The World Heritage Project is in Danger of Becoming Redundant, UNESCO Should Act

Sep 21

Sep 21 The World Heritage Project is in Danger of Becoming Redundant, UNESCO Should Act

By Kartik Ashta

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has chosen his next battle in his quest to remodel Turkey: converting the Hagia Sophia and the Chora Church into mosques. But why?

People want to be remembered, and people in power even more so. The most conspicuous way this has been undertaken in history is through the building of “heritage sites” and other enduring edifices through which individuals are remembered in history. But not all cultural heritage is personal, even though the most obvious ones like the Taj Mahal and the Pyramids are. A large number of heritage sites are also representatives of communities and their culture. Cities themselves are markers of history. Thus, while cultural heritage may be considered to have a personal motive, as a reminder of great and powerful persons, it also has a communitarian angle. But this is not an all-encompassing definition. Nature and areas in nature too form part of the cultural heritage of communities; for example the Niyamgiri mountain is considered sacred by the Dongria Kondhas, and naturally occurring substances like ayahuasca are part of the rituals in South America.

If culture is communitarian, then why does the term “world heritage” exist? The phrase today carries a much more benign meaning today than at its inception. At first, cultural objects were shared only in name, with a large amount of “exchange” taking place through forced contracts or through theft during colonization. The present definition of world heritage is more egalitarian. The 1972 UNESCO Convention defines some heritage as so important that it is of outstanding universal value. As places of such importance, they should be shared, enjoyed, and celebrated by all of humanity. This definition includes both cultural sites and natural preserves. The 1972 Convention resulted in the creation of a list of such sights, the World Heritage List, to which places are added on a yearly basis. Inscription is prestigious, bringing with it not only access to the World Heritage Fund, but also money from other sources of conservation, as well as a tag that attracts tourists and adds to the national and local economies.

This argument works in a liberal world order in which everyone operates on the assumptions that globalization is beneficial and that all cultures are mostly to be celebrated. But what happens when that assumption begins to crumble? When history begins to be viewed from a homogeneous rather than heterodox lens? The Hagia Sophia—a testament to communal harmony and a monument that has stood as a Greek Orthodox cathedral, a Catholic church, an Islamic mosque, and a secular museum—has become a plank for Erdogan to ingratiate himself with the conservative wing of the Turkish polity, in addition to pressuring his neighbors.

With the rise of populist movements all over the world, the assumption on which the World Heritage Convention rests may be crumbling. The example of the Hagia Sophia makes it an apt time to revisit the Convention and whether it will collapse on itself. In the more recent past, critiques of universality have come from left leaning intellectuals and academics, specifically concerning natural heritage sites. However, Erdogan’s move has brought to light the steps that governments which are considered right wing, illiberal, or populist may take when it concerns heritage sites. While the Turkish government has stated that it plans to maintain the structure of religious iconography within what is now a mosque, the question of enforcement, and protection of monuments through the World Heritage Convention still remains.

The only method of censure, or sanction under the World Heritage Convention can be found in the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Committee, a document which lays out the rules of procedure of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Governments who thrive on “heritage nationalism” thus may use this very threat of “delisting” as a tool to reclaim “heritage sovereignty” and further remove themselves from internationalist norms. The claim that they will no longer be beholden to internationalist and globalist interests and actors and reclaim their rights to push forth their own cultural history. This is a strong string to pull, especially in countries where the leaders derive their strength from majoritarian historical perceptions.

Delhi’s case of delayed nomination is an interesting one in this regard. Shahjahanabad, and the Lutyen’s complex has been part of the Tentative List of the World Heritage Committee since 2012, but the Central government requested that consideration be postponed. In the meantime, Ahmedabad and Jaipur have found space on the coveted list. Arguments against Delhi’s nomination have relied on the claim that listing will delay development. However, conservationists have argued that there is a twofold issue: first, the influence of the real estate lobby, and second, the current government’s dispensation against the influence of Islamic architecture in the nation’s capital, which they wish to remodel in their own image. This shows the ideological symbology that goes into a nation’s decision-making process regarding the list.

A similar problem could also be foreseen when it comes to natural sites. Of course, natural sites also bring with them other international commitments under various environmental and wildlife treaties, however they are also susceptible to the same dangers that cultural sites are. A number of these areas are resource rich, natural habitats of endangered species, and also the homes of tribes and indigenous persons. As we can see from Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s treatment of the Amazon rainforest, natural sites that encompass the traditional heritage of people may also fall victim to the larger ideological goals of populist governments.

Cultures that do not fit within the monolith of the dominant culture are sacrificed on the altar of “development” to insidiously achieve the aims of cultural homogeneity However, cultural heritage plays a large role in nation building as well as remodeling. All empires and governments partake in this activity. The World Heritage Committee, however, is considered to be a guardian not only of cultural values, but also of the universal aspects of cultural heritage, one where universality is preserved in situ, and not in museums where artifacts are displaced from their context. Presently, countries are wont to take massive steps attacking the WHC, since populist leaders also crave international recognition, while attacking the institutions where these reputations are built. However, if a few more populists were to arise, the World Heritage list may be the next bastion of internationalism to take a hit. It is imperative that UNESCO takes a proactive step or be the next victim heritage populism.