Twice in the span of only 24 hours, the current president of the United States has implied that in the event of retaliation against the killing in Baghdad of General Qassem Soleimani, the cultural sites of Iran would be fair game as military targets. 

Over the course of two late night tweets on Saturday, 4 January 2020, President Trump first wrote:

"Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have..... 

....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

The US leader's second statement, verbal, was made aboard Air Force One on Sunday, 5 January 2020.  Given the frequency with which President Trump has wielded his twitter account to bend constituent opinion to his will, attacking investigations such as the special counsel and impeachment probes, liberal news organizations, Democrats, and various country leaders around the globe, those reporting aboard the presidential airplane sought clarification on the American president's troubling tweet.

Responding to their query, the President Trump expanded on his earlier provocatory statement saying:

"They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way."

Both of these statements were made following Major General Hossein Dehghan's own escalative words after the U.S. ordered the killing of Soleimani. Interviewed by CNN journalists in Tehran, Dehghan, who serves as military adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei stated that Iran would retaliate directly against US "military sites" as a reprisal for the death of the controversial Iranian general.  

Is Art Worth a Life? 

Authoritarian regimes have been known to use cultural heritage manipulatively, in accordance with their own needs, and often in complete disregard to prevailing international law.

While tensions between the US and Iran escalate, it is important to remember that with respect to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict the general provisions of customary international humanitarian law (IHL) Rule 38, protecting civilian property, apply.   This rule requires that each party to the conflict must respect cultural property and specifies that:

A. 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. 

B. Property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people must not be the object of attack unless imperatively required by military necessity.

Likewise specific protections, recognizing the importance of a country's cultural heritage to humankind are enshrined in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.  Article 4, (Respect for cultural property) states:

The Hague Convention is based on the principle that "damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world." 

The Second Protocol, further elaborates the provisions of the Hague Convention relating to safeguarding of and respect for cultural property and the conduct of the military during hostilities.  Both the First and the Second Protocols lead to the question of applicability of customary international law, of other sources of international law and local law and what they require of the warring parties.

Under the Hague Convention, as an official state party to the Convention and the First and Second Protocols, the Iranian government is obliged ‘respect’ cultural property in their or other territories.   The United States of America deposited their instrument of ratification of this Convention on 13 March 2009.  Their own instrument contained the following additional declarations:

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, and confronts the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole (in art. 8(2)(b)(ix)) prohibits during international armed conflict intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives.  The International Criminal Court further underscored its stance on crimes against heritage as a potential war crime as recently as the August 2016 case against Mr Ahmad Al-Faqi Al Mahdi. During his trial, Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, gave an opening statement recognizing that "deliberate attacks on cultural property have become actual weapons of war. They are being used to eliminate entire communities and wipe out any traces left of them, their history and identity, as though they never existed." 

Unfortunately, due to its limited jurisdictional power and investigatory resources only the worst crimes against humanity van ever be prosecuted by the ICC and then only if the suspected individual is a citizen of a State Party to the ICC Statute.

Ratified by 122 countries, including all of South America, almost all of Europe, most of Oceania, and about half of Africa, the Rome Statute has only been signed (and not ratified) by the United States, who further informed the United Nations that they do not intend to become a state party. Opposed to the empowerment of an international court that could try U.S. military and political leaders under international law, the US maintains observer status as a non-ratifying country during the Assembly of States Parties.

Most recently, and in response to attacks on heritage by terrorist organizations, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2347 on 24 March 2017 in order to strengthen protections for heritage during armed conflicts where they are most vulnerable. This resolution, enacted by the 15-member council, of which the US is a permanent member, univocally condemns the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage in the context of armed conflicts, notably by terrorist groups, however not exclusively.  This UN resolution also affirms that attacks against cultural heritage might constitute a war crime and therefore perpetrators must be brought to justice. In drafting this resolution the UN Security Council stated that the protection of heritage is a key means for the maintenance of international peace and security and noted how intimately cultural heritage and identity are linked.

That being said, the exigencies of war will always be unkind to mankind's cultural heritage where the atrocities (and ultimate persecutions) of one actor are not always balanced with those of their heritage destruction counterparts, simply based upon the previous pen strokes of their government's legal representatives.

The Pentagon’s two pronged interest in culture: What distinguishes data gathering for heritage preservation from espionage?

