cultural heritage protection

All Chapters Version 5 page 1

Cultural Heritage Protection

A Way to Improve Your Miss ion

CIMIC CENTER OF EXCELLENCE Enschede, The Netherlands


Cultural Heritage Protection


First Edition Copyright 2010

CCOE, Enschede Printed in the Netherlands ISBN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Content


Foreword

When the request reached me to recommend the publication Cultural Heritage Protection. A Way to Improve Your Mission I felt privileged and honoured, and accepted the invitation without any hesitation. The military have an essential task to protect cultural heritage in times of an armed conflict when others cannot take this task on them. This publication is a valuable and fundamental contribution to the protection of what our ancestors left us. It shows the complexity of the integration of cultural heritage protection into a military mission to the non-military reader. At the same time it introduces the subject to the military audience and shows them the way forward. ICCROM recognizes the importance to raise awareness for heritage at risk in war. That is why our organization with the co-operation of others, organizes a six-week course First Aid to Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict this autumn in Rome. To teach and train insight into the relation between an armed conflict and endangered heritage, and how to prevent the worst, fits our goals and aims very well. Every element of cultural heritage is particular and irreplaceable, is vulnerable and fragile and has one or several messages. In times of war these elements become magnified. It is greatly appreciated that soldiers on the battlefield prepare to take on the task to protect what reminds us of the past and gives us hope for the future. I am certain that this publication will assist them to perform that complex task under extreme circumstances. Yours sincerely,

Mounir Bouchenaki Director General International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)


Preface XXX Yours sincerely,

Colonel Hans Jürgen Kasselmann Director Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence (CCOE)


CHAPTER 1

Introduction With this publication the CIMIC Centre of Excellence (CCOE) wishes to show military institutions and civil society that they hold Cultural Heritage Protection (CHP) in great account. At the same time CCOE wants to stress the ever-increasing importance of this subject in NATO missions. It is however not a guide for the military how to protect cultural heritage in times of war, it is merely an introduction. Ever since the looting of the Iraq Museum followed by a rising number of western countries that became party to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, commonly known as the 1954 Hague Convention, Cultural Heritage Protection has become a significant task for international military missions. In fact, the 1954 Hague Convention is very specific about this task. Where the local authorities fail to protect their heritage in a conflict zone the military have to take on that responsibility. Besides, by stopping or mitigating the destruction of cultural heritage the commander not only abides by international law but also makes a valuable contribution to conflict resolution. With the blast in 2001 of the Bamyan Buddha’s in Afghanistan the Taliban regime clearly showed the world who was in power. Their interpretation of Sunni Islam was to rule and anything outside that order was to be annihilated. With this act the Taliban displayed their utter contempt for the inhabitants of the Bamyan province: the Shi’a Islamic Hazari, the direct descendants of the ‘infidel and gruesome Mongol Genghis Khan.’ At the same time they showed the international community that in spite of the economic sanctions and the pleas to save the statues, they could do whatever they pleased. Would the military have been able to prevent the destruction of the Buddha’s, the Taliban would not have felt so confident since. NATO member countries are increasingly involved in international missions around the world to contribute to global security and stability. In order to provide a secure and safe environment military forces are more and more cooperating with civil society and government organizations through CIMIC. In order to communicate more effectively with local, national and international stakeholders, and thus further the success of the mission, every soldier deployed in an overseas mission today will get some form of Cultural Awareness Training (CAT). The CCOE takes the idea of cultural awareness further and shows that cultural competence is essential to the military and their respective missions. For this purpose they developed the overarching framework Advanced Cultural Competence Model. Through this framework, CCOE aims for the level of operating competently within the Comprehensive Approach. This modern military approach assumes that a conflict cannot be won by military means only but needs the involvement of all other stakeholders: Government, Non-government, National and International organizations, local population, etc. In the Advanced Cultural Competence Model, Cultural Heritage Protection is one of the selected cultural aspects. In asymmetric warfare ethnic cleansing and the subsequent wilful destruction of cultural heritage is a mounting problem. The urgent need to protect ethnic populations and their symbols becomes apparent.


What is Cultural Heritage To explain Cultural Heritage ‘culture’ as such needs to be defined first. The term ‘culture’ refers to the entire way of life of a society: its values, attitudes, beliefs, practices, symbols, orientations, and underlying assumptions prevalent among people in a particular society. It plays a pivotal role in social, economic and political development. Along with nutrition, shelter, education and a good health system, culture is regarded as an essential part of human life. Today, ‘culture’ is recognized as a basic need. Cultural Heritage is part of a culture. It is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values. It is all around us. It is just for us to see, or rather recognize. Mankind produced (and still produces) many goods and fruits of their mind, which we enjoy each day and which are part of our daily life. Only when it is gone we often appreciate how rich the world is we live in. As part of human activity Cultural Heritage produces tangible representations of the value systems, beliefs, traditions and lifestyles. As an essential part of culture as a whole, Cultural Heritage contains these visible and tangible traces from antiquity to the recent past. In short, Cultural Heritage is the most important expression of culture and it gives meaning to our lives. Cultural Heritage is also referred to as cultural property, especially in International (Humanitarian) Law. Often the terms ‘property’, ‘heritage’, ‘patrimony’, ‘goods’ and ‘objects’ are interchanged. There is no single, universal definition for any of these terms. Though in common parlance they generally refer to the same things. Their exact definition and legal regime are to be sought in national legislation, or in international conventions. Generally, the word ‘property’ has a legal background (linked to ‘ownership’), while ‘heritage’ stresses conservation and transfer from generation to generation. No particular culture-oriented connotation characterizes ‘goods’ and ‘object’. Thus there are differences in interpretation but in this publication we prefer the term Cultural Heritage as it better reflects the collective memory of a community.

Example 1: Tangible and intangible heritage

In South-Afghanistan an operation was planned to ‘re-conquer the night’ from the Taliban. The insurgents were putting up so-called ‘night-letters’ (posters) at night on the doors of the qala’s (traditional Afghan compound) threatening the inhabitants not to cooperate with and work for the coalition forces. The military too were planning to paste the night-letters on the doors of the compounds, claiming the opposite. However, they failed to understand that the qala was more than a group of houses consisting only of four walls covered with a roof. Next to a physical space for lodging the qala is a living quarters, a home. For the Pashtun men it represents the last ground to defend their women. In case the qala was threatened they had the right to pick up arms to defend their women, according to the Pashtunwali (traditional Pashtun law). In most of the qala’s the women rule, unveiled and thus extremely vulnerable. The decision was taken to post the night-letters on the nearby trees and not to intrude on the seclusion and safety of the Pashtun women.

From the tangible expressions of culture, such as any form of artistic or symbolic material signs which are inheritable, we distinguish intangible Cultural Heritage. Intangible Cultural Heritage includes songs, practices, values, traditions, and customs. Popularly this is perceived through cuisine, clothing, forms of shelter, traditional skills and technologies, religious ceremonies, performing arts, storytelling. Today, we consider tangible heritage inextricably


bound up with intangible heritage. It is that part of Cultural Heritage that we cannot ‘touch’ or ‘see’. It is equally important for human development. Still, for practical reasons it receives less attention in the following pages than the tangible form of heritage. Nonetheless, the military should know that at the foundation of any creation of cultural heritage lays the underlying idea, value or tradition, which as all forms of culture changes over time.

Figure X: What is heritage: Built Environment, Natural Environment, Artefacts (© R.Teijgeler)

Driving force behind all Cultural Heritage definitions is that

Cultural Heritage is a human creation intended to inform For a better understanding Cultural Heritage is distinguished in: o Built Environment ([Religious] Historic buildings, Historic townscapes, Monuments,

Archaeological remains, but also shipwrecks) o Natural Environment (Historic landscapes (Rural and Agricultural), Coasts and

shorelines)1 o Artefacts (Books & Documents, Paintings, Statues, Textiles, Furniture)

1 For the importance of nature and ecology for military operations see the forthcoming CCOE publication….by Piet Wit


Why Cultural Heritage Protection The recognition of culture as a key element in military operations is an established fact. Especially, the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan show the essential role culture plays in modern warfare. The so-called new wars are fought ‘among the people.’ On these battlefields of asymmetric warfare the warring parties cannot be divided anymore into clearly identifiable units. Primarily there is no clear distinction between war, organised crime and human rights violations. Fear and terror become decisive weapons and in this process all people of a different or opposite identity become targets. What better way to destroy a people than to demolish the symbols of their existence, their link to the past and their hope for the future. Because of its emotional context, cultural property is particularly vulnerable in times of conflict. After all, with the attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on 9/11 2001 al-Qaida struck the American nation in the middle of their financial and military heart. It is especially under these changed circumstances that Cultural Heritage Protection needs the attention of the military more than ever. That is why, according to US Joint Forces Command the future conflicts are likely to be dominated by religious and cultural factors (United States Joint Forces Command, 2007). They further state that a culture in and of itself does not cause a conflict but that the friction coming from the interaction between different cultures creates the potential for conflict. Finally, cultural factors often serve as a veneer to enable and justify the escalation of political or economic competition into conflict. ‘The others’ in a conflict, a designation for those purposely excluded from societal life and not belonging to one’s own group, become subjected to fierce violence and their symbols destroyed. These symbols are above all of a cultural nature and most of the time they are an important part of the regional, religious or historic heritage. That is why cultural heritage is particularly threatened by armed conflicts and, in some cases, by a resulting occupation. Not to protect these group symbols will lead to cultural cleansing: the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons. In addition, the cultural property of any people contributes to the cultural heritage of humankind. Thus, loss or damage to such property impoverishes humankind.

Example 2: Attack on a religious site

In August 2004 2,000 US marines and 1,800 Iraqi security forces stood at the gates of Najaf, Iraq. The apparent aim was to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr and destroy his movement after earlier clashes and broken promises. Al-Sadr, a radical Shi’a leader, and his Mahdi army had taken up positions around the great Imam Ali mosque. The mosque contains the tomb of Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad and, according to Shi'a belief, heir to his legacy. The immediate cause for the clashes was a dispute over the keys to the Imam Ali Mosque. However, it was more of an internal Shi’a power struggle the radical Shi’a fractions fearing to be excluded from political developments. After US media published photos of US troops taking positions on the cemetery of the holy city of Najaf protests from many international heritage organisations reached the US embassy. Next, Shi’a from all over the world protested the defilement of their holy burial ground. After a heated discussion some at the embassy were convinced that attacking exceptionally significant religious and heritage holdings, dating back to the rise of Islam in the 8th century, would have devastating effects on the battle in Iraq. Attacking the inner heart of Shi’a Islam would definitely mean that the Shi’a population would have left the democratization process and that a civil war was to follow. In the end the US forces did not enter Najaf and a cease fire was brokered by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.


Respect for and protection of cultural heritage by military forces will contribute to the integrity of those forces and will significantly influence the operational environment. It is undoubtedly a force multiplier and will enhance force acceptance. Just patrolling an archaeological site at risk en route can earn the military enormous respect. Supporting or actively stimulating the preservation of heritage can even make a valuable contribution to conflict resolution. When military forces acknowledge and protect the history and shared memory of a population, what in essence makes up their ‘soul’, they will gain their respect. It will give them easier access to that community and contribute to trust building. This way the military will be able to play a bigger role during negotiations or mediation between vying communities. Not only do the military have the duty to protect the monuments and sites but also their content. It is known that the failure to protect heritage collections and archaeological sites with their underground treasures will attract looters and stimulate illicit trade in artefacts. The recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan both prove that the illegal trade in artefacts is the third income source for the insurgents, next to the trade in drugs and weapons. The Italian Minister of Culture Proietti states early 2010 that Mohammed Atta, who headed the suicide command that destroyed the Twin Towers on September 11, 2002 had two years previously contacted an archaeologist at the historic University of Göttingen in Germany with an offer to sell looted archaeological artefacts from Afghanistan. Stolen heritage will reduce the possibilities of the population to educate itself, to reach out to ‘the other’, to future employment and to exercise the right of self-determination. Particularly, countries suffering from an armed conflict are susceptible to illicit digging on archaeological sites and looting of museum, library and archive collections. The lack of law and order makes it easy to smuggle the stolen goods out of the country to be sold on the international art market. On their website the FBI estimates the total losses of all art crimes run as high as US $6 billion annually. The responsibility to protect cultural heritage in times of an armed conflict is laid down in several international laws of which the most important is the 1954 Hague Convention. Respecting and implementing relevant international and national Cultural Heritage Protection regulations and laws is not only a national civilian and military task, but also an international obligation. With the recent chances in international criminal law the individual commander can even be held personally accountable. He can be prosecuted and trialled before an international tribunal. When the host government cannot fulfil their obligation to safeguard their heritage and the international organizations or non-governmental organizations are unable to do so, the task has to be done by the military. To be able to fulfil these legal responsibilities in a professional and effective manner the military, with the possible assistance of others, must implement a detailed and comprehensive plan that ensures optimum protection of cultural goods from the planning phase through operations and to the winding down stage. It is a dynamic process, which must comply with developments in international law, international relations and politics, and modern forms of combat. This is in fact what this publication is all about: how to plan CHP and how to implement it in theatre. To sum up the main reasons for the military to protect the cultural heritage of the host nation in times of conflict:

