Presentation Transcript

1. Cultural Property in Transitional SocietiesWG3 Safe & Secure Environment

   Major Andrew S. DeJesse
2. References Why is Cultural Property Important Criminality: Art, the Market Place and Cultural Property Legal Instruments, Conventions, Treaties and Laws Conditions and End States Quantitative Cross-Walk: COIN History; Heritage Protection; Stability Applying Cultural Property to MPICE

   Agenda

3. U.S Department of the Army (2005) GTA 41-01-002 Civil Affairs Art, Monuments, and Archives Guide. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. United States Institute of Peace, United States Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute. Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE) A Metrics Framework. Edited by John Agoglia, U.S. Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center & School, U. S. Army. “Rule of Law Handbook, A Practitioner's Guide for Judge Advocates.” Shapiro, Daniel. "Cultural Property and the International Cultural Property Society." International Journal of Cultural Property Y. Gottlieb. (2005). “Shattered Stones, Shattered Societies: Confronting Destruction of Cultural Property in Post-Transitional Societies.” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights John Henry Merryman. 'Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property', American Journal of International Law Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. Edited by ACCP Editorial Board Ron E. Hassner. "Fighting Insurgency on Sacred Ground." The Washington Quarterly 29, no. 2 (2006): 149-166. Manlio Frigo. (2009). “Ethical Rules and Codes of Honor Related to Museum Activities: A Complementary Support to the Private International Law Approach Concerning the Circulation of Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property. "UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibitingand Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property."UNESCO. Molly A. Torsen. (2005) “Fine Art in Dark Corners: Goals and Realities of International Cultural Property Protection.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society Donovan D. Rypkema. (2005) "Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Economic and Social Development" Organization/Conference: European Cultural Heritage Forum. Paul, Christopher. (2011). Counterinsurgency Scorecard, Afghanistan in Early 2011 Relative to the Insurgencies of the Past 30 Years. RAND National Defense Research Institute Fund For Peace. (2013) Failed State Index. http://ffp.statesindex.org/rankings-2013-sortable

   References

4. Why is Cultural Property Important to establishing a Safe and Secure Environment in a Transitional Society? Using Cultural Heritage to create Host Nation ownership Understanding cultural context Fostering ownership Inclusivity Building capacity Formal and informal systems Early use of resources

   SSE & Cultural Property

   *Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction
5. Why is Cultural Property Important to establishing a Safe and Secure Environment in a Transitional Society? Stabilization efforts which address societal core issues require holistic, long-term approaches. Planners should view the protection of cultural property as a tangible opportunity to establish, reinforce and gain the elusive condition of host nation legitimacy. Art expresses the uniqueness of shared experiences, meanings and beliefs. Authoritarian governments have used cultural property as a unifying force. Regimes such as the Nazis and the Soviet Union used heritage for propaganda purposes. Islamic extremist societies uses the precedent of cultural heritage to institute Sharia Law . A society’s usage of cultural heritage may be a way to assess a nation’s stability.

   SSE & Cultural Property

6. Transitional Societies & Criminality: Art, the Market Place and Cultural Property In transitional societies, the rule of law capacity to stop these practices are diminished and become unable to secure and protect cultural property from those who use criminal organizations to feed the legal markets. Transitional societies and failed states suffer greatly from increased criminality and cultural property becomes an all too easy target. Art critic Robert Hughes’s statement, “…Art has been turned into bullion.” In transitional societies, the rule of law capacity to stop these practices are diminished and become unable to secure and protect cultural property from those who use criminal organizations to feed the legal markets. Some authoritarian societies have created a “rule of criminality”. To counter these activities CMO planners must already know existing organizations and understand the rule of law mechanisms available to protect world heritage.

   SSE & Cultural Property

7. Normative Action: Legal Instruments, Conventions, Treaties and Laws for Protection of Cultural Property Examples of Legal frameworks include: The Hague Convention of 1907; The Treaty of Versailles; The Roerich Pact; The Hague Convention and its Protocols; Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims, 1977 Protocols I and II.; The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; Status-of-Forces Agreements; UNESCO signed agreements with individual nations; along with the various international laws, individual nations have internal laws to protect cultural property.

   SSE & Cultural Property

8. Normative Action: Legal Instruments, Conventions, Treaties and Laws for Protection of Cultural Property The international community of culture and heritage offer an already pre-established network of motivated field expects who are willing to act. International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics, Article 6.1 states: “Museums should promote the sharing of knowledge, documentation and collections with museums and cultural organizations in the countries and communities of origin. The possibility of developing partnerships with museums in countries or areas that have lost a significant part of their heritage should be explored.” International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) Convention, article 6.2 (Return of Cultural Property) states the following: “Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.”

