The Role of Heritage in Post-War Reconciliation: Going Beyond World Heritage Sites

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that reconciliation and sustainable development are processes that necessitate involvement from local, national and international actors. However, with the attention of international actors overwhelmingly focused on World Heritage sites, this chapter seeks to examine the potential consequences of the disparity in treatment between those sites on the World Heritage List and those that are not but are still significant for their local communities. Kosovo and Iraq are the two cases we use to explore the role, use and treatment of heritage in post-war recovery and reconciliation and how this is affected by World Heritage status. Through an examination of heritage as a political process, we can approach a more in-depth understanding of how heritage shapes and reshapes the politics of post-war memory, inter-community relations, and the extent to which the international community uses World Heritage in these communities to mandate their own politics of remembrance. We argue that heritage can have a “pacifying” role and contribute to peacebuilding, but this will need active, transformative actions from UNESCO which go beyond the Convention and, if possible, beyond politically influenced decision-making. This chapter seeks to fill a gap in the literature of how the local, national and international interact in the post-war environment, as well as the true impact of potential inequalities created by World Heritage.

1 Introduction

One of the opening observations of the 1972 UNESCO Convention is that heritage is “increasingly threatened with destruction” (UNESCO, 1972), and nowhere is this clearer than in war. Increasingly, heritage has been seen as an essential “tool” of post-war recovery and reconciliation, particularly in aiding the achievement of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Some have gone further and suggested that World Heritage status itself is an enabler of post-war redevelopment (Kalman, 2017; Saldin & Forbes, 2018; Alsalloum & Brown, 2019; Alsalloum, 2019).

The World Heritage Convention has contributed significantly to the protection of heritage sites. The recognition of values at the universal level has sublimated the understanding of heritage from a common point of view in order to build a sense of shared responsibility and respect. However, war provides a particularly challenging context for heritage as it is often the target of destruction, which indicates the political nature of heritage. Whilst heritage, and UNESCO, have been seen by researchers and practitioners alike as central to the reestablishment of societies that have undergone conflict and destruction, few have moved beyond such theories to examine what this could look like on the ground. What role can UNESCO play in post-conflict reconciliation? How can the achievements of the Convention be built on to enable sustainable redevelopment in such vulnerable and damaged societies?

To begin a conversation around these questions, this chapter undertakes a comparison of two very different post-conflict societies which have interactions with UNESCO. The first is in Kosovo, where there are four World Heritage sites. The second is Mosul, Iraq, where there is the “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” project but no World Heritage sites. Through such comparison, we assess which has the greatest potential to enable more effective post-conflict reconciliation, as well as observing potential negative consequences, and ultimately what role UNESCO can have in this process, particularly in contributing to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. One of our core arguments is that guidance on how to capture and deal with the socio-political, local dynamics will be particularly useful for future stakeholders working on post-war reconstruction through heritage.

This analysis is conducted in light of ongoing academic discourses on the UNESCO conventions, with particular focus on the World Heritage Convention and its future implications discussing sustainable conservation, responsibility and reconciliation in the efforts for building peace in post-war/post-conflict societies as “a permanent ideal and aspiration, as well as a right and a duty, and a foundation for sustainable development” (UNESCO, 2013).

2 UNESCO, World Heritage Status and the Post-War Context

There are three issues for post-conflict societies trying to demonstrate OUV. The first is the obvious difficulty in selecting which criteria are relevant. The second is the cost (in time and money) of the nomination process. The third is the potential lack of political or economic influence that such societies have over the World Heritage selection process. In cases of the destruction and reconstruction of heritage, a fate often witnessed in conflict, sites also struggle to demonstrate other requirements such as integrity, authenticity, adequate buffer zone, protection and management places. These additional requirements have, aside from the context of post-conflict societies, been the subject of decades-long debate by scholars and practitioners, with alternative, more inclusive requirements being suggested, such as “continuity” (Khalaf, 2018).

This state of affairs surrounding World Heritage status causes several issues and impediments to the achievement of reconciliation. The biggest danger is that it will ultimately lead to a two-tier system of heritage internationally, in which World Heritage status with all its economic benefits will only be achieved by those who are politically influential and capable of meeting (what are considered ill-defined and unscientific) criteria and affording the costs of nomination. The heritage of those countries too poor or too unstable to meet these demands will inevitably be left behind, with the risk being that their heritage will be forgotten and neglected. One of the biggest points of contention, then, in the context of post-conflict reconciliation, is what happens if this occurs within the same historic urban environment. Would the World Heritage status of one site negatively affect another site in the same environment? Could this lead to animosity between communities, where one’s heritage is “valued” and the other’s is not?

The issues which lead to conflict are necessarily political. A former UNESCO project leader summarized the potential problem of UNESCO’s policy of neutrality “UNESCO is very much a political organization and less concerned with long-lasting results on the ground. [They] neglect the root causes of the conflict, which, for me, was the most important thing” (anonymous personal communication). Whilst acknowledging the great work done in developing policies more appropriate for post-conflict societies, such as the Historic Urban Landscape Framework, we must now find ways UNESCO can bridge the gap between theory and practice in these societies so they can play a meaningful role in sustainable development and reconciliation, which addresses the roots of conflict.

3 The Role of Heritage in a Post-War Context

There is a call for cultural heritage to be recognized “as a crucial element of the recovery process immediately following the end of an armed conflict, and not be considered a luxury to await attention later” (Stanley-Price, 2007, p. 1). The current literature demonstrates an emerging discourse of what has been identified to be one of the most critical issues of our time by asking “how can heritage contribute to peacebuilding?” as well as the belief that “heritage can provide solutions” (Walters et al., 2017, p. 1).