• Conflict mitigation o prevent cultural heritage as an obvious target o prevent exclusion of one of the parties in the conflict o better starting point for democratization process

• Force multiplier


o keep up the integrity of the mission o ‘winning hearts and minds’

� better access to local population

• Prevent looting and illicit trade o safeguard possibilities for future development

� like good governance, education, tourism o put a stop to one important income source of insurgents

• Comply to international humanitarian law and law of war o avoid condemnation and international scandal o avoid individual prosecution for a criminal act


CHAPTER 2

Cultural Heritage Protection and CIMIC The protection of cultural heritage is a recent task in NATO missions based on the legal obligations followed mainly from the 1954 Hague Convention. In the past the influence of the vast variety of civil contributions to stabilize a society in crisis had received little attention by the military. Yet, due to the rise of the complexity in operational environments NATO adapted their doctrine, including cooperation with many civil agencies. This so-called comprehensive approach meets the demands of today’s crisis. Together with numerous civil and military partners NATO reaches for the most sustainable solutions in times of disaster. At the centre of civil-military relations is CIMIC, the Commander’s tool for establishing, maintaining and expanding these relationships. As amply shown in the ex-Yugoslavia conflict in the 1990s one significant destabilizing factor is the deliberate destruction of the heritage of an excluded community. CIMIC takes on the task to prevent such hideous acts of obliteration as they have already established relations with civil society and the international community. That is why CIMIC is the obvious tool within NATO to realize the protection of cultural heritage as referred to in the 1954 Hague Convention. Complex environments

Crises and conflicts are becoming increasingly complex as a result of the ‘new wars’ where battlefields are not divided anymore into clearly identifiable warring parties. Consequently, the cultural dimension in operations has rapidly grown in importance. In classical warfare the contested space is predominantly military but nowadays the ‘humanitarian space’, ‘political space’, ‘socio-economical space’ and ‘cultural space’ are equally contested. In this myriad of ethnic, religious and ideological agents some groups are excluded while others are included. In the course of events ‘the others’ will often encounter the wilful destruction of their material symbols, their cultural heritage. Especially in conflict zones cultural heritage is highly political as competing groups might claim the same heritage. Recent conflicts in the Balkan show that annihilation of that what makes up the soul of a people, their physical inherited past, can be as atrocious and far-reaching in their effects as biological genocide.

Example 3: A temple or a mosque

The 500 year old Ayodhya mosque in India build by the founding father of the Indian Moghul dynasty is heavily contested. Hindus claim a temple had been on the site before the 16th century. Besides, the area is believed to be the birthplace of their revered Hindu god Rama. The mosque was listed as a protected monument under Indian law in 1904. Nevertheless, some Hindu radicals opposed the court rulings, insisting that the mosque be torn down and a temple built in honour of Rama. On December 6-7, 1992 thousands of Hindu activists destroyed the ancient mosque, razing it to the ground. Rioting broke out, leading to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. To add insult to injury, the World Hindu Council announced its plans to build a massive Hindu temple on the ruins of the mosque. Ever since, many Hindus and Muslims died in clashes over this ancient place of worship. These fateful events reflect the deep-rooted religious conflict on the Indian continent and the subsequent struggle for power between the Muslims and the Hindus that finally led to the separation of Pakistan from India in 1947.

Sustainable solutions in complex environments, including the protection of cultural heritage, require an international response that goes beyond the mandate or capacity of any single


agency or program. This results in closer cooperation between all parties involved, military and non-military. NATO adjusted its doctrine accordingly recognizing the vital role civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) plays in complex operations. As civil actors will be an integral part of this equation, their inclusion in all efforts to preserve cultural heritage is essential. The present strategic environment largely consists of non-governmental organizations (NGO), international organizations (IO) and government organizations (GO). For cultural heritage protection the civil partners can be local heritage organizations, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Monument Fund (WMF), national antiquities boards and ministries of culture. It is CIMIC that is the link for the commander to all these civil partners in the heritage sector.

Comprehensive approach NATO’s experience to date underlines the complexity of crises and conflicts, where the resolution is unlikely to be achieved by military means alone. It demonstrates that today’s challenges require a comprehensive approach for NATO, involving a wide spectrum of civil and military instruments, tailored to the mission. It is the most appropriate answer to modern threats and challenges. The concept of comprehensive approach is applicable throughout the continuum of conflict, and includes all military and non-military partners as well as the civilian population in a mission theatre. Its main focus is to reach a commonly ‘desired end-state’, defined and agreed by the majority of participants, using unity of effort rather than unity of command. This enables the military in a complex operational environment to reach the desired end-state by coordinating, synchronizing and de-conflicting military activities with civil actors, thus linking military operations with the planned civil activities. NATO can only accomplish its military mission in this context. CIMIC is the enabler and facilitator for comprehensiveness between NATO forces and civil actors committed to the solution of a specific crisis. The multiple dimensions of modern military operations are all influenced by CIMIC, as their focus is on the civil environment. Not everything in the military is CIMIC, but without CIMIC the comprehensive approach will fail. Or as the renewed definition reads: ‘CIMIC is an integral part of the modern multidimensional operations that provides for the full spectrum of interaction with all influencing actors and the civil environment’ (AJP-01, 2010 Draft). One of the cultural dimensions in NATO operations, as part of the comprehensive approach, is the protection of cultural heritage. Except for breaking International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the ‘failure to protect’ will foster the conflict and enlarge the disagreements between the different communities. For example, when Serb artillery bombarded the National Library in Sarajevo in August 1992, flames engulfed 1.5 to 2 million books, original manuscripts, and the archives of Serb, Croat, Bosnian and Jewish writers. Only 10% of the total collection could be saved. The country was robbed of a hopeful future as the written word represents a peaceful way to meet ‘the other’ and learn about diversity, differences and similarities. The attack on the library symbolizes the end of ethnic diversity in former Yugoslavia. The road to dialogue was closed and even today it is not completely opened. When an important chance to meet the other has disappeared and prejudice prevails or even consolidates, it will be a real challenge for any NATO mission to restore law and order, and support good governance. Hence, protection of cultural heritage is an integral part of NATO’s new strategy: the comprehensive approach.


CIMIC tasks CIMIC plays a vital role as one of the major advisors to the commander. Their aim is to establish and maintain the full cooperation of the civil actors with NATO forces to create civil military conditions that offer the commander the greatest possible moral, material, environmental and tactical advantages. CIMIC staffs are fully integrated into the commander’s headquarters (HQ), have full vision of and are authorised to coordinate CIMIC activities and field work in the Joint Operations Area (JOA). The new task to protect cultural heritage as such has to align with and be integrated into the three core functions of CIMIC:

• Civil-military liaison

• Support to the force

• Support to civil actors and their environment

At first this might seem a tall order but in fact it is not that difficult to fit this new task into the CIMIC functions. From the three core functions we can identify several tasks: supervision, coordination, cooperation, communication and information where CHP has to be integrated. How to execute those tasks depends on the three implementation levels: strategic, operational and tactic. Civil-Military Liaison A core task of the CIMIC officer is to liaise with all necessary stakeholders. The first task of CIMIC is to identify the relevant key players. As well as on the strategic level as on the operational and tactical level the COM has to be aware of the significant organizations and individuals who are responsible or otherwise involved in the protection of cultural heritage in the area of operation. To gather information on the heritage sector CIMIC will automatically contact the big IOs like UNESCO, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), WMF, World Heritage Centre, Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS), International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS) and the international professional organisations like the International Council on Museums (ICOM), International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), International Council on Archives (ICA). Most of them will have local representatives that can provide a good overview of the local heritage situation and the relevant players, including local heritage authorities. The next step is to establish a liaison structure. Important is that for civil-military relations certain rules apply for example the neutrality of the meeting place. To meet regularly and frequently in a structured fashion is vital for any adult relation in a conflict zone: all need to build trust. Subsequently, the flow of information between the participants needs to be organized. When dealing with civil authorities and officials CIMIC defends the COM’s interest and that of the mission. At the same time the CIMIC officer transmits civilian requests to military headquarters and responsible offices. He is also the key figure in the sometimes complicated cooperation and coordination processes between the different parties. Cooperation The protection of cultural property can only be achieved if civilian and military authorities work closely together. Protection starts in peace, but quality and efficiency of protective


efforts are tested during armed conflicts. While NATO has no requirement to develop capacities strictly for civilian purposes, it needs to improve its practical cooperation, taking into account existing arrangements with partners. This will render the cooperation more effective in the planning process and conduct of operations. As civil actors as well as military continue to arrive throughout the operation, they both should be encouraged to adapt to the established systems of cooperation and interaction. Well in advance CIMIC should establish relations with UNESCO and other significant players in the field of heritage protection. Through good cooperation with the World Heritage Centre they can obtain a list of endangered sites and monuments, and from ICOM a Red List of cultural objects at risk. From the local UNESCO representative CIMIC could acquire a list of the in-theatre principals in heritage. Coordination Although the various entities operating within a JOA may have different missions, NATO forces and civil actors should identify common goals wherever possible and work toward them. This should lead to an agreed sharing of responsibilities. Under the condition that at the strategic level confidence between the parties has been built can there be a mutual understanding, which prepares the ground for cooperation between military and civil actors. Early on, CIMIC provides a framework to establish working relationships and transition plans with civil actors to best coordinate effect. For example, to prevent illicit digging on an archaeological site the military can patrol a site at regular intervals with permission of the local population and authorities. The Host Nation can decide to train a special heritage police unit with the support of NATO that eventually takes over the patrolling of the sites. At the same time a NGO can start an income generating project for alternative livelihood in the area while UNESCO can start consolidation measures on the site with the help of local labourers and logistical support from NATO (as a last resort). Next to safeguarding the cultural heritage in general NATO also prevents opposing forces making money of the illicit trade in artefacts. This course of action demands an integrated and coherent planning process between the joint forces and cooperative civil actors. Military and civilian planning can, when and where possible, be joined. Optimally it delivers unity of effort and negates duplication. Support to the force CIMIC informs military headquarters, responsible offices and commanders about the general civilian situation and civil operational measures. To the military leaders they will point out their responsibility according to internal law to protect the cultural heritage. Their job includes giving an overview of the quantity and quality of the cultural heritage in the JOA as part of the overall civil assessment. Vital information is the heritage that is on the Protection list or on the Enhanced Protection list, or is qualified to be put on one of these lists. It needs to be fully documented, including maps and the military coordinates. On basis of detailed data provided by CIMIC the military can better plan and design their operations. Supervision To check the situation under international law in the area of operation is in general the task for the Legal Advisor (LEGAD). Concerning heritage protection CIMIC is the proper authority to be charged with this task with which NATO fulfils its obligation stemming from the 1954 Hague Convention. The CIMIC officer should be acquainted with every relevant heritage treaty in all its details. He should supervise the heritage conventions and treaties, and advice


the COM accordingly in consultation with the LEGAD. Next, CIMIC should make sure the several provisions stated in the international legal declarations and commitments, especially in the 1954 Hague Convention, are followed like storing ‘Blue Shields’, carrying out heritage assessments, etc. Support to civil actors and their environment Information about the general military situation and military operational measures can be very advantageous to civil actors. For example in security briefs military can share information with civil organizations that operate in the same area. It will help these organizations to better plan their transport security, project security and in case of cultural heritage the site security. In Iraq the international forces were asked several times to fly over and check out an area that was suspected to be infested with plunderers. These areas could not be checked by civil actors and at times not even by local heritage authorities as they were much too dangerous. Other regions holding monuments or sites might be too remote or difficult to reach for anyone accept for the military. The civil sector comprises the civilian authorities too. It goes without saying that if the authorities are still in place regular consultations must be held. In the end all the tasks of military forces need to be transferred to the Host Nation or civil society and all the actors would agree that this be done the sooner the better. By advising and supporting the authorities with training, information exchange, basic needs, etc. the military contribute to accelerate the transfer of authority.

