INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION on Military Cultural Property Protection AIA San Antonio 2011 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION on Military Cultural Property Protection IMCURWG International Military Cultural Resources Working Group Joris Kila Chair IMCURWG, University of Amsterdam, NLD MoD

What are the restraints and challenges to have this implemented? Joris Kila © Key questions and subjects Why is it relevant for military organisations to Protect Cultural Property during operations? What are the restraints and challenges to have this implemented? The relationship between Cultural resources and Natural resources Legal Drivers Distinction, Identity and manipulation Training the military Ethical considerations and disputes What deliverables and incentives does CPP generates for the military? How to embed CPP capabilities in the military organization? Are CIMIC and CA suitable for CPP capabilities?

Joris Kila © Cultural Relics not easy to recognize status of cultural heritage can shift in time and history

Cultural Property Protection CPP Cultural Awareness CA Cultural Property Protection CPP Joris Kila © = Mandatory under international treaties including Hague Convention, NATO STANAG 7141 EP, purple , force multiplier, asset to win hearts & minds, fits in the comprehensive approach, economical asset (tourism) , intel (illicit traffic of artifacts) can generate positive or negative PR, cultural diplomacy = Relates to CPP, useful but no juridical obligation Tool to reach the “end state” of a mission sooner Can generate negative PR , confusion concerning CPP and Ethical and Moral issues e.g. The discussion on Human Terrain System Teams

Why is CP relevant for the military? © Joris Kila Why is CP relevant for the military? Cultural Property can be compared to explosives, if not handled with care and by experts damage can be caused as well as problems such as conflicts. It is known to be smuggled and illegally traded profits can be made with it and it is disputed. All characteristics that cultural heritage also possesses.

Manipulation of Cultural Property Entartete Kunst (Nazi Germany)

Intangible Heritage can be a threat too

FACTS Joris Kila © Cultural Property Protection (CPP) and Cultural Awareness are different matters. Sometimes Cultural Awareness is used as an excuse not to deal with CPP. In worst cases Cultural Awareness depts. Take over CPP and compromise the subject. CPP and training on CPP are mandatory under International Law and as a part of EP (environmental planning) during (NATO led) Military activities including Planning (see STANAG 7141EP and US CENTCOM R 200-2). CPP should be implemented in all services of the Armed forces (Purple) This is not only the most effective manner but also mandatory under IHL. CPP is not only in support of a Commander’s mission (e.g. CIMIC) but continuously (according to the Hague Convention of 1954). Proper training on CPP has to be ensured on all levels At this moment the Military in most EU countries are not doing enough Same goes for NATO.

Challenges for implementing Military CPP Cultural differences, conflicts of interest, oppositions between Stakeholders Basic problem with CPP: the blind have to lead the blind - Culture is to a group what personality is to an individual, a disposition that leads people to respond differently to the same stimuli (Wilson 1989) - Distinction, Identity , Status also within the military - Tasks that are not part of the culture will not be attended to with the same energy and resources as tasks that are part of a certain culture (Wilson). There is not enough international cooperation on training & research and implementation of CPP! Joris Kila ©

Cultural Resources or Cultural Heritage? Cultural and Natural resources Natural resources are taken care of by the Military under environmental concerns and issues. NATO STANAG 7141 EP: “Joint NATO Doctrine for Environmental Protection during NATO-led MilitaryActivities”states under b. Identify the characteristics of the environment that may be impacted by or have an impact on NATO led military activities, i.e.: (5) natural and cultural resources c. Identify potential (environmental) impacts caused by military activities, including the impacts of alternatives and contingencies, e.g.: 7) Endangerment of Natural and Cultural Resources. Impacts on natural and cultural (historic and archaeological) resources should be prevented where possible. c. Implementation. The commander should ensure all personnel are trained and aware of environmental issues. Joris Kila ©

Vibrations caused by e.g. helicopter platforms Joris Kila © The connection with environmental issues and institutions is instrumental in order to get CPP embedded within MoD’s Examples of Environmental Aspects related to Cultural Property: Soil pollution: Handling of petrol/oil etc. leakage can contaminate archeological layers Vibrations caused by e.g. helicopter platforms Detonation programs Hesco’s and digging of trenches can disturb stratification thus archaeological contexts