Despite the Pentagon’s October 2019 announcement that it would be reviving a version of one of World War II’s most storied military units, the teams of art experts once referred to as the Monuments Men, not everyone in the US military seems to be on the same page with the US President when it comes to the preservation of cultural heritage in zones of conflict and unrest.

US military, preparing to deploy, receiving training on the 1954 Hague Convention and the cultural heritage sites of Afghanistan.

The revised US military team, to be made up of Army Reserve officers serving under the Civil Affairs branch, aims to serve as a scholarly liaison for military commanders and the local authorities, helping to secure the cultural heritage in conflict zones. These reservists are also tasked with informing the United States military and allied forces of sites to avoid in the event of pending airstrikes or on the ground engagements in the event of war and conflict.

Ras Almargeb, Libya.  Gadhafi forces stationed six mobile radar units in proximity to this ancient Roman fort. All six were destroyed with minimal damage to the heritage site. Image Credit - Joris Kila

One has to wonder what those tasked with developing "No Strike" lists are thinking regarding President Trump's statements of suggested intentional destruction of cultural property, as part of an overall US military strategy, should Iran's government move to escalate tensions in an eye for an eye counterattack.

Did the US president envisage how such portending threats might place this new team on shaky ethical terrain, given that they cannot control the use of the ethnographic intelligence they collect for the military, and thus, cannot ensure their work isn’t used to harm the very heritage they are tasked with trying to protect?  Likewise, gaining the trust of neighboring Middle East countries, in sharing their own georeferencing data coordinates on cultural heritage sites with the US military, on the pretext of protecting culture property, probably just got a whole lot harder.

In closing, while some may see this Op Ed as a partisan article, that is truly not this writer's intention. This is an article which underscores the laws and instruments in place which sometimes hold individuals accountable for their actions and other times seem to be just grand wishes or written gestures that don't really adequately address the definition of the vexing question of ‘military necessity’ as it relates to cultural property destruction in the laws of armed conflict.  That grey area, subject to individual interpretation(s), often fails to impede those determined to weaponize culture and cultural fissures on the pretext of vanquishing one's enemies.

Arrested in Niger and transferred to The Hague in September 2015 Ahmad al Faqi al Mahdi, a one time member of the Mali-operating Islamic fundamentalist group Ansar ed-Din (best translated as guardians of the faith) stood before the Trial Chamber VIII of the International Criminal Court (ICC) today while it delivered its judgment in the case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi.   During today's hearing, the Chamber unanimously found Mr Al Mahdi guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-perpetrator of the war crime consisting in intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, Mali. 

During a 45 minute long hearing presented in its entirety below, the three-judge Chamber sentenced Mr Al Mahdi to nine years imprisonment with a deduction of time served for the days in which he has been incarcerated following his arrest in Nigeria on the ICC warrant issued on 18 September 2015.   According to ICC spokesman spokesperson Fadi ElAbdallah Al Mahdi will not serve out his sentence in the detention centre at the ICC in the Hague. He will “serve his sentence in a national establishment of a state which has agreed to receive the convicted.  Decisions on this issue will be made in due course by the ICC in dialogue with relevant states.” 

According to ICC documents Mr.  al-Mahdi was appointed to head the Hisbah (the manners brigade) in April 2012 which he oversaw until September 2012. The Hisbah was in charge of regulating the morality of the people of Timbuktu, and of suppressing and repressing anything perceived by the occupying forces to constitute a visible vice.

Between June 30, 2012 and around July 11, 2012 al-Mahdi and his co-perpetrators first attacked and destroyed:

🏺 The Sidi Mahamoud Ben Omar Mohamed Aquit Mausoleum

🏺 The Sheikh Mohamed Mahmoud Al Arawani Mausoleum

🏺The Sheikh Sidi El Mokhtar Ben Sidi Mouhammad Al Kabir Al Kounti Mausoleum

🏺 The Alpha Moya Mausoleum

🏺 The Sheikh Mouhamad El Micky Mausoleum

🏺 The Sheikh Abdoul Kassim Attouaty Mausoleum

🏺 The Sheikh Sidi Ahmed Ben Amar Arragadi Mausoleum

🏺 The Ahamed Fulane Mausoleum adjoining the Djingareyber Mosque 

🏺 The Bahaber Babadié Mausoleum adjoining the Djingareyber Mosque 

🏺 The door of the Sidi Yahia Mosque

With the exception of the Sheikh Mohamed Mahmoud Al Arawani Mausoleum, each of these buildings were all classified as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Sites which embodied the identity of the city, known as the “Pearl of the Desert” and the “City of 333 Saints”. 