Figure X: Collaboration in compiling the basic information (Büchel, 2002)


CHAPTER 3

Legal Framework From time immemorial, war has gone hand in hand with widespread destruction and the so-called ‘right to booty’ 2. All NATO military operations are conducted in accordance with international law and today cultural heritage is protected by several international treaties and conventions. In the past though NATO has paid little attention to the protection of cultural heritage in times of war. There is still no single department within NATO that is devoted to cultural heritage or the protection thereof in an armed conflict. It goes without saying that for operational reasons cultural heritage and its protection in wartime does deserve to be recognized as a separate category. Still, mention is made of Cultural Heritage Protection, though very concise, under the heading of Environmental Protection. In two Standardization Agreements (STANAG) from the NATO Standardization Agency cultural heritage is mentioned as an ‘environmental aspect.’ In STANAG 7141 EP, the Joint NATO Doctrine for Environmental Protection during NATO led Military Activities heritage protection (natural and man-made) is mentioned as ‘resource conservation’ (Environmental Training and Education, ANNEX C, # 7/b 1). In STANAG 2449 LO that regulates the Training in the Law of Armed Conflict specific mention is made of the 1954 Hague Convention as well as the two additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. Next, in the STANAG training program (#1.d) the protection of objects and their acknowledged protective emblems are referred to. There are signs that NATO is more aware of the need to protect cultural heritage in military operations than in the two STANAGs only. As early as 1996 NATO recognized the importance of cultural heritage protection in the ‘Final Communiqué on Cultural Heritage Protection in Wartime and in State of Emergency’, adopted at the NATO - Partnership for Peace Conference (PfP) in Cracow on 18-21 June 1996. In the communiqué NATO suggests recognition of the wilful damaging or destruction of cultural property during wartime as the violation of the 1954 Hague Convention and as a war crime subject to international and States’ tribunals. Later NATO/PfP also participated in similar seminars on the protection of cultural heritage in times of war. It will by no means always be clear what rule, law or regulation applies to a given situation, and in such cases legal advice on the status of the conflict and on the position of NATO personnel must immediately be obtained from legal advisors (LEGAD) in close cooperation with CIMIC. The most important international legal instruments and corpora of law cited in this chapter are:

• 1954 Hague Convention, its First and Second Protocol

• Geneva Convention, Additional Protocols I and II

• International Criminal Law

• International Human Rights Law

• 1970 UNESCO Convention

• 1972 World Heritage Convention

Under the law of armed conflict, in general cultural heritage is shielded against any act of hostility provided that is not used at the same time for military purposes. In many cases, the principles of national sovereignty legally empower a state to determine the methods and character of its treatment of tangible heritage, once in accordance with its international

2 This chapter heavily relies on and quotes from both Jiri Toman (2009) and a number of UNESCO documents.


obligations. Yet, despite the fact that regional, and local legislation varies greatly in various parts of the world, a certain level of international consensus on international heritage law has been achieved. This general consensus is expressed in the form of international legally binding and non-legally binding instruments as well as doctrinal texts of international professional organizations. For non-lawyers, the various provisions and definitions of those instruments may seem slightly confusing. But we can distinguish four essential elements of the protection system for cultural property anchored in customary international law. It is binding for all states during armed conflicts whether they acceded or acknowledged the legal instruments and corpora, or not. The first three elements are applicable both in international and non- international armed conflicts while the fourth only in international armed conflicts (Henckaerts et al., 2005):

• The obligation of each party to the conflict to respect cultural property Special care must be taken in military operations to avoid damage to buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, education or charitable purposes and historic monuments unless they are military objectives. Property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people must not be the object of attack unless imperatively required by military necessity.

• The prohibition to use cultural property of great importance for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage, unless imperatively required by military necessity.

• The obligation of each party to the conflict to protect cultural property All seizure of or destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science is prohibited. Any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people is prohibited.

• The obligation of the occupying power to prevent the illicit export of cultural property from occupied territory and to return illicitly exported property to the competent authorities of the occupied territory.

This chapter, however, can only discuss briefly the intricate area of international cultural heritage protection law. The 1954 Hague Convention The key treaty for cultural heritage protection is the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, in short the 1954 Hague Convention. It is the only international instrument aimed specifically at protecting cultural heritage during an armed conflict and occupation. NATO holds this treaty in high esteem as it is considered as reference material for the Law of Armed Conflict. The treaty has a number of precursors some even dating back to the middle of the 19th century. As a response to the wide-scale destruction of cultural heritage during World War II the international community showed its commitment to the safeguarding of cultural heritage when it formed UNESCO in 1946. One of its first accomplishments was the adoption of the Hague Convention. It sought to ensure that cultural property, both movable and immovable, was preserved and respected. The Preamble of the Convention stresses the great importance of the preservation of the cultural heritage for all peoples of the world. The 1954 Hague Convention is a paramount international instrument and provides for an elaborate system of heritage protection. It is supplemented by two Protocols, the First Protocol adopted in 1954 and the Second Protocol adopted in 1999.


In general, the 1954 Convention deals with the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict and occupation from damage and destruction and from all forms of misappropriation. It does, however, not address the distinct question of the restitution of cultural property illicitly removed during hostilities. Cultural property within the meaning of the 1954 Hague Convention does not depend on its origin or ownership and is defined in its first article:

a. movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above

b. buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable

cultural property […] such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property[…]

c. centres containing a large amount of cultural property […] to be known as `centres

containing monuments'. The wilful destruction of cultural heritage during the many conflicts at the end of the 20th century (Balkan, Lebanon, Rwanda) presented new challenges to the Convention. These internal and ethnic based conflicts were only partly covered by the 1954 Hague Convention. A new protocol was badly needed. This resulted in the Second Protocol (1999) that strengthens several provisions of the Convention and its First Protocol concerning the safeguarding of and the respect for cultural heritage and the conduct during hostilities. It creates the new category ‘enhanced protection’ for cultural property of the greatest importance for humanity adding to the earlier categories of ‘general protection’ and ‘special protection.’ This new category is protected by adequate domestic legal and administrative measures. It recognizes property of exceptional cultural and historic value, ensures the highest level of protection and forbids the use for military purposes or to shield military sites Furthermore the Second Protocol increases the effectiveness by directly defining the sanctions due in the event that serious violations are committed against cultural property, and the conditions under which individual criminal responsibility applies. The States that are party to the Convention and the two Protocols benefit from their mutual commitment with a view to sparing cultural heritage from consequences of possible armed conflicts through the implementation of the following measures (UNESCO Information Kit [Jan Hladík], no date): 1) Mainly during peacetime

• Prepare for the safeguarding of cultural property situated within their own territory (Article 3 of the Convention). Article 5 of the Second Protocol also requires the preparation of inventories; the planning of emergency measures for protection against fire or structural collapse; the preparation for the removal of movable cultural property or the provision for adequate in situ protection of such property; and the designation of competent authorities responsible for the safeguarding of cultural property. It should be stressed that these measures often prove very useful not only in the event of armed


conflict, but also in the event of natural disaster or as an effective method of fighting illicit trafficking in cultural property.

• Consider the possibility of placing a limited number of refuges, monumental centres and other immovable cultural property under ‘special’ protection (Chapter II of the Convention and Articles 11 to 14 of the Regulations for its Execution) following an entry in the ‘International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection’. In addition, ‘enhanced protection’ is provided for in Chapter 3 of the Second Protocol.

• Consider the use of the special distinctive emblem (Blue Shield) to facilitate identification of cultural property (Articles 6, 16 and 17 of the Convention and Article 20 of the Regulations for its Execution).

• Plan or establish, in peacetime within their armed forces, services or specialist personnel whose purpose will be to secure respect for cultural property and to co-operate with the civilian authorities thereon (Article 7 of the Convention).

• Widely disseminate the text of the Convention (Article 25) and that of the Second Protocol (Article 30).

• Remove, to the maximum extent feasible, movable cultural property from the vicinity of military objectives, and avoid locating military objectives near cultural property (Article 8 of the Second Protocol).

• Within the framework of their ordinary criminal jurisdiction, take all necessary steps to prosecute and impose penal or disciplinary sanctions upon those persons, of whatever nationality, who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention (Article 28 of the Convention). This obligation is reinforced by Chapter 4 of the Second Protocol concerning serious violations and other offences, as well as provisions in terms of penal procedure and legal cooperation.

2) During armed conflict

• Respect cultural property situated within their own territory and the respective territories of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from directing any act of hostility directed against such property (Article 4[1] of the Convention). This obligation is reinforced by the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Second Protocol, and particularly by Articles 6, 7 and 8. These Articles provide for respect for cultural property, precautions in attack and the effects of hostilities. Respect for cultural property also applies to conflicts that are not of an international character (Article 19 of the Convention). Further, all the provisions of the Second Protocol are applicable to this type of conflict (Article 22).

• Refrain from directing any act of reprisals against cultural property (Article 4[4] of the Convention).

• Prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property (Article 4[3] of the Convention).

• Take all necessary steps to prosecute and impose penal or disciplinary sanctions upon those persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention (Article 28 of the Convention), and implement the penal measures laid out in Chapter 4 of the Second Protocol.

• Protect cultural property situated in occupied territory and, particularly, as far as possible, take the necessary measures for its preservation (Article 5 of the Convention). This obligation is reinforced by Article 9 of the Second Protocol which prohibits, in particular, all illicit export, removal or transfer of cultural property.


3) After the Hostilities

• At the close of hostilities, return exported cultural property which is in its territory to the competent authorities of the territory previously occupied (Article I [3] of the 1954 Protocol).

• Prohibit the retention of cultural property as war reparations (Article I [3] of the 1954 Protocol).

Photo x: Forbidden City, Peking. Cultural property that might well qualify for enhanced protection

The 1954 Hague Convention and its 1999 Protocol clearly define under which circumstances their provisions are violated. The Second Protocol defines five intentional acts that are considered as serious violations and entail individual criminal responsibility:

Regarding cultural property under enhanced protection 1) making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack, i.e. your

responsibility in attack 2) using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in

support of military action, i.e. your responsibility in defence.

Regarding all cultural property 3) extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property 4) making cultural property the object of attack 5) theft, pillage or misappropriation of, acts of vandalism directed against cultural property.

Example X: Questions and Answers # 1

Q: A commander orders an anti-aircraft gun to be sited in the car park of an art gallery designated and marked as property under general protection. ‘That should guarantee its security and surprise the enemy’ he says - ‘no one will attack it there.’ Do you agree with the commander's orders and thinking? A: His thinking is entirely against international law. You must avoid locating military objectives near cultural property. It is prohibited to make improper use of the protective emblem of cultural property. What is being contemplated amounts to perfidy under the Law of Armed Conflict. That is, you are leading your opponent to believe that he is obliged to accord protection to the building under the rules


of international law, with the specific intent to betray that confidence. In other words your actions are illegal and treacherous. This would be a serious violation of the Law of Armed Conflict and the commander would be liable to criminal charges. (According to the 1954 Hague Convention Art. 8, see also Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I: Art. 37(1)- Perfidy, Art. 38- Recognised Emblems, Art. 85- Repressions of breaches of the Protocol). (UNESCO, 2001a)

In the 1954 Hague Convention the use of cultural property for military purposes is prohibited. However, under certain conditions the commander in the field has the right to waive the obligation to ‘respect cultural property’ and use the property for military purposes. The reason for this exception is formulated as ‘military necessity’. This provision in the Hague Convention is much debated as many consider ‘military necessity’ as a basic notion of the Law of War. General Eisenhower referred to this principle in his Staff Orders of 29 December 1943 relating to the Italian mainland campaign. He wrote:

If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men's lives count infinitely more, and buildings must go. But the choice is not always as clear-cut as that. In many cases, the monuments can be spared without detriment to operational needs. Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase 'military necessity' is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even of personal convenience. I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference. (General Dwight D. Eisenhower)

The Second Protocol defines conditions when the waiver of ‘military necessity’ may be applied. Conditions for the application of the waiver in the Second Protocol include:

Imperative military necessity in respect of cultural property under general protection

• Measures undertaken by a military commander to direct an act of hostility against cultural property when and for as long as that cultural property has, by its function, been made into a military objective.

• No other feasible alternative to obtain a similar military advantage to that offered by directing an act of hostility against that objective.

• Measures taking by the defender using cultural property for purposes likely to expose it to destruction or damage when and for as long as no choice is possible between such use of the cultural property and another feasible method for obtaining a similar military advantage.

• Imperative military necessity may be established only by the officer commanding a force the equivalent to a battalion unless the circumstances of the military engagement do not allow this.

• In case of an attack, an effective warning shall be given whenever circumstances permit.

Military necessity in respect of cultural property under enhanced protection

• Cultural property under enhanced protection shall only lose such protection if such protection is suspended or cancelled or if, and for as long as, the property has, by its use, become a military objective.

• In case a property becomes a military object it may only be the object of attack if: o The attack is the only feasible means of terminating the use of the property. o All feasible precautions are taken in the choice of means and methods of

attack, with a view to terminating such use and avoiding, or in any event minimising, damage to the cultural property.

o Unless circumstances do not permit, due to requirements of immediate self-defence:


� The attack is ordered at the highest operational level of command � Effective advance warning is issued to the opposing forces requiring

the termination of the use � Reasonable time is given to the opposing forces to redress the situation

During the invasion of the Israeli Defense Forces in South Lebanon in 1997 the Israeli military turned the fortress ruins of Karkum (Beaufort castle), originally built in the Middle Ages, into a stronghold. Modern concrete fortifications were poured on top of the old fortifications and a Greek temple that once crowned the hilltop at Karkum. Israel ratified the 1954 Hague Convention in 1957 and accessioned the First Protocol in 1958. The turning of a historic monument into a stronghold was a flagrant infringement on several articles of the Hague Convention. Besides, another basic principle of the Law of Armed Conflict, that of ‘proportionality,’ might have been violated here as it also applies to ‘damage to civilian objects.’ Blue Shield The distinctive emblem provided for in the 1954 Hague Convention may be displayed on cultural property in order to facilitate its recognition. The ‘Emblem of the Convention’ provides that the distinctive emblem shall take the form of a shield, pointed below, per saltire blue and white, commonly called ‘Blue Shield.’ The emblem shall be used alone for immovable heritage under ‘general protection’, or repeated three times in a triangular formation in case of ‘special protection.’ There is no specific emblem for ‘enhanced protection.’ The Hague Convention prohibits the use of the emblem in any other cases than those mentioned in the Convention as well as the use of any other sign resembling the distinctive sign of the Convention for any other purpose. The four conditions for the single use of the emblem can be summarized as follows:

• to mark cultural property under general protection

• a means to identify persons responsible for the duties of control in accordance with the Regulations stated in the Hague Convention

• a means to identify personnel engaged in the protection of cultural property

• to mark identity cards mentioned in the Regulations stated in the Hague Convention The Convention does not require State Parties to mark cultural property under ‘general protection’ with the emblem of the Convention. It does, however, make it obligatory for them to mark cultural property under ‘special protection.’ To obtain ‘special protection’ and the allowance to have the special marking placed on the site, the national authorities must address a specific request to UNESCO stating that the cultural property complies with the conditions of the Hague Convention (Art.8). This means essentially that the property must be situated at an adequate distance from any large industrial centre or from any important military objective constituting a vulnerable point. No other State party to the Convention may object to it. The request must include description of the location of the property concerned. The Hague Convention provides specifications for an identity card held by the caregiver. It bears the distinctive emblem, the stamp of the national authority, and the caregiver’s photo, signature and/or fingerprints, and the relevant data.