   SSE & Cultural Property

9. Normative Action: Legal Instruments, Conventions, Treaties and Laws for Protection of Cultural Property CMO planners should realize the intangible and tangible benefits of protecting cultural property. Achieving these provides an opportunity to gain positive results in strengthening societal cohesion and civic responsibility while also gaining on the tangible and measureable societal and economic effects. Taking the first step of raising societal awareness of the existing cultural property is an act of “unearthing its soul.”- Donovan D. Rypkema. European Cultural Heritage Forum Transitional societies have many deep rooted problems that include economic crisis, little infrastructure and diminished institutional capacity.

   SSE & Cultural Property

10. Protecting Cultural Property - Conditions and End States for a Stable Society Safe and Secure Environment efforts must attain the condition of protection for its key historical and cultural sites and critical infrastructure. Stable Governance conditions include the stewardship of state resources, civic participation and empowerment and civil society development. Sustainable Economy includes control over the illicit economy and economic-based threats to peace and control over illicit economic activity. Reduce criminality! Conditions for Rule of Law are: just legal frameworks; public order; accountability; access to justice; culture of lawfulness.

    SSE & Cultural Property

    *Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction
11. Quantitative Cross-Walk: COIN History; Heritage Protection; Stability

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Counter Insurgency Scorecard - 1978-2008 UNESCO Members and Heritage Sites Failed State Index
12. Counter Insurgency Scorecard - 1978-2008 Losses Afghanistan (post-Soviet) 1992–1996 Somalia 1980–1991 Chechnya I 1994–1996 Rwanda 1990–1994 Zaire (anti-Mobutu) 1996–1997 Nicaragua (Somoza) 1978–1979 Sudan (SPLA) 1984–2004 Kosovo 1996–1999 Afghanistan (anti-Soviet) 1978–1992 Papua New Guinea 1988–1998 Burundi 1993–2003 Bosnia 1992–1995 Moldova 1990–1992 Georgia/Abkhazia 1992–1994 Liberia 1989–1997 Afghanistan (Taliban) 1996–2001 Nagorno-Karabakh 1992–1994 DR Congo (anti-Kabila) 1998–2003 Tajikistan 1992–1997 Kampuchea 1978–1992 Nepal 1997–2006 Nicaragua (Contras) 1981–1990

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Wins Croatia 1992–1995 Turkey (PKK) 1984–1999 Uganda (ADF) 1986–2000 Algeria (GIA) 1992–2004 El Salvador 1979–1992 Peru 1980–1992 Senegal 1982–2002 Sierra Leone 1991–2002 Paul, Christopher. (2011). Counterinsurgency Scorecard, Afghanistan in Early 2011 Relative to the Insurgencies of the Past 30 Years. RAND National Defense Research Institute
13. Cultural Heritage Scorecard - 1978-2008 Losses # of World Heritage Sites Sites- Before/During /After Conflict Counter Insurgencies Since 1978-2008 UNESCO Member

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Afghanistan (post-Soviet) 1992–1996 Somalia 1980–1991 Chechnya I 1994–1996 Rwanda 1990–1994 Zaire (anti-Mobutu) 1996–1997 Nicaragua (Somoza) 1978–1979 Sudan (SPLA) 1984–2004 Kosovo 1996–1999 Afghanistan (anti-Soviet) 1978–1992 Papua New Guinea 1988–1998 Burundi 1993–2003 Bosnia 1992–1995 Moldova 1990–1992 Georgia/Abkhazia 1992–1994 Liberia 1989–1997 Afghanistan (Taliban) 1996–2001 Nagorno-Karabakh 1992–1994 DR Congo (anti-Kabila) 1998–2003 Tajikistan 1992–1997 Kampuchea 1978–1992 Nepal 1997–2006 Nicaragua (Contras) 1981–1990 - 0 n/a 0 n/a - n/a n/a - 1 0 2 1 3 0 2 n/a 5 2 n/a 4 2 After After n/a After n/a After n/a n/a After After n/a After After After n/a After n/a After After n/a Before After YES YES n/a YES YES YES NO n/a YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES n/a YES YES NO YES YES (7 tentative) (8 tentative) (2 tentative) (16 tentative) (4 tentative) (3 tentative) (16 tentative) (15 tentative) (5 tentative) * * * Totals: 22/30 Loss 17/22 22 18 % Before Conflict (all Nepal) 0% During Conflict 82% After Conflict * Countries w/ high ratio between actual and tentative heritage site
14. Cultural Heritage Scorecard - 1978-2008 Wins # of World Heritage Sites Sites- Before/ During/After Conflict