Testifying at the opening of his trial on August 22, 2016 Mr. Al Mahdi expressed remorse and admitted to the ICC that he was guilty of the war crime consisting of attacking the historic and religious monuments stating “All the charges brought against me are accurate and correct. I am really sorry, and I regret all the damage that my actions have caused.”  He further stated “I seek their forgiveness and I ask them to look at me as a son who has lost his way,” and “I would like to make them a solemn promise that this was the first and the last wrongful act I will ever commit.”

Mr. Al Faqi Al Mahdi’s guilty plea and conviction constitute a watershed moment in heritage crime prosecution as it represents the first case of its kind to be successfully brought before and ultimately prosecuted by the ICC concerning the destruction of historic monuments and buildings dedicated to religion. 

Speaking in response to today's ruling, El Boukhari Ben Essayouti, Head of the Cultural Mission of Timbuktu stated he hoped this trail has been an important lesson, not just to Ahmad al Faqi al Mahdi but to others who would destroy culture.  He was quoted as saying that he hoped this trial “has to be useful for something, showing to everyone that in the same way that we cannot kill another person with impunity, we cannot just destroy a world heritage site with impunity either.” 

All over the news we see cultural property, the legal term widely used for cultural heritage, often connected to the cradles of civilisation, being damaged, smuggled and abused. Currently much devastation is taking place in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, more specifically the Mediterranean area, e.g. Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt. Within the size limitations of this article I will indicate some problems, causes and possible solutions regarding safeguarding cultural property. These examples will hopefully stimulate discussion, research and a more pro-active approach towards short and long-term solutions.

Problems and Deficiencies

Because of recent conflicts and upheavals, some of which are ongoing, substantial parts of the world’s cultural resources, which are not just artworks but also containers of identity and memory, have been lost or are under threat. In modern asymmetric conflicts, cultural property protection (CPP) is a complex and serious issue due to the variety of stakeholders with unbalanced interests, its multidisciplinary character and the potential sensitivity of heritage issues, which is often connected with local, national or religious identities. 

Since institutionalised CPP emergency activities as mandatory operations under national and international law are virtually absent, a small number of cultural experts, often acting as concerned private individuals without funding, took matters into their own hands to give a good example for official CPP institutions. This resulted in a modest number of relevant and innovative activities like undercover on-site emergency assessments and engagements with military stakeholders resulting, for instance, in cultural no-strike lists, as was used in Libya in 2011 and the development of CPP doctrines for military operational planning (Kila & Zeidler 2013, Kila & Herndon 2014).

Notwithstanding this, CPP should no longer be taken care of solely by the purview of this small group of concerned people. Phenomena like using cultural property to finance conflicts, iconoclasm, military aspects, CPP and global security, strategic communication (parties as protectors or destroyers of culture) and conflicting interests of old and new stakeholders need structural research and organisation. Furthermore, the links with identity, counterinsurgency, transnational organised crime and illicit trafficking, including its related transnational finance flows, heritage as a resource for local development and the overlap between cultural and natural resources need attention. Worldwide cooperation is also dependent on new stakeholders like military organisations, crime experts, tourism organisations and cultural diplomats. 

Although legal frameworks for heritage protection appear in place (e.g. The Hague 1954, the Rome Statute 1998), today’s state of cultural property in conflict areas clearly illustrates that the effectiveness of policies and strategies (to be) implemented by institutions tasked with CPP in the event of conflict are insufficient. Most institutions seem to lack pro-activity and tend towards bureaucratic and risk-avoiding behaviour (Wilson 1989, Kila 2012. Kila, Zeidler 2013). The latter relates to (over) politicising heritage because of sensitivity caused by identity, religion and economic issues. Consequently, essential developments concerning the changing status of heritage, its economic value, heritage protection as an instrument in counter-terrorism denying the enemy financial means to prolong a conflict and legal developments, e.g. the criminalisation of offenses against cultural property in international criminal law, are not studied in a coherent transdisciplinary context.