Photo x: Blue Shield emblem – general protection

Photo x: Blue Shield emblem – special protection

Photo x: World Heritage Emblem

Photo x: UNESCO logo


Photo x : Blue Shield Identity Card Marking heritage with a protective emblem relates to wartime, but from the practical point of view it is preferable to prepare the markings in peacetime. The intentional targeting of marked cultural property may constitute a grave breach of international humanitarian law. Marking partially destroyed cultural sites and buildings with the Convention emblem in the reconstruction phase might be another possibility. It would prevent urban planners to completely tear down and clear damaged heritage as it could still be easily identified as important cultural heritage through the Convention emblem. The marking of cultural heritage with the logo of UNESCO or the World Heritage Centre does not give them special protection in times of an armed conflict. It does show however that the property is of great importance. ICBS and ANCBS The Blue Shield network is the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross. Under the umbrella of the protective Hague Convention emblem the Blue Shield network unites several organizations dealing with museums, archives, audio-visual supports, libraries, monuments and sites. The objective is to protect, safeguard, secure and preserve cultural heritage in times of emergencies, including armed conflict. To this end a number of National Blue Shield Committees have been founded in a number of countries. Today the network counts 18 national committees from all over the world and as many national committees under construction. The International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS), founded in 1996, brings together the knowledge, experience and international networks of the five expert organisations dealing with cultural heritage: an unrivalled body of expertise which is now available to advise and assist in responding to events such as the war in former Yugoslavia and the hurricane damage in Central America. The Blue Shield network comprises representatives of the five Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) working in this field:

• the International Council on Archives (www.ica.org)

• the International Council of Museums (icom.museum)

• the International Council on Monuments and Sites (www.icomos.org)

• the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (www.ifla.org)

• the Co-ordinating Council of Audio-visual Archives Associations (www.ccaaa.org)


The Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS), founded in December 2008, is the coordinating body and strengthens the international efforts to protect cultural property at risk of destruction in armed conflicts or natural disasters. The ANCBS has its headquarters in The Hague. In the summer of 2009 the ANCBS send an international Blue Shield team of over 100 professionals to Cologne, Germany to support the rescue work on the valuable collection of the collapsed City Archive. After the earthquake in Haiti early 2010 400 professionals put forward their names to assist with the rescue activities. In coordination with the Haitian and international communities an action plan has been prepared.

Figure X: To raise awareness about objects that have been missing from museums, SAFE created facsimiles of museum catalogue cards with the word ‘LOOTED’ stamped across the front. This first in the series of ‘LOOTED’ cards features a sculpture looted from the Kabul Museum during the spring of 1992 (SAFE)

Looting and illicit trade of cultural property As an armed conflict or occupation is often accompanied by looting and illegal trade in artefacts the 1954 Hague Protocol also holds some provisions to counter these phenomena. The treaty states that cultural property shall never be retained as war reparation, and requires each State Party to:

• prevent the exportation of cultural property from a territory occupied by it during an armed conflict

• take into its custody cultural property imported into its territory either directly or indirectly from any occupied territory

• return, at the close of hostilities to the competent authorities of the territory previously occupied, such cultural property which is in its territory, and pay an indemnity to the holders in good faith of such property

The obligation of restitution also applies to cultural property deposited, in order to protect it from the dangers of an armed conflict, in the territory of another Party to the 1954 Protocol. (See also below at 1970 UNESCO Convention)


Geneva Convention and Additional Protocols I and II The Geneva Convention (1949) contains certain provisions that specifically forbid intentional or gratuitous damage to undefended cultural heritage by invading or occupying forces. In Article 33, Paragraph II is extremely concise and clear in prohibiting Pillage both by individuals and in organized form. The High Contracting Parties prohibit the ordering as well as the authorization of pillage. They pledge themselves furthermore to prevent or, if it has commenced, to stop individual pillage. Article 53 clearly forbids the destruction of all property (real or personal), whether it is the private property of protected persons (owned individually or collectively), State property, that of the public authorities (districts, municipalities, provinces, etc.) or of co-operative organizations. This includes property of municipalities and of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences must be respected. Under the influence of states emerging from decolonization international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts was strengthened by some provisions in the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Convention (1949). Both Protocols are considered by NATO as part of the Law of Armed Conflict. In Protocol I (Art. 53 and 85) and Protocol II (Art. 16) important provisions on the protection of cultural property were adopted. These provisions relate specifically to cultural property and

• prohibit attacks against cultural property

• prohibit the use of cultural property in support of the military effort

• prohibit to make cultural property the object of reprisal They do so without exception for military necessity. In addition, Additional Protocol I remedies the three cardinal reasons for the destruction of cultural heritage in bombardment:

• prohibiting attacks on civilian population and civilian objects restricting the lawful object of attack to military objectives

• narrowing the definition of a military object

• outlawing excessive incidental harm to the civilian population and civilian objects Additional Protocol I confirms that cultural property falls within civilian objects as it is not a military objective. For the most part, it backs up the rules, both specific and general, relevant to the protection of cultural property in international armed conflict with penal sanctions (O’Keefe, 2006). Other relevant additional protocols are the 1980 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices and the amendments of 1996. It forbids in all circumstances the use of booby-traps and of certain other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with historic monuments, works of art or places of worship. International Criminal Law In the past, little possibilities existed to prosecute crimes against cultural heritage. Recently, though, the world witnessed a number of important events in case-law developments by the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993 and the adoption in 1998 of the Rome Statute by the International Criminal Court (ICC), both relating to the subject at hand.


The ICTY is a United Nations court of law dealing with war crimes that took place during the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990’s. Since its establishment it has irreversibly changed the landscape of international humanitarian law. Breaches of the 1954 Hague Convention have occurred over the past three decades in far too many cases, amongst others in former Yugoslavia. That is why the Statutes for the ICTY sanction the seizure of, destruction, or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science. Over ten responsible persons from ex-Yugoslavia are prosecuted according to the articles concerning cultural property. Consider the case of Dubrovnik. The city was one of the most beautiful and perfectly preserved walled cities in Europe and a World Heritage Site as well. On 6 December 1991 it was hit by more than 500 rockets and completely destroyed 10% of the built heritage in the old city. Next, the attack left 45% of the buildings damaged among which were the 15th century Rector’s Palace and St. Saviour's Church. This ferocious assault took place despite the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia being a party to the Convention since January 1965. Because the ICTY was established to try crimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during a specific conflict, there was intentionally directed attacks against civilian objects or buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, charitable purposes, and historic monuments, provided they are not military objectives, will be persecuted by the ICC. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the ICC really makes a large difference in the prosecution of war crimes against cultural heritage. It is generally agreed that an independent, permanent criminal court was needed. The International Criminal Court became that first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court. It was established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Unlike the ICTY the ICC is entirely independent and not part of the United Nations system. With the establishment of the ICC war criminals can since be tried personally for destructive acts or operations against cultural heritage. Article 8 clearly states that persons presumed to have International Human Rights Law The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), established on 16 December 1966, guarantees the right to take part in cultural life. As interpreted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this encompasses an obligation of preservation and presentation of mankind’s cultural heritage – in other words, a duty to preserve cultural heritage. The duty includes an obligation to protect such heritage from vandalism and theft, as well as a prohibition on its wilful destruction. This was confirmed by the Special Representatives of the Secretary General on human rights during the events in Cambodia (1994) and Afghanistan (1997-2000). Under which circumstances international human rights law prevails over international humanitarian law or Law of War, or vice versa, is still subject to debate. Still, as international relations and the right to intervene are more and more based on human rights issues International Human Rights Law may well become more important in the future for the protection and safeguarding of cultural heritage in wartime. One example from the NATO-led international Kosovo Force (KFOR), under UN administration, shows us that national caveats prevented the use of deadly force to protect property in UN peacekeeping operations; International Human Rights Law took over the Law of War in cultural property protection. Some national contingents felt constrained by the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2, which protects the ‘right of life’, to never use deadly force to defend property even if the property was occupied (Jackson, 2008).


1970 UNESCO Convention In addition to a vigorous lawful trade an international illicit traffic in objects of art and culture is steadily growing. Theft, looting, illicit importation and exportation of cultural objects are well-known practices, which touch first and foremost archaeological sites, religious edifices, cultural institutions and museums as well as public and private collections worldwide. The protection of cultural heritage in wartime is often accompanied by such looting and illicit export from the occupied territories. After all, since ancient times plunder has been a widespread practice in case of war. This pillaging, which is as diversified in terms of causes and historical context as it is in scope, has evolved. Depending on means and ambitions, criminals undertake sophisticated operations, by which they steal objects, and then directly or indirectly export them to selected countries where they fetch high prices from willing buyers. It was estimated that in Iraq between 2004 and 2005 10,000 objects A WEEK were illegally excavated, traded and sold across the borders. At the same time this trade appeared to be one of the three main revenue sources of the insurgents. Especially for archaeological objects it is disastrous when they are illegally excavated. They will lose the context in which they are buried which is indispensible for their interpretation. An object without ‘meaning’ is not worth much. In general, the countries of origin of the stolen cultural goods are countries that are considered ‘weak’, not seldom because of an armed conflict. That is why it is also an extremely tempting source of additional income for certain deprived populations in the ‘countries of origin’. The international trafficking is an increasingly universal problem, affecting, to various extents, even countries traditionally seen as ‘importing’ countries and necessitating international regulations.

Photo x: Illegal excavation in broad daylight at Chersonesos, Sevastopol, Ukraine

To better fight this reprehensible phenomenon the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of 1970, commonly referred to as UNESCO Convention 1970, was drafted. It is the pioneer and most broadly ratified international convention that exists on the issue of illicit trafficking in cultural property. The Convention clearly provides that the export and transfer of ownership of cultural property ‘under compulsion arising directly or indirectly from the occupation of a country by a foreign power’ shall be regarded as illicit. Its role is three-fold, providing its States Parties with:


• Preventive measures to be taken: in particular, inventories, export certificates, monitoring trade, the imposition of penal or administrative sanctions, and educational campaigns. Per the Convention’s Article 7, States Parties undertake: (a) to take the necessary measures, consistent with national legislation, to prevent museums and similar institutions within their territories from acquiring cultural property originating in another State Party which has been illegally exported after entry into force of this Convention, in the States concerned; (b) to prohibit the import of cultural property stolen from a museum or a religious or secular public monument or similar institution in another State Party to this Convention after the entry into force of this Convention for the States concerned, provided that such property is documented as appertaining to the inventory of that institution.

• Restitution provisions: States Parties undertake, at the request of the State Party of origin, to take appropriate steps to recover and return any such cultural property imported after the entry into force of this Convention in both States concerned, provided, however, that the requesting State shall pay just compensation to an innocent purchaser or to a person who has valid title to that property. Requests for recovery and return shall be made through diplomatic offices. This important provision covers only inventoried objects stolen from a museum, religious or secular public monument or similar institution (objects issuing from an illicit excavation or stolen from a private home are excluded). More indirectly and subject to domestic legislation, the Convention also provides provisions on restitution and cooperation.

• International cooperation framework: Once an object has been identified and found outside its country of origin, international cooperation is indispensible. If the idea of strengthening cooperation among and between States Parties is present throughout the Convention, in case cultural patrimony is in jeopardy from pillage the Convention provides a possibility for more specific undertakings such as a call for import and export controls.

Example X: Questions and Answers # 2

Q: A soldier in your company shows you a small statue he found lying in the rubble of a partially de-stroyed museum. ‘I thought I should rescue this’ he says ‘as it looks quite valuable.’ How would you deal with the situation?