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Counter Insurgencies Since 1978-2008 UNESCO Member Croatia 1992–1995 Turkey (PKK) 1984–1999 Uganda (ADF) 1986–2000 Algeria (GIA) 1992–2004 El Salvador 1979–1992 Peru 1980–1992 Senegal 1982–2002 Sierra Leone 1991–2002 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 7 11 3 7 1 11 7 0 (17 tentative) (41 tentative) (5 tentative) (6 tentative) (6 tentative) (8 tentative) (8 tentative) (6 tentative) During/After After During/After Before After During/After Before/During/After n/a * 20 % Before Conflict 50 % During Conflict 63% After Conflict Totals: 8/30 Win 8/8 47 * Countries w/ high ratio between actual and tentative heritage site
15. Cultural Heritage Scorecard - 1978-2008 Statistics OWNERSHIP CAPACITY

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Countries w/ Heritage Sites Prior to Conflict Countries w/ Heritage Partnerships Prior to Conflict # of World Heritage Sites % of Total Heritage Sites % of Heritage Partnerships- 2014 Counter Insurgencies W/L % Loss 22/30 Win 8/30 74% 26% 22 47 32% 68% 1/22 2/8 12/22 8/8 77% 100%
16. Cultural Heritage Partnership & The FFP Failed State Index PARTNERSHIP OWNERSHIP STABILITY Counter Insurgencies Since 1978-2008 UNESCO Member # of World Heritage Sites Failed State Index - 2013 Trend Afghanistan (post-Soviet) 1992–1996 Somalia 1980–1991 Chechnya I 1994–1996 Rwanda 1990–1994 Zaire (anti-Mobutu) 1996–1997 Nicaragua (Somoza) 1978–1979 Sudan (SPLA) 1984–2004 Kosovo 1996–1999 Afghanistan (anti-Soviet) 1978–1992 Papua New Guinea 1988–1998 Burundi 1993–2003 Bosnia 1992–1995 Moldova 1990–1992 Georgia/Abkhazia 1992–1994 Liberia 1989–1997 Afghanistan (Taliban) 1996–2001 Nagorno-Karabakh 1992–1994 DR Congo (anti-Kabila) 1998–2003 Tajikistan 1992–1997 Kampuchea 1978–1992 Nepal 1997–2006 Nicaragua (Contras) 1981–1990 YES YES n/a YES YES YES NO n/a YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES n/a YES YES NO YES YES 7th 1st n/a 38th 2nd 72nd 3rd n/a 7th 53rd 20th 83rd 83rd 55th 23rd 7th n/a 2nd 51st 41st 30th 72nd - 0 n/a 0 n/a - n/a n/a - 1 0 2 1 3 0 2 n/a 5 2 n/a 4 2 =

    SSE & Cultural Property

    = * * * Croatia 1992–1995 Turkey (PKK) 1984–1999 Uganda (ADF) 1986–2000 Algeria (GIA) 1992–2004 El Salvador 1979–1992 Peru 1980–1992 Senegal 1982–2002 Sierra Leone 1991–2002 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 7 11 3 7 1 11 7 0 135th 86th 22nd 73rd 95th 103rd 64th 33rd * = * Countries w/ high ratio between actual and tentative heritage site
17. 30 Years of COIN- Cultural Heritage Scorecard Take-Aways Host Nation Ownership of Heritage Fostered Government Legitimacy COIN winners had 68% of the total heritage sites There was a 74% loss rate of COIN 1978-2008 The 74% only have 32% on the UNESCO heritage sites Only one nation out of 22 nations which lost in COIN had heritage sites prior to conflict Partnership 100% COIN winners were UNESCO members prior to conflict Only 54% of COIN losers were UNESCO members prior to conflict Early Use of Resources 20% COIN winners had heritage sites declared prior to conflict 50% COIN winners had heritage sites declared during conflict Fostering Ownership Nations who work with UNESCO established capacity to protect its own heritage UNESCO members who fail to establish heritage sites have a poor rating on the FFP Failed State Index Building Capacity Nations that are partnering with heritage IOs received overall better rating on the FFP Failed State Index

    SSE & Cultural Property

18. What are the determinants (and detriments) to Safe and Secure Environments? Using Cultural Property as a Metric to Measure Transitional Society’s Capacity Stability operations planners require a system of metrics for implementing strategy. Planners must understand what to do, how to do it and how to measure the effectiveness of the operations. A baseline should to be established for measuring progress towards stability and sustainable peace. U.S. Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute has developed a framework base on establishing a goals; indicators of stability, a measures, methodology (examples include: content analysis; quantitative date; survey/polling data; expert knowledge) and a preferable trends towards directed goals.

    SSE & Cultural Property

19. Using Cultural Property as a Metric to Measure Transitional Society’s Capacity Applying Cultural Property to Measuring Progress In Conflict Environments (MPICE)

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Indicator Measure Methodology Preferred Trend QD QD CA, QD, EK, S/PD QD, EK, S/PD CA, QD, EK EK, S/PD S/PD + + d + d d - Number of people visiting museums & heritage sites Number of museums & heritage sites Proportional amount of religious, ethnic cultural sites & events Proportional participation of different religious & ethnic groups Amount of cultural heritage TV & radio programs Proportional amount of religious, ethnic cultural programs Perceived bias against specific cultural groups Does the local populace access cultural heritage sites & institutions? Is there Cultural heritage access and promotion through media venues?
20. Using Cultural Property as a Metric to Measure Transitional Society’s Capacity Applying Cultural Property to Measuring Progress In Conflict Environments (MPICE)

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Indicator Measure Methodology Preferred Trend Number of signed agreements with international community. Level of partnership with IOs, cultural organizations and institutions. Number of training and knowledge sharing programs. Comprehensive shared databases of cultural objects HN statistics on the number of thefts of cultural property IO statistics on the number of reported thefts of cultural property Number of recovered cultural property items QD CA,EK QD CA, QD, EK CA, QD, EK CA, QD, EK QD + d + d - - + Does the HN and local cultural institutions participate with international treaties and conventions? Are legal frameworks enforced ?
21. Using Cultural Property as a Metric to Measure Transitional Society’s Capacity Applying Cultural Property to Measuring Progress In Conflict Environments (MPICE)

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Indicator Measure Methodology Preferred Trend Number of identified criminal organizations Number of prosecutions of crimes against cultural property theft Number of prosecutions of crimes against cultural property destruction Capacity of local criminal networks to sell cultural property outside the HN Availability of cultural heritage databases to the populace Proportional amount of religious, ethnic cultural educational programs Equal access to all cultural heritage sites EK, QD CA, QD CA, QD EK CA, QD, EK, S/PD S/PD S/PD - d d - d + + Is there organized criminality involvement in the illicit trade of cultural property? Does the populace perceive the HN government as transparent?
22. Using Cultural Property as a Metric to Measure Transitional Society’s Capacity Applying Cultural Property to Measuring Progress In Conflict Environments (MPICE)

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Indicator Measure Methodology Preferred Trend Enforced laws against the theft or destruction of cultural property Level of security for cultural property & sites Populace’s perception of amount of cultural property removed to outside HN borders Number of incidents of damaging of cultural property by populace Number of incidents of destruction of cultural property by populace Number of prosecutions of crimes against cultural property destruction Appropriate and proportional level of prosecutions across ethnic and religious groups EK EK, S/PD S/PD QD QD QD, EK QD, EK, S/PD + + - d + d d Is the HN government a protector/steward of all cultural property? Do ethnic or religious groups cause damage or destruction to cultural property of opposing groups?
23. Using Cultural Property as a Metric to Measure Transitional Society’s Capacity Applying Cultural Property to Measuring Progress In Conflict Environments (MPICE)

    SSE & Cultural Property

    Indicator Measure Methodology Preferred Trend Number of disputes Between which groups Non-bias HN government involvement in dispute resolution Number of people who visit national heritage sites Number of national heritage sites Level of cultural/heritage education provided to youth Cross cultural/heritage education provided to youth Number of populace who visit cultural sites outside of their cultural & ethnic backgrounds QD EK EK, S/PD QD QD EK, S/PD EK, S/PD QD - d d + + d d + Are the heritage sites currently under dispute between opposing ethnic or religious groups? Do all ethnic and religious groups value the entirety of their national/cultural heritage?
24. How is a Safe and Secure Environment related to other necessary aspects of recovering from human and/or natural disasters?  Protecting Cultural Property- It is Not an Art Thing, It is a Stability Thing Stabilization operations does not solely act to protect property for the sake of art preservation. CMO planners should view the protection of cultural property as a driver of stability. Creating a Safe and Secure Environment: Ways: Build capacity to protect cultural property Means: Partnerships & legal frameworks supported by HNs, IOs, NGOs, IPIs, etc. Ends: Safe and Secure Environment … Strengthened HN government legitimacy HN ownership Population is invested in its society

    SSE & Cultural Property

25. SSE & Cultural Property

    QUESTIONS?