Organisations themselves claim lack of funding as a major reason for their indolence. In the meantime devastation continues, whereas the international cooperation, coordination and research that should drive transdisciplinary, interagency and emergency endeavours, as well as the necessary funding, is either lacking or misspent. In this context a recurring misconception is that although protection of heritage is important, aid to those in need because of conflicts and natural disasters should have priority. This line of argument does not hold water because one does not exclude the other. CPP and humanitarian aid are substantively and financially separate. No funds are withdrawn from monies allocated to humanitarian disasters when heritage is protected.

Europe and CPP

One could say that CPP including combating illicit trade in artifacts is not the specific capability of the EU. Certainly it is not stated per se in the treaties, but it does fall within several areas of EU competence. Examples of this are the internal market, freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) and culture along with common foreign and security policy (CFSP).

The EU probably has no CPP expertise capability but there are experts that can provide  knowledge on this. Stakeholders like NATO*,  Europol, INTERPOL and the International Criminal Court, all based in Europe, share identical problems (lack of cultural expertise and funding), so potentially this burden can be shared making it less costly and more efficient. An example: a potential step forward was made by creating the EU CULTNET,** in  theory a platform for networking, expertise and knowledge sharing. 

In 2015, the EU Parliament called on Member States to take necessary steps to involve universities, research bodies and cultural institutions in the fight against illicit trade in cultural goods from war areas. Instead of just calling the usual re-active institutions, and in an attempt to really act without delay, a task force including cultural experts with proven track records and strong networks is highly advisable. Such an entity can be created at short notice to provide expert advice for all stakeholders. Simultaneously Europe should start coordination, research and education regarding CPP and the implementation of (legal) instruments to safeguard cultural property.  Currently the  United   States  do more  than  Europe,  and unfortunately there is little cooperation with them on this topic; maybe this will change when Europe follows in taking responsibility for CPP in the context of conflicts.

The Mediterranean Region

Cultural heritage can suffer from multiple types of damage and offences related to conflict. Typical examples include collateral damage, vandalism, encroachment as part of development, iconoclasm and looting. In Libya and Syria all these phenomena occur simultaneously; Syria is already seriously affected and Libyan heritage is, for the most part, still under threat. 

Moreover, we should consider that, according to several sources, substantial numbers of artefacts looted and smuggled out of the Mediterranean region are likely hidden in secret depots. These will enter the market in the future. As the NY Times put it: "Long-established smuggling organizations are practiced in getting the goods to people willing to pay for them, and patient enough to stash ancient artifacts in warehouses until scrutiny dies down. ***

Some Case Examples

Syria

Many important sites, libraries, archives, churches and mosques in Syria were destroyed in 2015. All warring parties are guilty of devastation and illicit trade, but  IS  drew  the  most  attention. We all remember images of temples and graves in Palmyra being blown up by IS, not to mention the execution of Palmyrian archaeologist Khaled  al-Asaad in August 2015.

In Syria, we see the return of iconoclasm driven and legitimized as an excuse for eliminating perceptions of  heresy  as well  as the  'recycling' of antique monuments  originally  built  for defense, like Krak de Chevaliers, Palmyra's Fakhr-al-Din al-Ma'ani Castle or the destroyed Temple of Bel. Iconoclasm is not only directed at immovable heritage but also at written heritage making manuscripts and books equally at risk. 

The majority of today's warring parties are guilty of destruction intentionally or by accident while disregarding cultural  property's protected status under (inter)national laws. The increase in looting and illicit traffic of cultural property, the revenues from which are used to finance conflicts, implies that CPP can be a military incentive (force multiplier) denying the enemy the means to prolong a conflict. 

CPP should therefore be part of military operational planning processes (OPP). NATO could play a role in this, helped by cultural experts, by supplying CPP doctrine planning models to Member States. The ICC should investigate possibilities of prosecuting cultural war crimes in Syria through international criminal law and certain treaties that give the ICC jurisdiction in Libya. Cultural expertise is needed for organizations like the ICC and, therefore, funding has to be in place.

Libya

Present-day Libya is divided in two parts controlled by two rival 'governments ': in Tripoli and (recognized internationally) Tobruk. Negotiations are taking place under supervision of the United Nations to unite the country again. The latest news is the announcement of a new government of national accord temporarily based in Tunis. The Department  of Antiquities  in Tripoli is still active (January 2016) and has made urgent demands for international help in order to assess the nature  of the  threats  against  Libyan heritage in situ and to find simple and cheap solutions. 