A: Theft, pillage or misappropriation of cultural property are forbidden. In this case however the soldier is reporting the removal of the property and actually stating he did it to safeguard it. He should be congratulated for his action and honesty. The property should be handed over to the appropriate military or civilian authorities for safekeeping (According to Art 15., Hague Regulations IV Arts, 28, 52 & 53, Geneva Convention IV Art, 33.)I (UNESCO, 2001a)

It should be clear that without a demand of illicit traded artefacts in the market countries, including the western countries, the need to supply these objects would be of course much lower. 1972 World Heritage Convention The most significant feature of the 1972 World Heritage Convention is that it links together in a single document the concepts of nature conservation and the preservation of cultural properties. The Convention sets out the duties of States Parties in identifying potential sites


and their role in protecting and preserving them. By signing the Convention, each country pledges to conserve not only the World Heritage sites situated on its territory, but also to protect its national heritage. The World Heritage Committee decides which sites will be inscribed on the World Heritage List. Today (May 2010) the list includes 890 properties forming part of the cultural and natural heritage which the World Heritage Committee considers as having outstanding universal value. The Tentative List is an inventory of those properties which each State Party intends to consider for nomination on the World Heritage List during the following years. The List of World Heritage in Danger is designed to inform the international community of conditions which threaten the very characteristics for which a property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and to encourage corrective action. Armed conflict and war are considered a great danger to the world heritage. Inscribing a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger allows the World Heritage Committee to allocate immediate assistance from the World Heritage Fund to the endangered property. In extreme cases when a World Heritage Site is endangered and no apt actions are taken a site can be removed from the list and consequently loose its status as a World Heritage Site. This recently happened to the 18th- and 19th-century cultural landscape of Dresden Elbe Valley, Germany that was only inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2004. The World Heritage Committee decided to remove the Dresden Elbe Valley from UNESCO's World Heritage List due to the building of a four-lane bridge in the heart of the cultural landscape which meant that the property failed to keep its ‘outstanding universal value as inscribed.’

Photo x: The Sydney Opera House was added to the World Heritage List in 2007

Treaties in general International Conventions (‘treaties’) are essentially legal instruments elaborated and adopted by States. Even though adopted by a high number of States, they only become binding on those States that decide to join, which is usually done through the State’s ratification, accession, acceptance or approval of the Convention. Each international convention is legally binding only within its specific scope of application, which is generally determined by:


• its States parties

• the timeframe it covers since Conventions usually do not apply retroactively

• its subject-matter (for example, cultural property as defined in the convention).

After the Iraq intervention in 2003 and the subsequent looting of the Iraq Museum many western countries decided at long last to join the most important conventions. Today, May 2010, the 1954 Hague Convention is signed by a substantial 123 State Parties and the Second Protocol by 56 State Parties. The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO Convention 1970) has been signed by 119 State Parties to date. For the individual NATO State Parties that adopted the different international conventions on cultural heritage protection, see Figure X Only people themselves can prevent the destruction of cultural property in situations of armed conflict. The legal framework necessary for directing that change is there. It must only be accepted and applied.

NATO Members States that joined Cultural Heritage Treaties

Treaty

NATO Member States

1954 Hague Convention

(till 13 March 2009)

1954 Hague First

Protocol

(till 2 Nov 2008)

1954 Hague Second Protocol

(till 12 Nov 2009)

1970 UNESCO Convention

(till 8 Feb 2010)

1972 World Heritage

Convention

(till 16 April 2009)

Albania x x x x

Belgium x x x x

Bulgaria * x x x x x

Canada x x x x x

Croatia x x x x x

Czech Rep x x x x x

Denmark x x x x

Estonia x x x x x

France x x x x

Germany x x x x x

Greece x x x x x

Hungary x x x x x

Iceland x x


Italy x x x x x

Latvia x x x

Lithuania x x x x x

Luxembourg x x x x

Netherlands x x x x x

Norway x x x x

Poland x x x x

Portugal x x x x

Romania x x x x x

Slovakia x x x x x

Slovenia x x x x x

Spain x x x x x

Turkey x x x x

United Kingdom

x x

United States x x x

* Countries that are State Parties to all treaties listed here are shaded grey

Figure X: NATO Members States that joined Cultural Heritage Treaties


SHAPE

JFC

HQ NATO

Components

CHAPTER 4

Cultural Heritage Protection at Operational and Tactical level Introduction

The protection of cultural heritage in NATO crisis management operations begins well before the operation is on its way. ‘Before any conflict begins, civilian and military leaders must understand the kind of war upon which they are engaged,’ according to Clausewitz (On War, 1832). For Cultural Heritage Protection (CHP) this means that any mistake or miscalculation in identifying the nature of the conflict or the terrain can damage or destroy cultural property. That is why it is essential that CHP should be taken into account from the very first beginning of the operations planning process. But first of all CHP should have been integrated into NATO doctrine as part of the CIMIC comprehensive approach. As such it will be part of the NATO’s integrated planning process. For analytical reasons CHP in an armed conflict can be divided in three phases:

• Pre-deployment phase The stage before the clash of arms, the build-up to the conflict.

• Deployment phase The stage when the military intervention is a fact.

• Transition phase The stage when major combat operations are over and the main responsibilities are handed over to the proper authorities.

Figure X: NATO Crisis Response Planning model. (HQ-NATO = political/strategic level; SHAPE= strategic level; JFC (Joint Force Commands) = operational level; Components (Land, Sea and Maritime) = (higher) tactical level) (source? Is this Public-Security level??)


The planning of a NATO mission is an extremely complex process (see Fig. X). NATO’s engagement in a comprehensive approach to cultural heritage protection focuses at the three familiar levels:

• Political and Strategic level. At this level NATO and the international community discuss and agree who, and to what extent, will contribute to the solution or prevention of an armed crises. Also, the planning of the different contributions commences at this stage. Logically, this will take place in the pre-deployment phase of the crisis.

• Operational level. Once the troops are deployed and civil society enters the conflict area civil-military relations in the field are started up for the joint planning and the carrying out of the operations.

• Tactical level. Within the Joint Operations Area (JOA) the NATO force commanders will cooperate and coordinate with local authorities and civil actors to make their mission into a success.

In all the three phases of the crisis and at all levels an armed conflict can only be resolved through unity of effort of all those involved. That is the power of the comprehensive approach and the subsequent integrated planning. The ideal for all parties in the conflict should be to end the hostilities with as much as possible of the cultural heritage intact. Cultural heritage is lost only once, and mankind without history is condemned to oblivion.

Pre-deployment phase

It is clear that CHP is a task that should start in times of peace. To start once the armed conflict has begun is too late, since other problems are then easily given a higher priority. NATO's decision-making cycle requires a close interaction between the political and military. Limitations and imperatives in one area will affect decisions in the other. Once the decision has been taken for a NATO contribution a strategy needs to be discussed and agreed upon: who contributes up to what extent. In the course of the operations the initial strategy can of course be adapted (Deployment Phase). Political level When a crisis occurs, no decisions on planning, deployment or employment of military forces are taken without political authorization. Decisions are taken by the governments of each NATO member country collectively and may include political or military measures depending on the nature of the crisis. Within NATO itself the North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the most senior political governing body. It exchanges intelligence, information and other data, compares different perceptions and approaches, and harmonizes its views. Already at this early stage NATO should be sensitive to and aware of possible destruction of monuments, archaeological sites, heritage institutions and plunder of artefacts. CHP should be made mentioned of in the NAC products as:

• NAC Initiating Directive (NID)

• NAC Force Activation Directive

• NAC Execution Directive Of great importance for any mission is the mandate it draws upon which details are negotiated at the political level. In some instances the non-military objectives and tasks are specified as well. For example the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan has a peace-enforcement mandate under UN Charter (Chapter 7) and nine UN Security Council


Resolutions. NATO agreed to the mission under the authority of the UN Security Council in August 2003. The mission was created in accordance with the Bonn Conference (December 2001) and its tasks were detailed in a Military Technical Agreement of January 2002. This comprises amongst others ISAF´s support for Reconstruction and Development in Afghanistan like the identification of reconstruction needs and support of humanitarian assistance operations. Though no specific mention is made of CHP it could have easily been specified if considered necessary. In one case NATO participated in an agreement implementation mission while the CHP implementation was outsourced to an international organization. In the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement (December 1995) that put an end to the three and a half year long war in Bosnia, provisions were drawn up for CHP. Annex 8 provides for designing a programme for restoring and preserving the heavily damaged cultural heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The military Annexes were implemented by the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) under a one year mandate (December 1995 - 20 December 1996) and it relieved the UN peacekeeping force UNPROFOR, which had originally arrived in 1992. The projects under Annex 8 should initially have been managed by UNESCO but with limited operative funds it was handed over to the Council of Europe. Strategic level After the NAC decided what direction their support in a particular crisis situation will be the NATO strategy has to be determined. At the strategic level the first high-level planning of the mission starts. However, before that the strategic planners should make sure that the NATO doctrine includes CHP as part of the comprehensive approach. Also at this level NATO engages in building confidence and mutual understanding between international actors. In a complex environment the importance of overall cooperation between military and civil actors is vital. Doctrine The first provision within NATO to secure CHP in times of an armed conflict is the adoption of CHP in NATO doctrine. NATO has accepted the comprehensive approach for their operations. Part of that comprehensive approach is CHP as one of the cultural dimensions in NATO operations. The new doctrine for NATO civil-military co-operation (CIMIC), the so-called AJP-9, is still in the process of completion but much attention is paid in the study draft to the comprehensive approach. It is clear that the role CIMIC will play in future NATO operations is only to grow. An example how a mission can fail is the US invasion into Panama. The conclusions from the 1989 Panama invasion is that this US operation failed to emphasize on both doctrine and training for stability and support operations, partly due to the fact the US army at that time viewed itself as an institution that fights conventional wars. Still, a NATO doctrine is not enough. Also the member states of the Alliance will have to integrate CHP in their national military doctrines. Some states, like the USA, are certainly on the right track while others have paid less attention so far to adapt their military doctrine in the direction of CHP. Strategic planning


• At the very first start of the strategic planning process all NATO staff should be aware of the multitude of legal obligations in force for the protection of cultural heritage in times of an armed conflict

• Formal strategic assessment of a political crisis should include knowledge and experience on CHP issues as part of a comprehensive Political Military Estimate (PME).

• Include CHP into the operational concepts. Only then can military functions such as the Operational Planning Process be integrated into this overall context.

Figure X: Operations Planning Process at Political-Military level at HQ NATO and Strategic level at the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), including the effects for the operational level at Joint Force Commands (JFC) (source ????)

• Strategic Response Options should develop different alternatives for the protection of cultural heritage. A clear distinction should be made between:

o Safeguarding of cultural heritage (strategic level) – to take preparatory measures in time of peace for the protection of cultural heritage against the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict. These measures are

� planning of emergency measures for protection against fire or structural collapse

� preparation of inventories � preparation for the removal of movable cultural property or the

provision for adequate in situ protection of such property � the designation of competent authorities responsible for the

safeguarding of cultural property o Securing cultural heritage (operational level) – to take appropriate measures to

prevent the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage during an armed


SACEUR

Strategic

Concept

Develop SACEUR Strategic

Planning Directive

Establish SACEUR’s

Strategic Intent, guidance

and vision

Develop the framework for

strategic engagement

Establish timeline, phases

and deadlines

Authorise OLRT and

request additional CRM

Review principal actors and

their roles. Update Options

Review engagement space,

lines of engagement,

effects, objectives etc

Strategic

Warning

Order

NAC Initiating

Directive

CJSOR,

TCSOR, CE

Political-Military

Level

HQ NATO

Strategic Level

SACEUR

Operational

Level

JFC

Identify needs for

coordinating military and

non-military interaction

Develop strategic concepts

for C2, logistics and Info

ops

Coordinate Comprehensive

Approach with IMS/IS

Issue SACEUR’s Strategic

Planning Directive

Coordinate Operational

Requirements

JOPG conduct

concurrent and

coordinated planning

JOPG CONOPS

supprots SACEUR’s

Strategic Concept

C2, Logistics,

CRMS, ROE

Coordinate and submit

SACEUR Strategic

Concept

IMS/IS Input

Strategic

Planning

Directive

CJSOR,

TCSOR, CE

C2, Logistics,

CRMS, ROE

Strategic

Planning

Directive

Strategic Concept

conflict. This should be made a priority at the very start of the operation and during the operation

• Make a start to liaise with international and host nation civil actors in the field of cultural heritage. This close cooperation in an early stage of the mission is not only to recognize locations of concern, but also to identify the kinds of military activity that might adversely affect these areas

• Exchange all relevant heritage information with NATO staff in the AOR

• Make sure the issue of CHP is integrated into the Strategic Concept Development and the subsequent strategic plans

• Use the CHP approach for ‘Force Generation’, part of the Strategic Plan Development, to ensure necessary and qualified cultural heritage staff within CIMIC at all levels

• Link as soon as possible with the Joint Planning Group (JOPG) as in this group the synergy starts between military and non-military key players. With a good focus on CHP issues at the JOPG there is much to gain.

Figure X: NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) Strategic Concept


Training & Education

• NATO should design an applicable training framework for the implementation of the protection of cultural heritage in NATO. Individual nations should strive for a common training and mutual training support. Training standards for CHP need to be developed as well as agreement on basic principles.

• Include heritage-related topics into education and training purposes for CIMIC and other military staff

• Prepare cultural heritage case studies and examples for mission specific trainings. Use heritage experts and area specific practical material. If relevant include one local example of ‘contested heritage.’ Practice the scenarios in both the Mission Rehearsal Training and Mission Rehearsal Exercises.

