP capabilities in set structures for environmental issues. But in addition they bring the potential for on-going refinements and fine-tuning as is illustrated in e.g. the CENTCOM 200-2 and in the NATO directive. In the NATO STANAG 7141 EP81 doctrine the obligation is stated to Identify potential (environmental) impacts caused by military activities, including the impacts of alternatives and contingencies such as Endangerment of Natural and Cultural Resources. Impacts on natural and cultural (historic and archaeological) resources should be prevented where possible. Really essential is the instruction to identify feasible mitigation measures .… Consider alternative locations or activities that still achieve the military objective of the training or operation while reducing or eliminating the risk to the environment …. Not only exam77

Under 7 b. (5) see also (7). Under c. see also e. 79 In August 2009 CPP recommendations drafted by members of the CCHAG were accepted for inclusion in Chapter 6 [“Historical and Cultural Preservation”] of the USCENTCOM Contingency Environmental Guidance: Environmental Quality Regulation (*R 200-2). 80 Source: www.cchag.org [26 July 2012]. CENTCOM’s area of responsibility includes a.o.: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. 81 For the complete text see the appendix section of Heritage under Siege, Kila 2012. 78

military involvement in cultural property protection

37

ples of the connection between cultural and natural resources are included in the doctrine but also indications are given to avoid or resolve problems by using risk management. The phrase mitigation opens possibilities for the protection of cultural property to be taken into account as early as in a military planning or assessment phase. Of course there has to be, per case agreement between all parties involved on the nature of any proposed mitigation method. There are cases of best practice in this field, in Fort Drum U.S. Cultural resources managers on Department of Defense lands were challenged with balancing the needs of the military mission with stewardship of cultural resources; to put it simply they had to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to cultural resources from necessary military mission activities like training, construction, etc. In the process of finding solutions mitigation measures and techniques were designed that were also appropriate for most missions abroad so in fact a win-win situation was created.82A quite simple, example is that the Hesco issue that will be explained hereunder is incorporated in the Dutch (European) version of the military educational CPP playing cards. In earlier publications I gave some concrete case examples of problems that can derive from military activities such as soil pollution that can contaminate or destroy cultural (archaeological) resources (e.g. archaeological layers, objects in the ground) the example of sometimes unintentional inflicted damage by own forces via the use (filling these with archeological soil thus disturbing the stratification) of Hescos83 without consulting a CPP expert, and detonation vibrations that can harm cultural property. All these case examples demonstrated the link between CPP and natural/ environmental issues as well as obligations from the practical perspective but now we find that the cultural/natural connection starts to get codified in military rules and doctrines there are more possibilities that bring direct results. As a welcome side effect CPP will be automatically considered when planning military exercises and as a consequence the combination CPP and military planning that is conditional for good results will become a subject. Conclusion: when combined with cultural resources training and research a win-win situation is created especially when nature is awarded the status of protected cultural heritage as is the case in the following (legal) case example of heritage’s connection with nature and consequently the environment.

82

Source: http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/assets/pdf/DRUM_BMPcd.pdf [4 July 2012]. Also known as Concertainer™ Barriers and made by the UK Company Hercules Engineering Solutions Consortium in short HESCO. 83

38

joris d. kila A Case: Dugong vs. Rumsfeld

This case is generally known as Dugong vs. Rumsfeld and was filed in California.84 The legal actions were started by a consortium in Okinawa85 consisting of the Okinawa Dugong, Center for Biological Diversity, the Turtle Island Restoration Project, the Japan Environmental Lawyers Federation, Save the Dugong Foundation, Dugong Network Okinawa, Committee Against Heliport Construction, Save Life Society, Anna Koshisishi, Takuma Higashionna and Yoshikazu Makishi, all from Japan. The accused were Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. Department of Defense. The situation started in November 1995, when a special bilateral Japanese and U.S. agency called: Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) was created to reduce the weight of U.S. military presence on the local population of Okinanwa by closing the U.S. Marine Corps air base Futenma. On 2 December 1996 SACO presented its final report by which the Futenma Implementation Group (FIG) was created and tasked with finding an appropriate relocation site. On 29 September 1997, the FIG said that a location off the coast of Camp Schwab, an area that is vital as a lasting habitat for the Okinawa Dugong86 was designated as the relocation site. On 25 September 2003, a California based non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting nature and wildlife and to defending the right to a healthy environment named Earth Justice made a complaint against the U.S. DoD seeking an injunction to prevent building the base. Among the relevant parts of the accuser’s argument were that the action was filed under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), not the Endangered Species act, although some believe that act may also apply.87 The NHPA stipulates that “prior to the approval of any Federal undertaking outside the U.S. which may directly and adversely affect a property which is on the applicable country’s equivalent of the National Register, any adverse effects must be avoided or mitigated.” The plaintiff doesn’t believe this has been

