AN UNCEREMONIOUS EXIT

The recent US withdrawal from Unesco, stemming from the allegedly contentious inscription of the Palestinian World Heritage Site of Hebron, comes as no surprise. As Prof. Lynn Meskell, a prominent researcher at Stanford University, points out, “Unesco and the US have had a contentious history, often mired in conspiracy, politics and isolation.”

In the latest controversy, the US has echoed Israel’s stand that the inscription of Hebron as a Palestinian site effaces its Jewish character. Unesco’s ‘extreme politicisation has become a chronic embarrassment’, said Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN.

Yet, the decision to inscribe Hebron was taken by the 21-elected-member World Heritage Committee of 195 member-states and reflects the views of nations across the world. Clearly, increased membership is making UN bodies more transparent and democratic. Representing India in the World Heritage Committee from 2012-15, I witnessed the Palestinian inscriptions in 2012 and 2014 and noticed the impact of such a decision on Unesco’s secretariat, leading to substantial manpower reduction and crisis in the World Heritage Fund, since the US, which till then covered a fifth of Unesco expenditure, suspended payments. Other member-states, including India, came forth supporting Unesco with voluntary funds in specific years, besides paying their own annual dues. So, does Unesco need US funds or has it learned to survive? Given America’s recent bids for World Heritage status, it may be more of a loss to the US than to Unesco, as the departing DG, Irina Bokova, remarked.

Despite the standing debt of $550 million it owes Unesco, the US continues to inscribe sites on its World Heritage List and reap the benefits of this status. The US has 23 sites on the World Heritage List, the last of which was inscribed in 2015 and an additional 20 sites on the Tentative List for future nomination (10 in 2017); Israel has 9, the last inscribed in 2015 and 18 on the Tentative List. Palestine has three sites, inscribed in 2012, 2014 and 2017 with 13 on the Tentative List. Is this an ‘anti-Israel position’, as stated in the US state department letter to the DG, Unesco, or is it just simply an attempt to allow Palestine a ‘status of equality’ as outlined in Unesco’s role? The US has inscribed sites since 2011 without paying any dues. It must be regretting that it did not file any nomination in 2017, and has lost the chance of another unpaid inscription in June 2018 before it becomes a non-member observer effective December 31, 2018. This status will impact the 20 tentative nominations in the country.

The US action is unfortunate as it indicates a political agenda and financial limitations rather than issues with Unesco processes. It is not supported by public and private cultural institutions in the US that still aspire to maintain association with and recognition by Unesco. Stakeholders of existing world heritage sites such as San Antonio and leading cultural bodies including the Met Museum and the J. Paul Getty Trust have expressed their concerns publicly.

During its last term as a committee member, India played a critical role in revising several Unesco procedures besides achieving successful inscriptions, including transnational ones like Chandigarh in the collaborative spirit of the UN convention. It is critical that India continues to pursue such goals when Unesco is equally guided by the needs of Asia, the Arab States, Latin America and African regions after the historic dominance of Europe and North America. India should move more proactively on its Indian Ocean transnational nominations under Project Mausam launched in 2014, taking account of China’s active promotion of the Maritime Silk Route. With 36 world heritage sites and 42 on the tentative list, India is sixth, compared with Italy and China at the top, with 50-plus sites each. This December, ICOMOS, the international advisory body to Unesco, is holding its general assembly at New Delhi. The event will see 1,500-plus delegates, including the Director, World Heritage Centre Unesco, IUCN, ICCROM and even a big international delegation of US ICOMOS, culture experts from the Getty Institute, University of Central Florida etc. So, as the US exits this great international institution, India prepares for a great opportunity to network!

Does Unesco need US funds? Given its recent bids for World Heritage status, it may be more of a loss to the US than to Unesco