• Involve the international heritage community, heritage experts and residents or expats from the AOR in the design of and for participation in the training and exercises modules

• Constantly educate military heritage experts Deployment phase When the preparations are over - preventive and emergency measures planned, CHP staff secured, CHP trainings successful, important heritage institutions contacted - then the soldiers will embark and leave on their mission. In the JAO the operational planning will follow the strategic planning. Of course, during the operations the planning is continuously adjusted to the changing reality, new insights and lessons learned. After all, the past is a prologue in military operations. All the operational plans will have to be translated for the battalion commanders, the tactical level. Their experiences on the battlefield will be communicated to HQ. When the hostilities are coming to an end and the military operations halt, the transition of authority will be handed over to the proper authorities and/or civil society making use of the exit-strategy. Operational level In each mission CHP is a foremost operational task in itself, within CIMIC and as an important element in the comprehensive approach. In the doctrine of NATO operations the operational concept addresses simultaneous engagement on many levels, more than combat between forces. It recognizes that army forces conduct operations in the midst of populations. By any measure, restoring public order and protection of public infrastructure have become centrepieces of military operations, instead of afterthoughts. This encompasses the protection of cultural heritage. Together with integrated planning this concept of operations seriously reduces the chance that museums, libraries, monuments or archaeological sites will be looted, suffer deliberate war damage or inconsiderately occupied by military forces. Protection of cultural and religious sites and other heritage is part of high-level planning, all the way down to the CIMIC officers who implement the measures to protect that heritage. The need to adjust military plans to incorporate cultural heritage considerations is great. CHP needs an integrated approach – like the comprehensive approach – for only safeguarding highly visible objects to show ‘good will’ is not enough.


Photo X: In 2006 Kurdish citizens of Halabja burned down the museum/memorial commemorating Sadam’s gas attack on the city in 1988 (photo New York Times)

At the operational level CHP plays a role as a CIMIC enabler in

• The general implementation of the preparations made in the pre-deployment phase in the operations in a cohesive manner and on all command levels

• Checking CHP awareness at all operational levels. Make sure that at all command levels copies of the international CHP laws and regulations are available. If needed explain the main legal provisions such as

o Respect for all cultural property o Imperative military necessity o Precautions in an attack on any form of cultural property o Precautions against the effects of hostilities o Occupied Territory o Criteria necessary for ‘Enhanced Protection’

� Immunity of Cultural Property Under Enhanced Protection � Loss of Enhanced Protection

o Individual responsibility for compliance with international law o Command responsibility for compliance with international law

• It is of the utmost importance that CHP will be incorporated into the o Operations Plan (OPLAN, esp. Annex W)

In a complex operation, involving major civilian elements and a civilian political head of mission, the military campaign plan or operation plan (OPLAN) will be one of several functional plans. This involvement also includes concerted and integrated planning mechanisms at the strategic level. The NATO Operational Planning Process (OPP), see table X, describes how the CIMIC planning process provides input into the main Operation Planning Process. This includes the production of the Civil Assessment and the CIMIC estimate as well as CIMIC input to the OPLAN.


Figure X: NATO Operational Planning Process (simplified)(source??)

o Operations Order (OPORD, esp. Annex F)

This format is used to organize the commander's direction, to ensure a common operating picture, and to assist subordinate leaders in fully understanding the commander's intent and what results he wants the operation to produce - the end state.

o Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) These established procedures provide guidance on the standardization, preparation and management of the specific issue the SOP is designed for within the NATO mission

o Rules of Engagement (RoE) Rules of Engagement determine when, where, and how force shall be used. Such rules are both general and specific. They are established to avoid friendly fire, minimize collateral damage and loss of civilian life and protect cultural property. On the basis of these RoE’s, orders can be developed and carried out.

• Partaking in the important and relevant operational bodies. In these joint meetings contact is made with other relevant parties at HQ and if necessary more details can be received at individual follow-up meetings. The bodies are

o Joint Operations Planning Group (JOPG) o Information Operations Coordination Board (IOCB)

• Comprehensive liaising, synchronizing and coordinating plans with different civil and military organizations and individuals

o international heritage organizations to include them in the integrated planning process.

o national heritage authorities and include them in the integrated planning process


J2

J5

J6

PIO

SOF

AIR, LAND, MARITIME

COMPONENTS

JOINT TARGETING PSYOPS

MILITARY DECEPTION

JOINT OPSECJ9 CIMIC

POLITICAL ADVISOR

INFO OPS ELEMENT

INFO OPS COORDINATION BOARD (IOCB)

LEGAD

J4

J1

JOINT EW

FP

LNO

NATIONAL

ADVISOR

J3

Figure X: Diagram Info Ops Coordination Board (NATO School [ACT], Oberammergau, Germany)

o advisors at HQ such as LEGAD, POLAD and CULAD (Legal Advisor,

Political Advisor, Cultural Advisor) o CHP officers in CIMIC at the tactical level and stage regular meetings and

field trips o implement a regular high-level consultation and communication structure for

all liaise bodies and partners

• Engaging in CHP mission related topics as o Situational awareness

� inventory � exploration and on ground reconnaissance missions � comprehensive assessment

o Measures to secure or contribute to the security of cultural heritage � risk analysis � classification of cultural heritage

• Proposed Designation of Protective Zones (PDPZ)

• Property with Designated Special Status (PrDSS) o Enhanced Protection o Special Protection o General Protection

� Protected Target Planning This HQ element ensures aerial and artillery bombardments do not target cultural heritage that is on the protected target list.

During the Gulf War in 1991 the Government of Iraq used cultural property to protect legitimate targets from attack. They positioned two fighter aircraft adjacent to the ancient temple of Ur on the theory that

CULAD


Coalition respect for the protection of cultural property would preclude the attack of those aircraft.

� Crowd and Riot Control (CRC) Clear CRC rules will prevent an angry mob to loot cultural heritage institutions as was the case with the plunder of the National Museum of Iraq in April 2003.

� emergency/stabilisation measures for cultural heritage � measures to stop illicit trade in artefacts

• CHP staff are o staff members of the HQ CIMIC cell (J9) o fully integrated into the COM’s headquarters o represented in the COM’s planning group o advisor to HQ COM

• CHP staff will o pay attention to national CHP caveats and propose to synchronize the national

CHP approaches During the NATO-led international Kosovo Force (KFOR) it became evident that national caveats prevented the use of deadly force to protect property; human rights law took priority over the law of war in cultural property protection. Some national contingents felt constrained by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to never use deadly force to defend property even if the property was occupied. At the time of the 2004 riots, NATO contingents, following their own national instructions, evacuated Serb enclaves and religious sites rather than defend those properties with deadly force. Yet, the Italians protected the ancient Monastery at Decani. They did not evacuate their post and choose to defend the monks, as well as the monastery, which was designated a world heritage site in 2004.

o prepare handover/takeover for the next rotation of the CHP officer at HQ. Make contact with your successor already in his pre-deployment phase

Tactical level In today's conflict scenarios civil military relations aimed at the protection of cultural heritage in operations, have been created in a bottom-up approach. These relations in the mission area are an example of the pragmatic cooperation on the tactical level. Safeguarding cultural property while in-theatre is not only a legal obligation. It plays a vital role as a force multiplier. Preventing the opponents to finance their actions with the illegal trade in artefacts will weaken their position as a military force. Besides, protecting the symbols with which the population identifies with will only foster goodwill. Providing, the heritage of all the different groups in the JOA are protected equally. In Bosnia IFOR had to be very careful to protect both the Serbian orthodox churches and the Bosnian mosques. Likewise, in Iraq the coalition forces had to be very cautious not to preserve a Jewish holy site only but include the Muslim ruins next to the site as well. If the balance is not maintained military forces will arouse jealousy with one of the warring parties and in fact exacerbating the conflict. Essential at the tactical level are the lessons learned, linking mission experiences with basic principles and practical realisation of measures. The lessons learned with cultural heritage protection, are no exception. They have to be communicated to a higher level of command in


order to adjust the plans of operations. These findings might even have far-reaching consequences for the strategic level or ultimately for the military doctrine. CHP tactical tasks On the ground CHP always looks different. Operational CHP plans have to be executed and will be put to the test. The battlefield can change very quickly and a monument considered safe one day can be endangered the next day. Frequently, military in the field have to make decisions very quickly, based on little data and the job of a CHP officer is not different. That is why extensive preparations and comprehensive planning at higher levels are so important. At tactical level CHP plays the following role as a CIMIC enabler

• Assure the general implementation of the preparations for CHP made at the operational level

• Check CHP awareness at all tactical levels. Make sure that copies of the international CHP laws and regulations are available and that legal provisions are implemented at BAT level

• CHP staff are/have o staff members of CIMIC o fully integrated in BAT COM’s staff o represented in the BAT COM’s tactical planning goup o to implement the relevant parts of the OPORD o full vision of and are authorised to

� coordinate CHP activities � carry out CHP field work in the JOA

• Comprehensive liaising, synchronizing and coordinating plans with different civil and military organizations and individuals

o national and local heritage organizations on the ground to include them in the integrated planning process

It is vital that close working relations will be maintained between the military and appropriate civil organizations and agencies. It must be recognized, however, that even where such relationships or planning mechanisms exist, it may not always be possible to conduct them on a formal basis.

o regional and local heritage authorities and include them in the integrated planning process

To ignore or skip contact with the authorities in the host nation is generally a big mistake but in a country in transition it is a mortal sin. Again this would only indirectly worsen the conflict

o advisors to the BAT COM such as LEGAD, POLAD and CULAD (Legal Advisor, Political Advisor, Cultural Advisor)

o CHP officers in CIMIC at HQ level and maintain regular contact o implement a regular consultation and communication structure for all liaise

bodies and partners

• Exchange and process information with both military and civil partners (basic requirement for the effective protection of cultural heritage) through the following activities

o basic structure for information exchange o facilitate common data awareness through target-oriented tasks (military

intelligence, reconnaissance teams) o share with civil organisations through liaison networks o base information sharing on ‘need to share’ instead of ‘need to know’


o consider a network-based platform for basic information exchange as for example Civil-Military Overview (CMO)

• Engage in CHP mission related activities as o additional situational awareness (include the use of military observation assets)

� inventory � reconnaissance missions � comprehensive assessment and surveys (when information may not be

readily available or current) o measures to secure cultural heritage

� review and in case necessary adjust

• risk analysis (a continuous process)

• classification of cultural heritage o Proposed Designation of Protective Zones (PDPZ) o Property with Designated Special Status (PrDSS)

• Protected Target Planning o check ‘military necessity’ and classification of cultural

heritage targets o insist on positive identification on the ground

• Crowd and Riot Control (CRC) � monitoring construction and civil engineering activities

• military (base of operations, Forward Operations Base, air fields)

• private (in the employ of the military) � protection of endangered cultural heritage

• surveillance and show of force

• guarding

• off limits for all military staff (no holiday resort)

• prepare measures to move cultural heritage collections to a secure place

� readiness to execute emergency and stabilisation measures for cultural heritage (materials, guidelines, staff)

� take additional measures to stop illicit trade in artefacts

• border patrol (remote sensing techniques)

• check by customs at border crossings (airfield)

• check the military leaving the JOA o Translate CHP into Quick Impact Projects o Advise to the BAT COM

• Prepare handover/takeover for the next rotation of the CHP officer at BAT level. Keep in contact with your successor already in his pre-deployment phase


Photo X: West Virginia enlistment on the stairs of Ur ziggurat

during Iraqi Freedom campaign

CHP at COM level The NATO BAT COM plays a crucial role in the protection of cultural heritage in his AOR. He has to be able to

• commit himself to respect cultural heritage

• give the necessary orders

• assess unimpeachable military necessity about use, destruction or damaging of cultural heritage

• consult with the superior levels on the measures to be taken

• support CHP staff in all instances

• understand the penal provisions of the international law and regulations concerning CHP

Transition phase Winning the war does not equate the emergence of peace. Certainly in modern conflicts there is a transition between the two and they cannot be considered in isolation. Neglecting peace like the Treaty of Versailles at the conclusion of World War I and its effects leading to World War II demonstrated the consequences of winning war but neglecting peace. Therefore, setting the conditions for lasting peace outweigh the conditions for outright military victory. To quote Liddell Hart: ‘ Never lose sight of the post-war prospect in chasing the ‘mirage of victory’ ‘ (Liddell Hart, 1967, p.367) Formerly, the technical jargon for transition read war termination or conflict termination. As indicated above this does not cover the overtones of how we see the transition phase today. In modern terminology ‘Conflict Transformation’ is accepted as the proper term and it designates the phase of stability and reconstruction in a conflict. It guides the strategy to transform resolution of conflict from violent to peaceful means. In current NATO strategy transition is addressed in Phase 6: Return to Stability (see Figure X: NATO Crisis Response Planning model, page X).


Historically, the use of military signals diplomatic failure. Now, use of the military may be the result of diplomatic success. In today’s NATO missions there is much more unity of effort at operational level than ever before. The major difference being the introduction of the comprehensive approach and the subsequent integrated planning. Equally, a firm policy towards Cultural Heritage Protection in war must be followed by a robust policy for an indefinite period after the major hostilities are over. Ergo, the stabilization and reconstruction of the cultural heritage sector needs to be part of this integrated planning process from the very first beginning of mission planning.