Libya has five UNESCO World Heritage sites: the ancient Greek archaeological sites of Cyrene; the Roman ruins of Leptis Magna; the Phoenician port of Sabratha; the  rock-art  sites  of  the  Acacus Mountains in the Sahara Desert; and old Ghadamès, an oasis city. 

Sites like Leptis Magna are out in the open and exposed to all kinds of threats, especially theft and urban encroachment. The Benghazi area suffers from a lack of security, and Cyrene is not only threatened by looting, but  also by (illegal) commercial developments destroying precious heritage. 

At the end of 2015, pro-ISIL militants took temporary control of part of the town of Sabratha to free members seized by a rival militia. Libya's anti- government Islamic militants have aligned with IS and are active in the surrounding areas of Sabratha, which people fear will fall victim to iconoclasm and looting. 

Iconoclastic attacks have already taken place against Sufi tombs and mosques, amongst others, in Tripoli. Several international structures and organizations exist that could and should deal with CPP in Libya but they are not doing so (effectively) because they are (or feel) restricted often by their own governments, due to possible political implications.

Conclusions

Cultural heritage abuse and destruction are rampant. Old phenomena like iconoclasm are back in strength. Iconoclasm arose in Europe in the iconoclastic rage of 1566 in which the Calvinists destroyed statues in Catholic churches and monasteries. Apart from being driven by religious motives, the destruction of antiquities and cultural objects of heritage in the Mediterranean region seems to be used as a modern form of psychological warfare. Attacks on cultural heritage also show elements of cultural genocide and, as acknowledged by the United Nations, war crimes or even crimes against humanity.

Monuments and cultural objects stand for the identity of groups and individuals. lf you want to hurt a society or a nation at its heart or erase their existence from historical memory, then their cultural heritage is a grateful prey. The main concern is that there is presently no operational protection system being implemented based on international cooperation and coordination. Legal obligations and sanctions are not sufficiently implemented and enforced - for instance, cultural war crimes should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.  

Can we stop the destruction of our shared cultural heritage in the Mediterranean area? 

This is hard to say, but we, especially Europa, should now, more than ever, resist the dismantling of our shared identity and become pro­ active.

--Mr. Kila will be speaking at the Saint Petersburg Institute of Oriental Manuscripts Conference: "Facing the Chaos. Tangible and Intangible Heritage Protection in the XXI century" on May 19, 2016.

Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi at his first appearance hearing at the International Criminal Court in The Hague ©ICC-CPI

Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, the alleged Islamic radical charged with involvement in the 2012 destruction of historic mausoleums and a mosque in Timbuktu made his first appearance before the single Judge of Pre-Trial Chamber I, Cuno Tarfusser, of the International Criminal Court at the seat of the ICC in The Hague (The Netherlands).  This appearance comes after an arrest warrant was issued for his arrest and transfer to the ICC on Sept. 18, 2015. A copy of the arrest warrant, ICC-01/12-01/15 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi can be read in French here.

Yesterday’s hearing was held in the presence of the Prosecutor and the Defence Duty Counsel, Mohamed Aouini. The Single Judge verified the identity of the suspect, Mr. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, and ensured that he was clearly informed of the charges brought against him and of his rights under the Rome Statute of the ICC to be communicated with in a language he fully understands.

Dressed in a suit and tie, Al Faqi Al Mahdi confirmed his identity and replied to Judge Cuno Tarfusser that he preferred to be spoken to in Arabic. In answering to the court, the suspect stated he was ethnic Tuareg, born approximately 40 years ago in Agoune, 100 km west of Timbuktu.   He indicated that he was a "graduate of the teachers' institute in Timbuktu and and a civil servant in education in the Malian government beginning 2011.

At this point in the hearing process, Al Faqi Al Mahdi was not required to enter a plea.  He he made no comment on the current charges against him. 

Mr. Al Faqi Al Mahdi’s trial marks a watershed moment in heritage crime prosecution as it represents the first case of its kind to be brought before the ICC concerning the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion and historical monuments.  Until recently the court, has focused its cases on attacks against individuals.  

Judge Tarfusser has set a date for the confirmation of charges hearing in respect to Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi for 18 January 2016.

The full proceedings of the hearing can be viewed below.