Lessons Learned the use of HESCO’s Joris Kila © An example of (unintended) violation the Hague Convention and how to prevent this: The example described here is a violation to the Hague Convention: Article 3. Safeguarding of cultural property Article 4. Respect for cultural property Article 5.2 Occupation Article 7. Military measures and the Geneva Convention IV articles 33 and 53 The problem is the use of Hesco’s, which are large bags that are filled with sand/ rubble to serve as barriers. for military camps and fortifications. There are cases known that these bags were filled with deposits from archaeological Sites containing pottery sherds, bones etc. The soil in an archaeological site represents all kinds of important data that are only useful when extracted by experts from their original context. For instance earth layers can give information through stratigraphical data e.g. pottery fragments can serve as an important dating tool when found in the original context of the soil. When such deposits are used to fill Hesco’s the context of the site is disturbed and it is very difficult or even impossible to be used for archeological research. Even worse were cases where after a complaint was made about the use of archaeological deposits these deposits were replaced and dumped on another archaeological site thus causing a second disturbing of the context.

Intentional Destruction of Cultural Property CP is available for manipulation CP is often disputed CP has a link with the glorified & idealized past and identity This past is always (re)produced in the present (Bourdieu 2000) Damaging or destruction of CP is attacking the identity of the opponent (Iconoclasm) Looting of artefacts for financial reasons (illicit traffic) There are also economic consequenses e.g. Tourism What kind of identity? Joris Kila ©

Gedächtniskirche Berlin bombed in 1943 Memory, identity Gedächtniskirche Berlin bombed in 1943 Joris Kila ©

The past is always produced in the present (Bourdieu 2000) The present presented as the past (vd Laarse 2008) Sites of Memory, trauma scapes, cultural landscapes Most sites of memory are in fact carefully designed. While landscapes and monuments seem to have a strong tendency to persist, their meanings are constantly shifting, and altered meanings result in changing appearances. Instead of the presence of the past, heritage might therefore better be understood as the present presented as the past. Over the past sixty years, in particular concentration camps have been fundamentally altered by processes of musealisation, adaptation and destinization*. In addition to wipe out the traces, the Nazis have destroyed many camps at the end of the war. Even Auschwitz, Europe’s most ‘sacred’ memory site, has been subjected to intensive policies of preservation, restoration and display. Although still to be found in the original locations, present-day memorial camps have hardly anything in common with the former death camps. What visitors experience are non-places, or heritage in absence. In the Netherlands as well as in Germany, Poland and elsewhere in Europe, war memorials have become highly disputed spaces. This raises fundamental questions about authenticity and identity such as the recent Dutch debate on the ‘Anne Frank tree’. Although authenticity is of crucial importance to verifying the past, many of these trauma scapes have undergone radical alterations as a result of epistemic shifts in the way the holocaust is in the case of war heritage, it will make sites vulnerable to holocaust criticism. Source: Rob van der Laarse University of Amsterdam *Destinization: to force events of destiny to come into terms with your visual reality. Joris Kila ©

What if there is only virtual heritage left? Pyramid and Sphinx Las Vegas Pyramid of Khafra and Sphinx Giza Plateau Egypt Joris Kila ©

The role of CIMIC/Civil Affairs There are basic differences between CIMIC and CA CPP (Cultural Affairs in CIMIC) and the NATO directive that activities have to be in support of a COM’s mission. Is IHL prevailing or military law? CIMIC not purple embedded Different approaches towards CIMIC cultural affairs Example Poland The link with COIN and the legal and ethical consequences

Joris Kila © The need for military deliverables or incentives, some examples from the European context: - CPP can contribute to the Dutch constitutional rule of supporting the development of the international rule of law. - CPP is positive for the imago of the Netherlands both nationally as well as internationally. An active policy shows that the Netherlands tends to meet obligations deriving from treaties and legislation. - CPP strengthens so called hearts-and-minds campaigns within the context of the Comprehensive Approach/DDD because it demonstrates to the local population that the Netherlands respects its CP. - CPP can stimulate and speed up a transition to stabilization since the local population experiences that the foreign military respect their heritage and culture following this the end-state of a mission can be reached quicker. - CPP can strengthen the support within the Dutch society for military (foreign) missions. - CPP contributes to Force Acceptance en Force Protection. When a local population supports CPP initiatives it serves as a Force Multiplier. A capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment - CPP can disturb the illicit antiquities market , as a consequence a possible source of funding from the OMF will be reduced. - Education on and operational implementation of CPP can be an important contribution to mission related training programs.

Insights concerning CPP in relation to Military operations Joris Kila © CPP expertise developed by The Allies during the Second World War has been allowed to disappear; CPP has been forced back onto political and military agendas because of the (still continuing) catastrophic theft and looting of CP in Iraq since 2003, but that there had been numerous examples of such activity since the Second World War (e.g., former Yugoslavia, Iraq in 1999); CPP is a military ‘force multiplier’* and should never be regarded as an unnecessary burden, legally imposed, but militarily problematic and useless; Military success can no longer be defined in terms of battlefield victory but had to take into account the post-conflict political, social, and economic stability of countries involved (the ‘Comprehensive Approach’); CPP is linked to the issue of general ‘cultural awareness’ but it is actually a separate issue with particular concerns that requires specialised skills different to those for general cultural awareness; CPP is critical to the Comprehensive Approach and to the post-conflict long-term political, social, and economic (through tourism) stability of many countries *A capability that, when added to and employed by a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment Thanks for contributions from Peter Stone (UK)

Training in Situ CCHAG & IMCURWG Joris Kila © Training in Situ CCHAG & IMCURWG Training for planners, higher officers, DEFATS, policymakers etc. Training near an actual monument or archaeological site. Plans for training in Jordan (Petra and Uhm Quais) Egypt (Djoser Step Pyramid) Stone Henge, Former Yugoslave Rep. Of Macedonia.

The principle of Military necessity “We are bound to respect monuments as far as war allows. If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our men, then our men’s lives count infinitely more and the buildings must go. But the choice is not always so 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 but the phrase is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military- or even personal convenience”. General Eisenhower, December 29th 1943 Hague Convention 1954 Article 11 – 2 states that immunity as granted to cultural property according to Chapter II article 8 can be lifted in case of “exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity’’ This necessity can only be established by a commander of a force the equivalent of a division in size or larger’’ ‘’This can only be judged if this Com gets expert advise on CPP’’

International Military Cultural Resources Working Group (IMCURWG) IMCURWG comprises cultural heritage professionals working in the military context in order to: -Enhance military capacity to implement cultural property protection across the full range of operations -Provide a forum for international co-operation and networking for those working within the military context -Identify areas of common interest -Share best practice and lessons learnt -Raise awareness and publicise military commitment to the protection of cultural property and cultural heritage both tangible and intangible -IMCURWG will work within the context of the Hague Convention. -Develop a web-site that will explain the role of IMCURWG and provide a vehicle for hosting training materials and other information as it is developed -Develop and test on-site training modules and programmes for senior leadership in the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan in co-op with CCHAG). -Develop GIS data-bases of immovable cultural heritage -Produce publications (e.g. Archaelogy CP and the Military Rush) -Develop and test appropriate training modules, programmes, and curricula for different levels of the military regarding cultural property protection -Establish a network of ‘reach-back’ expertise to support deployed forces -Develop capacity to provide expert assessment of sites to be developed by deployed forces in-theatre -Collect and share data for the GIS data-bases of immovable cultural heritage for the purpose of supporting military environmental planning -Support efforts to establish an international military and civilian rapid reaction team for CPP Joris Kila ©

IMCRWG and NATO Legal driver STANAG 7141 EP This doctrine mentions cultural resources within the Environmental Planning for NATO led operations. There is a connection between natural and cultural resources. These resources can be impacted by military operations. Impact can be diminished or avoided trough planning, assessments and training. * Teaching CPP at the NATO School in Oberammergau Germany at the Environmental Planning Course 1st time October 2009. Level of participants: planners, subject matter experts both civilian personell as wel as higher officers from different NATO member states. This year courses in May and October. * Presentation at NATO HQ Brussels about CPP during the official meeting of the NATO Environmental Working Group Aims: more training on officer levels general courses Joris Kila ©

Playing Cards CPP Joris Kila ©

Conclusions Joris Kila © CPP is a military ‘force multiplier’ and generates Force Acceptance CPP touches upon the issue of general ‘cultural awareness’ but is actually a separate issue with particular concerns that required specialized, preferably art historical and archaeological skills. Human Terrains and counterinsurgency (tribal advisors) are separate issues. The military should be ordered by the political level to implement CPP CPP is not an area for gold diggers and bureaucratic, risk avoiding personnel Pro-active and visionary strategies are necessary in this phase accompanied by scientific research. Research is multidisciplinary but implementation should be limited to archaeologists, art historians and legal experts International Cooperation is conditional CPP officers should be embedded in the MoD’s, DoD’s