Example X: Iraq and the lack of transition planning

When U.S. President George W. Bush declared an end to US Phase III (Decisive Operations) of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on 1 May 2003 the world assumed the ‘hard work’ was finished. However, those in a position to appreciate the complex operational environment understood all too well that the hard work was far from over. During the planning for OIF, neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of State was officially tasked to lead the post-hostility operations. Therefore, the US entered Iraq without a feasible and integrated stabilization and reconstruction plan. The effects of this omission on Iraq’s heritage sector were devastating. The massive plunder of heritage institutions and archaeological sites, and the ever increasing illicit trade in artefacts are fully reported on.

Planning for transition In the past the shortfall in the planning of military operations prevented a smooth transition from military operations to civil control. The road to stability and reconstruction failed to be part of military doctrine and campaign planning. As CHP is a CIMIC enabler and part of the comprehensive approach the return to stability of the heritage sector should be an element of NATO doctrine and NATO strategic and operational planning. Thus, CHP continues after decisive combat operations are over and starts prior to the conflict itself. Setting military transition conditions is one of the critical first steps in the planning process, it is a key to sustainable peace. ‘Do-no-harm’ continues to be a leading principle throughout the stabilization and reconstruction period (see Anderson, 1999). It requires reducing drivers of conflict and strengthening mitigators across all end states and the necessary conditions to achieve them, which includes CHP. A critical driver of the Kosovo War (1998-1999) was nationalism. Manifest representations of the striving collective memories were the respective religious heritage, the Serbian orthodox churches and the Kosovar mosques. Both suffered heavily during the conflict. That is the reason why the religious buildings were protected by the NATO stabilization force KFOR in the years to follow. When in July 2010 KFOR announced their plans to handover this task to the Kosovar police the Serbian government and the Orthodox Church became very alarmed as numerous orthodox monasteries had been attacked by ethnic Kosovars. Obviously, the protection of places of worship in Kosovo continues to be a driver of the conflict, a conflict that is still in transition. The role CHP should play in conflict transformation must be planned for early and continuously. It is part of the planning process for post-hostility operations and must be devised and assessed with the political desired end states in mind. Together with the host nation authorities and civil society the military will set the conditions for the stabilization and reconstruction of the heritage sector. It should be a subject matter of an annex to all operation plans and operation orders. Priority continues to be the safeguarding of cultural heritage.


End state An essential aspect in strategic planning is to define the desired end state. Planning for the end state requires significant effort and includes many considerations surrounding conflict transformation. Each conflict is different and so is each phase of conflict transformation. All the same, general ‘rules of the road’ or ‘principles’ have emerged from decades of experience in post-hostility operations. These principles generally apply to any military mission and CHP in a conflict is not an exception. These Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction (United States Institute of Peace, 2009) serve as a strategic framework. Key policy documents from state ministries of defense, foreign affairs, and development, along with major IOs and NGOs that all worked in conflict zones at length, were reviewed. The manual is as important for the military working in conflict transformation as are the The Sphere Handbook (The Sphere Project, 2004) for the military assisting in emergency aid and the Do-no-harm project (Anderson, 1999) for their insight into how aid can support war or peace. According to USIP: ‘the strategic framework below [Figure X] depicts the major end states, as well as the necessary conditions that should be established to achieve those end states. The framework also elevates a set of cross-cutting principles that applies to each and every actor and impacts each end state. This framework recognizes that the end states and their associated conditions cannot be pursued independently of one another. The overlapping circles underscore this interdependence’ (United States Institute of Peace, 2009, p.2-8).

Figure X: Strategic Framework for Stabilization and Reconstruction: major end states and necessary conditions (United States Institute of Peace (2009): Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction)


The five core end states (Safe and Secure Environment, Rule of Law, Stable Governance, Sustainable Economy, Social Well-being) assist to centre and standardize actions for all stakeholders. But this division also neglects the big picture—the overarching guidance that cuts across every end state and affects every action of every individual or institution, including the military forces. The cross-cutting principles are: Host Nation Ownership and Capacity, Political Primacy, Legitimacy, Unity of Effort, Security, Conflict Transformation, and Regional Engagement. For a civilian cultural heritage expert it is not difficult to see where the protection of cultural heritage fits in these end states. For example, in Herat (Afghanistan) UNESCO supports local craftsmen to produce glazed brick and slab for restoration of the city’s ancient Muslim monuments. As the heritage sector is rehabilitated and rebuilt many of these small income generating projects contribute to a ‘sustainable economy’ of the country. In other conflict ridden countries, like Guatemala, action theatre groups such as Huellas succeed to reconcile youngsters from different groups, even guerrilla groups, contributing to the end state of a ‘secure and safe environment’ Book donation programmes and the rehabilitation of libraries in war torn countries give people a broad sense of well-being, opportunities to express and make choices about their lives, and gives them a chance to ‘meet the other’ Thus contributing to ‘social well-being’ and indirectly to a ‘safe and secure environment’ 3 The role the military play in the S&R phase of the conflict depends entirely on the nature of the conflict and the local conditions in the host country. The same goes for the role CHP plays. It is largely conditional on the presence and the capacity of the host nation authorities and civil society. Their comparative advantages to rehabilitate and rebuild the heritage sector cannot be marshalled. Nevertheless, the military has a tremendous capability to rapidly apply vast resources that can still be made use of in conflict transition. This capability is especially critical immediately after the major hostilities have subsided. Some examples of how the military can continue to contribute the protection and rehabilitation of cultural heritage in the transitional phase are:

• Visit. The position to guard Ur, an important archaeological site in Iraq, was in the hands of one family that was for many years supported by the German Archaeological Institute. However, they could not reach the guard in 2004 to pay their annual financial support. Upon request the Dutch forces quartered in nearby Samawah visited the site and handed over the money. Since, they patrolled the area at regular intervals to prevent the site from looting

• Logistics. During the clearance of the military regional base on the archaeological site of Babylon, Iraq in the autumn of 2004 the international audit committee on damage assessment was facing a serious problem. The military had placed concrete blocks on the so-called ancient Processional Way to prevent insurgents from entering the base. To place the blocks to the end of the road they made use of heavy machinery destroying much of the ceramic paving stones in the process. On request of the committee the military then lifted the concrete blocks by helicopter and lowered them on the nearby tarmac to be transported outside Babylon (see figure X).

3 For more examples see http://www.cultureindevelopment.nl


Figure X: Lifting concrete blocks from Paradise Way, Babylon by helicopter in autumn 2004 (© R.Teijgeler)

• SSR. As part of a security sector reform (SSR) an international military mission can include Cultural Heritage Protection. For example in Afghanistan ISAF has deployed a number of Police Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (POMLTs). It is UNESCO’s intention to request ISAF to include training the antiquities police force that at this moment does not function very well. Experiences in Iraq were very positive. In 2004 and 2005 heritage guards from the Ministry of Culture were supported by Coalition troops. Near Nasarya guards were provided with heavy radio equipment to be able to call for assistance from a nearby US battalion in case they threatened to be overrun by the illegal diggers on archaeological sites. The guards at Babylon were provided with guns, helmets, uniforms, flak jackets and were trained by a US battalion.

• Demining. When Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in May 2000, it left behind a deadly legacy of some 400,000 landmines. The 2006 conflict in Lebanon has greatly added to this problem and the bulk of these landmines are still in place. South Lebanon is now additionally littered with approximately one million unexploded sub-munitions, un-exploded aerial bombs (UXB) and general un-exploded ordnance (UXO). This area covers many archaeological sites and monuments, next to old living quarters people still occupy. This dangerous situation prevented the UNESCO Assistant Secretary-General for Culture Mounir Bouchenaki to enter the affected area to assess the damage to Lebanon’s cultural heritage after the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006. With the technical assistance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) the Mine Action Co-ordination Centre South Lebanon has organized the demining and cluster munitions clearance work. Through this action Lebanon’s cultural heritage became accessible again for the local population and other Lebanese.


Figure X:A Rembrandt self-portrait was recovered by serg. Harry Ettlinger, right, and an officer at a German salt mine that had been used as a storehouse

• Return the loot. In the years immediately after World War II, 5 million items of cultural significance were returned thanks to the ‘Monuments Men’, an obscure group of museum directors, curators and others in the field of art. They joined the military and were charged with finding missing art, usually stolen by the Nazis but sometimes stashed away for safekeeping by museum curators, and with returning it to their rightful owners. During the final weeks of the European war, Allied troops had discovered a series of mines in Germany and Austria where the Nazis had secreted untold riches — looted art as well as treasures from German museums — for safekeeping. Shipments from German repositories in mines, castles and bunkers typically went to the central storage depots called Collecting Points at the Seventh Army Headquarters in Munich or Wiesbaden. Enormous convoys of trucks escorted by tanks and laden with the Merkers booty lined up outside to return the plundered artefacts to the different parts of Europe. Many times they put themselves in peril. At most, there were 350 ‘Monuments Men’ and women from 13 countries. Its ranks consisted largely of art historians, museum curators, artists, architects and other such specialists. When other troops were leaving after the war, their work was continuing at full speed. They returned home in 1951.

It is clear that the role of CHP in conflict transition continues to be an important and valuable CIMIC enabler. In the unique, perilous stage where everything must be viewed through the lens of conflict CHP can make a valuable contribution to prevent the renewal of violent conflict. This role must not be underestimated.


CHAPTER 5

Cultural Heritage Protection Tools

The Operational Planning Process (OPP) is an essential element in military operations and CIMIC-staff elements contribute significantly to the OPP. So far the CIMIC Functional Planning Guide (FPG) does not cover CHP. The CIMIC Field Handbook (2010) lists in their annexes many templates, checklists and formats. In these standard documents CHP is not integrated yet. Some however, do have captions such as cultural issues, cultural situations or arts, monuments and archives but they do not fully cover the field of cultural heritage protection. It is to be expected that in the very near future CHP will be integrated in the CIMIC standards documents. The documents that need at least to be adjusted are:

• Initial CIMIC Estimate

• CIMIC Assessment Checklist

• CIMIC Reports and Returns

Next, specific CHP documents need to be developed the most important being: Rapid CHP Assessment. It could possibly be integrated into the Rapid Village Assessment. The CHP tools listed below are some examples of

• existing tools the military have already to their disposal but are scantly in use for CHP

• existing tools the military have already to their disposal and only need to be adapted for CHP

• existing simple heritage tools that can easily be integrated into the CHP tools for use of the military

The list is far from exhaustive and just serves the purpose of illustration of the manifold possibilities. Area Study The area study, a desk-based study, is a common tool to strategic military planning to increase situational awareness. Military obtain, analyse, and record information in advance of need. It is thus prepared in the pre-deployment phase and should be linked to the Country Study. Area study files contain information on a wide spectrum of functional areas. In the Checklist for Area – study in the new CIMIC Field Handbook (CCOE, 2010) we find the functional areas Arts, Monuments & Archives (#17) and Cultural (#19). Though an improvement on earlier publications Arts, Monuments & Archives only list 4 subcategories: General conditions/problems, Arts, Monuments, Archives. Specialists consider this too little. The area study supports the CIMIC planning tools like the Initial CIMIC Estimate (ICE) and the CIMIC JOA Assessment. CIMIC updates the area study as required through an area assessment. An area assessment begins with receipt of the mission and identifies the more specific problems and problem areas in the AOR to increase situational awareness. Area assessments that support other forces should supplement, not repeat, information in the basic


area study. It should be noted that IO/NGO assessments may differ from military but may be of a great value in contributing to the military assessment process and vice- versa. The Civil Affairs Field Manual from the US Department of the Army (2006) lists within the functional area Cultural Relations a sample sequence of functions on Arts, Monuments, and Archives. Though it lacks to list Libraries it is a much more comprehensive list than the one in the CIMIC Field Handbook. In principle, this format can also be used for Civil Affairs Assessment.

Functional areas in Civil Affairs Area Study and Assessment:

CULTURAL RELATIONS

Arts, Monuments, and Archives

1. Description of conditions of the arts and monuments.

2. Advancements over the past 10 years.

3. Influence of outside countries.

4. Arts a. Location, type, use, and significance of the fine arts.

b. Population attitude toward art treasures.

c. Government policies and agencies dealing with the arts.

d. Agencies through which arts are performed.

(1) Private.

(2) Government

5. Advancements in science.

6. Artists’ organizations and government control.

7. Monuments a. Location of historic monuments and sites.

b. Present significance of historic monuments and sites.

8. Archives a. Location of archives.

b. Varieties of archives (1) Public archives.

(2) Semi-public archives.

(3) Ecclesiastical archives.

(4) Private or family archives

c. Contents or category of archives. (1) Historical.

(2) Current documents.

Figure X: Functional areas in Civil Affairs Area Study and Assessment: Cultural Relations - Arts, Monuments,

and Archives (© 2006 FM 3-05.40 [FM 41-10]. Civil Affairs Operations, Appendix D: pp. D-1 _D-23)


Imagery Below are a few examples of imagery as applied to Cultural Heritage Protection during an armed conflict. In confusing times when hard evidence and unbiased information is hard to get by. The best identification of cultural resources is by direct and physical contact. This will not always be possible. In case reliable eyewitness accounts and alternative information sources are lacking or because the security reasons prevent information gathering, imagery can be an acceptable source. In general, military satellites are more precise than commercial ones. Today Google maps is popular, especially Google Earth, but it is not always available for the areas the military need them for. Much of course also depends on intended use and the accuracy that is needed. Operation Iraqi Freedom IMINT - April 02, 2003 The satellite images of Ctesiphon below are an excellent example of how protected cultural property under The Hague Convention (1954) can be identified. Next, the image gives an impression how intensively the monument is used. Ctesiphon is located 32 kilometres SE of Baghdad and has a tumultuous history passing from the hands of one ancient empire to another. The city was built on the ruins of Opis on the left bank of the Tigris river. It was the imperial capital of the Parthian Arsacids and of the Persian Sassanids; was one of the great cities of ancient Mesopotamia. It became an important trade and cultural destination in the ancient world. It rose to prominence during the Parthian Empire in the first century BC. In the 6th century it was the largest city in the world.


Figure X: Satellite imagery of the museum complex at Ctesiphon, Iraq. Shown on the roof is the symbol of protection as a special site under the 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property (Released on 04/02/03 by the Australian Department of Defence. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/ imint/iraqi-freedom-20-5.htm)


Figure X: Satellite imagery of the museum complex at Ctesiphon, Iraq, shown from another angle with military vehicles lined up in the car park. These photos were taken in mid-March, and since there were vehicles moved elsewhere. According to the Australian DoD, this image is an example of the type of cultural protection issue being faced by the coalition (Released on 04/02/03 by the Australian Department of Defence. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/ imint/iraqi-freedom-20-5.htm)

Operation Iraqi Freedom IMINT - August 23, 2004. Imam Ali Shrine, Najaf, Iraq Aerial imagery, in this case taken by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [Predator Medium Altitude Endurance] can serve the same purpose as satellite imagery. On this image mortar positions from the Madhi Army next to the Iman Ali Shrine were identified. According to U.S. officials this proved that the shrine has been converted to military usage by one side of the conflict. The Hague Convention (1954) reads that in this case the shrine may become the target of military action by the other side, ergo U.S. troops. UNESCO warned the U.S. military in Iraq and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that no harm should come to the monumental inner city of Najaf, including the Imam Ali Shrine. The senior cultural advisor to the embassy again stressed the great importance of the inner city of Najaf centred around the Imam Ali Shrine, not only to the heritage of Iraq but to all Shi’ite Muslims around the world. In the end a peace was brokered and the Imam Ali Shrine was left untouched (see also Example 2: Najaf, p. X). Najaf is an Islamic holy city and the home to the shrine of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet Mohammad's cousin and son-in-law and fourth caliph (656-661). Najaf also contains one of the largest cemeteries in the world. According to Imam Ali, any Muslim buried here will enter paradise; as a result, the tombs of several prophets are found in Najaf. Shia Muslims


especially consider it a privilege to be buried here. Najaf is known for being an Islamic centre for scientific, literary and theological studies for the whole Islamic world, mainly for the Shi’ites. Therefore Najaf is attractive for a large number of people, poets, authors and other visitors from China, India, Lebanon, Pakistan and Iran which is estimated annually over half a million.

Figure X: US CENTCOM aerial imagery of militia mortar positions on the eastern sidewalk of the Imam Ali

Shrine, Najaf, Iraq taken using a RQ-1 Predator UAV. Released Aug. 23, 2004 (source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/an-najaf-imagery.htm)

Libyan archaeological sites A 26-year-old unemployed college graduate from Tunisia set himself on fire on 17 January 2011 in protest of the injustice inflicted upon him by the authorities. Since, several movements for democratic change have taken place in the region of North Africa and beyond. Some of the resulting events or conflict situations, amongst others in Libya, have had a serious impact on the region's rich cultural heritage. The United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 called for a No-Fly Zone over Libya. To implement the 1973 resolution a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya on 19 March 2011. NATO agreed to take control of the No-Fly Zone on 24 March, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces. The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 0600 GMT.


All military forces taking part in the operation have to comply with the 1954 Hague Convention and its protocols. This includes the protection of important cultural heritage sites from air attacks. To start with a basic list of archaeological sites could be very helpful. Pleiades, a joint project of the Ancient World Mapping Center, the Stoa Consortium, and the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, put a map of archaeological sites in Libya together with the help of Google maps.

Figure X: Libyan Archaeological Sites (Image source: Image-© Google. Imagery © 2011 Terra Metrics, Map data © 2011 Europe Technologies, Google ORION-ME, TeleAtlas. Map source: put together by Pleiades; http://tinyurl.com/4jlcl96)

Damage Assessment

While general cultural heritage assessments can be executed at strategic or operational level, cultural heritage damage assessment will take place at tactical level. With this function specific assessment the commander can identify critical shortfalls or capability gaps in the cultural heritage in his AOO that may affect his mission. Just like he needs to know the state of Public Communications, Public Transportation, Public Safety, Public Welfare, Dislocated Civilians or any other functional area relevant to military operations. The subject typically receives most attention, and resources, in the face of threat. The damage assessment may urge the commander to take immediate action to protect, safeguard, rescue or salvage the cultural heritage in his AO.

The US Army published a comprehensive Cultural Site Assessment Survey.

Cultural Site Assessment Survey (Sample)

Cultural Site Assessment

Date of Survey 5-16-03

Name CPT John Smith


Geographical Information System (GIS) Yes No

If church, religious denomination: …………………………………………

Type of property Mosque

Address Kandahar Air Field

Town/village grids QQ710888 Grid Zone 41R

Enforcement jurisdiction (local, tribal, military, or county) Daman District

Library/archives

Museum

Historical building/district GPS

Monument

Natural feature: GPS

Archaeological site GPS…………………………………….

Acres………………….........................

Civil building/ complex

x Sacred/building/complex Pashtun Mosque

Cemetery/burial ground GPS……………………………………..

Acres……………………………………

Information About the Damages

Date of Damage 12/01

Type of Damage Fragmentation and small arms

External damage Yes No

Lack of maintenance/neglect

x Fire

Natural disaster

Water

Uprooted trees

Weakened structure due to earthquake

War damage

Other …………………………………………..

Internal damage Yes No

Vandalism of the interior

Fire set inside

x Damage to interior walls from projectiles

Uprooted trees


Weakened structure due to earthquake

Other …………………………………………..

War damage Yes No

x Small arms/machine gun

Mortars/Rockets

Artillery

Explosives

x Burning impact by projectiles

Gas

Howitzer

x Aerial bombardment

x Collateral damage

Other …………………………………………..

Parties responsible for damage if not natural disaster …………………………………………..

Situations of surroundings

x Damaged

Untouched

Surface

Assessment of damage

None

Light (damage to roof and wall that does not destroy

supporting structures)

x Damaged (damage to roof and walls that affects usability

of the building)

Destroyed (only foundations are left)

Heavily damaged (building totally unusable without

reconstruction; skeleton)

Internal contents intact, but strewn

Internal contents intact, water damage

Internal contents stolen

Contents

Were contents evacuated? Yes No N/A

Where are they stored? …………………………………………..

Under whose authority? …………………………………………..


Sources of the Information

x Direct observation

Documents/What? …………………………………………..

Local authorities

Local people

Staff

Eyewitnesses

Other …………………………………………..

Prepared to testify Name…………………………………….

Address………………………………….

Phone……………………………………

Documentation

Photographs

Documentation presented by local authorities

Film taken by monitors

Film by news media Name Sky News

Film taken by witness Name ……………………………………

Other …………………………………………..

Current Situation

Open/normal operations

Entrances closed, danger signs posted

Repair/restoration works exterior

Emergency works (covering of roofs and shoring of walls)

Repair/restoration works interior

x Repair/restoration works by contract

Repair works initiated by authorities

Posting of Hague Convention Sign? Yes No Don’t know

Present Function of Building?

x Not used

Used for normal functions

Used for other functions

Used for military functions


Recommendations / Other Information The project was completed using 100% Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds at a cost of $50,000

U.S Contractor: Eagle AA

Start date: 7/17/2004

Completion: 9/10/2004

Project No: 3-7-04-0006

Figure X: Sample Cultural Site Assessment Survey (US Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School, 2009)

Inventory

Soldiers are no conservation officers or professional custodians. Still, a brief inventory of heritage objects is considered a military task in case cultural heritage collections are under threat. The value of such a list is extremely important as it documents the cultural object itself, its historic setting and physical environment. In the light of the fast growing segment of international crime, art theft, documentation is essential for the return of the stolen cultural goods. Military are not expected to start a catalogue, which is a much more comprehensive activity that next to basic data gives a scientific description of the object. An inventory on the other hand is a simple itemized list. The Object ID checklist is such a brief inventory. It must be said, however, that it is less suitable to describe historic monuments and archaeological sites. Object ID is an international standard for describing cultural objects such as art, antiques and antiquities. The project has been developed through the collaboration of the museum community, police and customs agencies, the art trade, insurance industry, and valuers of art and antiques. It is being promoted by major law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol, UNESCO, museums, cultural heritage organisations, art trade and art appraisal organisations, and insurance companies. The Object ID project was initiated by the J. Paul Getty Trust in 1993 and the standard was launched in 1997. ICOM maintains the Object ID in close collaboration with UNESCO and other organisations fighting illicit trade. ICOM will actively disseminate information about Object ID and also organize workshops on its implementation. The illicit trade in cultural objects is now widely recognized as one of the most prevalent categories of international crime. The proceeds of thefts, forgery, ransoms, and smuggling operations involving cultural objects are often used to fund other criminal activities, including those of insurgents and terrorist organizations. The objects themselves serving as both a medium of exchange between criminals and a means of laundering the profits of crime. The key to successful retrieval of stolen art is documentation. Documentation is indeed crucial for the protection of art and antiques, for police officers can rarely recover and return objects that have not been photographed and adequately described. Police forces have custody of large numbers of objects that have been recovered in the course of operations, but which cannot be returned to their rightful owners because there is no documentation that makes it possible to identify the victims.


The result of this important collaborative project is the Object ID checklist. The checklist has already been translated into 15 languages and plans are underway for translations into many other languages (for more see Object ID website).

OBJECT ID CHECKLIST

TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs are of vital importance in identifying and recovering stolen objects. In addition to overall views, take close-ups of inscriptions, markings, and any damage or repairs. If possible, include a scale or object of known size in the image.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS

Type of Object What kind of object is it (e.g., painting, sculpture, clock, mask)?

Materials and

Techniques

What materials is the object made of (e.g., brass, wood, oil on canvas)? How was it made (e.g., carved, cast, etched)?

Measurements

What is the size and/or weight of the object? Specify which unit of measurement is being used (e.g., cm., in.) and to which dimension the measurement refers (e.g., height, width, depth).

Inscriptions and

Markings

Are there any identifying markings, numbers, or inscriptions on the object (e.g., a signature, dedication, title, maker’s marks, purity marks, property marks)?

Distinguishing

Features

Does the object have any physical characteristics that could help to identify it (e.g., damage, repairs, or manufacturing defects)?

Title Does the object have a title by which it is known and might be identified (e.g., The Scream)?

Subject What is pictured or represented (e.g., landscape, battle, woman holding child)?

Date or Period When was the object made (e.g., 1893, early 17th century, Late Bronze Age)?

Maker

Who made the object? It may be the name of a known individual (e.g., Thomas Tompion), a company (e.g., Tiffany), or a cultural group (e.g., Hopi).

WRITE A SHORT DESCRIPTION

This can also include any additional information that helps to identify the object (e.g., color and shape of the object, where it was made).

KEEP IT SECURE

Having documented the object, keep this information in a secure place.

Figure X: Object ID checklist. © 1999 J. Paul Getty Trust


Protective Target Planning

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


CHAPTER 6

Cultural Heritage Protection Basic Rules


Acronyms


Literature


Links Cultural Heritage Protection. A way to improve your mission is a collective product for the Civil-Military Co-operation Centre of Excellence. As brought up earlier this is not an extensive study but it is merely meant as a short introduction into Cultural Heritage Protection awareness. In our opinion the importance of Cultural Heritage in the military is beyond all doubt. We hope that this publication will entice the reader for further study. For this we recommend to consult the literature and links at the end.

Most of the published photos are not part of the archive of CCOE. As far as possible the rightful claimant has been stated. In some instances that was not possible. When a claimant feels his rights has been violated we request he contacts CCOE. Any comments are welcome, please contact us at the email adrress at the back. The author LCol (R) drs René Teijgeler, strategic advisor culture 1CIMIC Bat (NLD A)


CIMIC Centre of Excellence (CCOE) assist NATO, Sponsoring Nations and other military and civil institutions / organizations in their operational and transformation efforts in the field of civil-military interaction, by providing innovative and timely advice and subject matter expertise in the development of existing and new concepts, policy and doctrine; specialised education and training; and the contribution to the lessons learned processes. The CCOE fulfils its role as a multinational contribution to NATO’s transformation efforts, by selecting key issues in the Civil -Military dimension and relations that can be further researched through seminars, workshops, conferences and publications like this one. By this, CCOE will continue to promote and explore new ideas, findings, trends and developments together with relevant institutions and individuals, and emphasize the value of mutual understanding through a continued debate. CCOE welcomes all kind of feedback or constructive comments and remarks from all that are affiliated with the topics this CCOE publications will cover.

Civil-Military Co-operation Centre of Excellence (CCOE)

PO Box 5013 - 7500 GA Enschede - The Netherlands [email protected] - http://www.cimic-coe.org