84

It was filed in the Northern District of the California Oakland Division. Okinawa is a Japanese Island in the East-Chinese Sea. 86 The dugong is a large marine mammal which, together with the manatees, is one of four living species of the order Sirenia. It is the only living representative of the once-diverse family Dugongidae; its closest modern relative, Steller’s sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas), was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. It is also the only sirenian in its range, which spans the waters of at least 37 countries throughout the Indo-Pacific, though the majority of dugongs live in the northern waters of Australia between Shark Bay and Moreton Bay. Source: Wikipedia. 87 Source: http://www.achp.gov/nhpa.html [26 July 2012]. 85

military involvement in cultural property protection

39

done. The suit argues that the Okinawa Dugong is protected as a “National Monument” under Japan’s “Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties”, Japan’s equivalent of the NHPA. Further argument is that the DoD failed to comply with the NHPA in preparing plans to move the base from Futenma to Henoko because it did not implement any studies to investigate and mitigate the potential impact of the base. Relevant parts of the U.S. DoD’s counterarguments include that in the U.S., the NHPA lists historic districts, sites, building and objects, not animals or species and the argument that it is Japan, not the DoD, which is implementing the relocation plan so there is no “federal undertaking” by the U.S. government that can be regulated. While the Dugong may be designated as a cultural monument, Henoko Bay itself has not been listed and is thus not protected. On March 2nd 2005 the US District Court, Northern District of California came with the Final Decision called: “Dugong Decision 12408”. The court agreed with Earth Justice and held that the Okinawa dugong is “property” and thus protected under Japan’s equivalent of the National Register. One of the conclusions in the verdict was that the DoD failed to comply with NHPA section 402 which requires the U.S. to take into account important national monuments when starting a federal action such as the construction of a military base. The Court ruled in the plaintiff’s behavior, requiring that the DoD must take into account the potential effects of the construction of a base, above and beyond the environmental survey being done by the Japanese government.88 What Does This Case Demonstrate? First that cultural property/heritage is not always easy to distinguish from natural heritage and that there are actually developments in the interpretation of natural and cultural heritage legislation on both national and international levels influenced by socio-political and environmental aspects e.g. the cultural landscapes. Second that one legal instrument can be used as a substitute (subsidiary) for another as was also found in the Mali case in which the Rome Statute can replace national legislation and that a decision such as the Dugong decision 88 Source: http://www.anpomovie.com/Dugong_vs_Rumsfeld_Summary.pdf [7 June 2012].

40

joris d. kila

can be understood as subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law. Third that certain legal decisions or rulings can prevent damage to what is legally identified as cultural heritage; therefor they constitute a form of preventive conservation. Balancing Interests While concluding it should still be taken into account that cultural property or cultural heritage and its protection are complicated issues. They touch upon a wide range of interests, different cultural backgrounds, types of expertise as well as religious, scientific, social, ethnographic, political, historical, philosophical, legal, ethical, sociologic and linguistic aspects. Furthermore the general use of the nouns property and heritage in connection with the adjective cultural indicates that there is room for disputes about ownership and this makes Cultural Property prone to manipulation. Having said this new confusion is imminent: the nature of heritage or can natural species and environments (e.g. Dugong, cultural landscapes) be considered cultural heritage? This means that the large company of CPP stakeholders will be expanded with environmental specialists and maybe environmentalists which in its turn can bring more undesired politicizing of cultural property protection. For the time a number of key issues are important to deal with: 1. It has to be made clearer to the military and politics that CPP is important for military organizations. Relevant within this context is to demonstrate how CPP interrelates with all forms of comprehensive approach in military operations and missions.89 In addition the advantages and incentives of implementing CPP for the armed forces have to be explained preferably using case-examples and lessons learned. The same goes for the legal obligations and (risking) possible sanctions. A clear case of a military commander that has been sentenced while The Hague 1954 was cited throughout his case is the so-called Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar Case. This case addressed the shelling of the old town of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991 under the responsibility of Pavle Strugar a Lieutenant-General of the then Yugoslav Peoples’ Army (JNA). Concerning crimes of devastation not justified by

89

A comprehensive approach involving political, civilian and military instruments. Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51633.htm [29 July 2012].

military involvement in cultural property protection

41

military necessity and the destruction of cultural property, the allegation against Strugar was that damage or destruction was carried out in the course of the 6 December shelling of the Old Town of Dubrovnik. In relation to the charge of devastation the court found that the Old Town sustained damage on a large scale on 6 December 1991. In relation to the charge of destruction of cultural property it was relevant that the Old Town of Dubrovnik in its entirety was entered onto the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1979, so every building of the Old Town was properly identified and listed as cultural property.90 Also there were no military objectives in the immediate vicinity of the buildings and structures destroyed or damaged on 6 December 1991, or in the Old Town, or in its immediate vicinity, therefor the destruction or damage of property in the Old Town on 6 December 1991 was not justified by military necessity.91 On 31 January 2005 Strugar was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Of additional interest is that in recent scientific literature on this case a plea is made for the constitution of a “cultural swat team” consisting of experts from various disciplines (forensic, art, architecture, archaeology etc.) to perform investigative work being forensic as well as identifying damaged or destroyed objects. This work would significantly assist investigations and potential subsequent prosecution and military experts should be part of such teams.92 2. Important is the relation between CPP and Security that is not a static phenomenon but is changing influenced by international developments concerning a.o. conflict, economy, identity and politics. In Heritage under Siege I emphasized that CPP should not be mixed up with cultural awareness (CA) since they are different disciplines handled by different experts. Apart from this I argued that cultural property experts (both civil and military) should avoid getting involved in certain types of intelligence operations (e.g. the Human Terrain Teams) that can be considered unethical from a scientific point of view and could also be in breach with legal instruments like The Hague 1954 Convention. Having said this it cannot be denied that there are connections between cultural heritage (protection) and security. As has been established by different experts there is at least a relation with socalled soft security a term that is part of a new conceptual approach to global security in fact a non-military concept focusing on political, economic and

90 91 92

Source: http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&mode=table [30 July 2012]. Source: