What I got from this week readings is that UNESCO from the day one of its existence was full of confusion. Firstly, there was a lot of misunderstanding in terminology, for example, “RACE”. It took a while to decide and come up with an appropriate definition; is it biological, philosophical or social? Another thing I am interested in finding out what Nations are the part of the UN is it more powerful egalitarian nations of the West and Europe who are in fact coming up and dictating the rules to the rest of the world.
When it comes to Afghanistan the strategy of saving historical monuments, art etc. begins by nation-building process WHITHIN the framework of the UN. This is very interesting fact to note that while they are helping to protect or restore historical artefacts the UN uses its own framework on building nation identity of Afghanistan. UN is coordinating all the activities in the field of culture. Even though the effective cooperation is emphasized I do not see it being true in the country that had no right of voice in the modern world. How can that be acceptable in the era of human rights? Do people decide for themselves how to exist or they let more powerful to decide for them? Especially after the Bamyian Buddhas incident a lot attention has been directed in investing in cultural heritage of Afghanistan. My question is why people are spending so much money to support the sites at Afghanistan? Can it be because of the desire to be able to say more confidently that it is in fact the WORLD and INTERNATIONAL heritage site, and not just of Afghanis?
Since UN considers deliberate destruction of historical and cultural artefacts as moral degradation and crime against culture they consider such acts as direct attack against UNESCO and international community. Therefore, since it is considered to be crime the action should be taken. Once again, there is more confusion. It seems that Afghanistan is being exception to too many rules. I am, for example, did not even know about existence of certain rules during war times. First, it says that all the artefacts religious, historical, cultural etc. should be preserved during times of international war. But war in Afghanistan was not an international war. Then here is a rule that can be applied to a civil war. But it wasn’t a civil war since 90% of the population chose Taliban as a government….hmmm it doesn’t matter rules still apply and it is still crime against humanity. That made me think about the incident in Baghdad when the National Museum of Iraq was attacked and the American soldiers were standing across from it and watched looters plunder the Worlds treasures.
So who does it belong to? It seems to me that when no one cares about the object it is the people of the region who are responsible for its preservation, but when something like Bamyian Buddha incident is happening and the object becomes popular theme for discussion than it starting to belong to the international community.
