AS: This book, as well as statements by UNESCO, link ethnic cleansing and genocide to the destruction of cultural heritage. Why do you think these things are inextricably connected?
TGW: Humanitarians emphasize not just the intrinsic value but the extrinsic value of this heritage, because those who commit mass atrocities understand that the elimination of heritage is a prelude to—or accompanies—targeting individuals and people. For military tacticians and strategists, protecting people and culture are inseparable tasks. So, I think whether you’re emphasizing the intrinsic or the extrinsic value, it’s clear that heritage is an essential part of your job.
Also, the public, international observers, and journalists—they all connect images of both. They’re in the same screen, they’re side by side: mass murder, forced displacement, ethnic cleansing, human trafficking, slavery, and terrorism appear alongside the destruction and looting of objects and sites. There’s no need for hierarchy. One must address both.
JC: We’ve seen plenty of examples that convince us of the inextricable link. 19th-century German poet Heinrich Heine and others since have reminded us, “Those who burn books will, in the end, burn people.” And that continues to hold true. And Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide and drafted the first principles of genocide, made the connection. It’s a persistent problem and one of increasing importance.
AS: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is agreed in a 2005 United Nations resolution adopted to permit international intervention against crimes of war or genocide. This book uses R2P as a framework to extend this framework to the protection of cultural heritage. Do you think there’s a strong appetite in the international community to potentially violate the sovereignty of a nation to protect not only human life but cultural heritage?
TGW: No, there is very little. But as an inveterate optimist, I think we’re at the beginning of a long and arduous path to hold states and non-states modestly more accountable for their actions. Normative change precedes policy change and eventually action. And the example of R2P is crucial because it gives additional meaning to the most sacrosanct principle of world politics. We believe addressing mass murder, mass ethnic cleansing, and cultural heritage destruction are part of protecting people. It’s no longer off the charts to speak about violating national sovereignty because there are some actions that are so egregious and so conscience-shocking, that something must be done that sets aside that sovereignty.
JC: There are three ways to extend R2P to encompass cultural heritage—encourage local peoples to react to the attacks on cultural heritage, then fund and provide material in support of it. If that’s not enough, states can put boots on the ground, which of course, is the most problematic. Do we as a global community have the appetite and means to do this?
AS: Outside of the UN, are there any other professional organizations or efforts that are currently underway that could possibly strengthen the protection of some of these global sites?
TGW: Obviously UNESCO—the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—is the global voice on these issues. Their conventions govern international actions, but we should understand how modest a player the organization is. I heard recently that the entire budget for cultural protection at UNESCO is about the size of the cultural budget for the borough of Queens in New York City.
Right now, I’m trying to help the Smithsonian map a host of organizations within the US government and internationally, as well as private agencies, that are working on these issues. The next time there’s an Afghanistan or a Ukraine, as there is bound to be, we’ll be able to pull together a response much more quickly. We need a working and workable consortium.
Everyone seems to love the Monuments Men of World War II, which is a widely publicized example which suggests that governments can use technicians, soldiers, and others in a coordinated activity to help. That may not be the right model or image, but a whole lot more could be done.
AS: If many of the recommendations made by the contributors to this book are not heeded, where do you see the world headed in terms of cultural heritage preservation in the next 20 or so years?
JC: Of course, it’s best that we make every effort to protect these sites. Local peoples are seeking our help.
TGW: In the last 30 to 40 years, it is hard to count the number of times I’ve said, “Never again,” all over again. From the Balkans to Rwanda, Sudan, Myanmar, and Ukraine, mass atrocities continue. Social scientists are not paid to make projections, but my depressing prediction would be appalling repetitions of what we’ve seen, mainly the disappearance or destruction of treasures, as well as local structures that are the key to local identities.
But let’s not end on a somber note. You must be hopeful to be involved in international politics or the protection of cultural heritage. And it seems to me that much of this book is about the link between bricks and blood, between heritage and human beings.
We can make it possible to reach a better consensus so that robust international action occasionally could protect people whose heritage is under siege. So, while normative advances, UN resolutions, UNESCO reports, and our book do not guarantee action, they are essential building blocks. They are prerequisites for moving beyond ad hoc, inconsistent, local, and short-term responses toward more systematic, rules-based, predictable, and coordinated action. As I mentioned, I’m a professional optimist.