The use of heritage for reconciliation is a subject of debate in some contexts, especially where reconciliation is still seen “as a challenging and threatening process” because the “genuine reconciliation will mean some compromise, or at least the rehumanisation of old enemies” (Hamber & Kelly, 2005, cited in Vos, 2015, p. 726). The discourse also revolves around the distractive question of whether heritage heals or hurts. Although, as noted by Giblin (2014, p. 515), critical academic views of post-conflict heritage typically cite “a lack or failure of healing”, the author suggests a reconsideration of post-conflict cultural healing with the developmental question of “how” actors symbolically engage and not “whether” they should engage in post-conflict healing heritage.

Post-war recovery is mainly driven by the international community, making the reconstruction and the project itself a complex matter that becomes part of political processes, especially when “there is a rush to reconstruct and excavate abroad” (Plets, 2017, p. 20). These processes confirm or create new identities involving organizations that might have different aims and agendas and have little chance for success if they are imposed on a society by potentially defining new (ideal) landscapes (Legnér, 2018; Higueras, 2013). Moreover, without adequate engagement, there is a risk that the local population and their heritage sites will be exposed to “further waves of violence and iconoclasm” (Isakhan & Meskell, 2019, p. 1193). This is in complete opposition to the intention of post-war reconstruction, which should, among others things, aim for “… creating a peaceful environment that will prevent a relapse into violence” (Barakat, 2007, p, 29)

Moreover, as a historic urban environment is a complex and dynamic system in constant change and transformation (Fouseki & Nicolau, 2018), any effort on the ground for reconstruction and revitalization through heritage requires synergies between stakeholders as well as periodical assessments of value change. UNESCO’s 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape recognizes the complexity of the historic urban system and calls for a socio-spatial approach towards urban heritage conservation. Despite a greater focus on the “material” and “visual” aspects of the historic urban landscape (Fouseki, 2019), the Recommendation is a critical milestone for shifting heritage management from a “freezing in time” approach to integrating the complexity of its values into management frameworks.

4 World Heritage Status and Post-War Kosovo – The Case of the Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša in the Historic Center of Prizren

Four heritage sites of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) in Kosovo were inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as “Medieval Monuments in Kosovo”, with Serbia as a state party, in 2004 and 2006, respectively five and seven years after the war ended. The inscribed sites were Deçan/Dečani Monastery, the Patriarchate of Peja/Peć Monastery, the Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša and the Graçanica/Gračanica Monastery (UNESCO, n.d.). In 2006, the four heritage sites were inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and remain on the list until the present day (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/724/).

A careful look at the State of Conservation reports confirms that the threatening factors have remained literally the same over the 14-year course of reporting (2007–2021) (UNESCO, n.d.). Civil unrest is one of the indicated threats in the annual reports from 2007 up to 2021. According to the Draft Decision: 44 COM 7A.33 (2021), the World Heritage Committee decided to retain the Medieval Monuments in Kosovo on the List of World Heritage in Danger until its 45th session in 2022 (https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/4033).

During this period (2004–2021), the socio-political dynamics (in Kosovo) on the ground changed, which also affected cultural heritage conservation. After the declaration of independence in 2008, 44 heritage sites, mainly orthodox churches and monasteries of the SOC in Kosovo, as well as the historic urban core of Prizren, were granted a legal conservation and protection status through the establishment of (special) protective zones (Hisari & Fouseki, 2020). The zones are also included in strategic documents such as Kosovo’s Spatial Plan 2010–2020+ and National Strategy for Cultural Heritage 2017–2027.

The Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša is located in the Historic Center of Prizren, an urban core where the multi-layered and diverse heritage buildings and sites best illustrate its long history and cultural and religious diversity since ancient times (Management Plan for the Historic Center of Prizren, 2020, pp. 1–8). This long history of diversity represents the spirit of the place today. Evidence for this includes the three main religious heritage buildings in the Historic Center (Sinan Pasha Mosque, Saint George Cathedral of the SOC in Kosovo and Our Lady of Perpetual Succour Catholic Cathedral) that are open and functional for believers and visitors, and the city’s ethnic composition (Agjencia e Statistikave të Kosovës, 2011). The Historic Center of Prizren is a delineated area (Fig. 15.1) protected by a specific law adopted in 2012 (Law No. 04/L-066 on Historic Center of Prizren) (Hisari & Fouseki, 2020). The natural and cultural elements of the historic area are enshrined in the urban fabric, with over 100 cultural monuments (Law No. 04/L-066 on Historic Center of Prizren, Appendix II) creating a distinct urban heritage.

Fig. 15.1

Protective zone of the Historic Center of Prizren with marked cultural heritage buildings under legal protection, including the WHS Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša (north-western side, in red). (Note. Map, by E. Toska, 2017. Source: Management Plan for the Historic City of Prizren (2021–2030), Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, Republic of Kosovo, 2020, p. 22 (WHS Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša, indicated with an arrow by L. Hisari)

It includes the Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša. The Management Plan for the Historic Center of Prizren (2021–2030) has been drafted with the support of the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports and Municipality of Prizren, incorporating provisions of the Law on Historic Center of Prizren (2012).

The UNESCO listed heritage building of the Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša is located on the north-western side of the Historic Center and has a delineated buffer zone for its “effective protection” (UNESCO, n.d.) , according to the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2019, p. 30) (Fig. 15.1). This is a living residential area with traditional houses and other heritage buildings in the vicinity of the Levisha/Ljeviša Church. A road beside the monument serves as a connection to other parts of the city, thus making it an integrated part of the Historic Center and the wider urban area. Current observations indicate that people and vehicles pass the monument on a daily basis. There is a Kosovo Police booth in front of the monument for its safeguarding (Fig. 15.2). More importantly, the Church of Levisha/Ljeviša provides religious services on specific days (TV Klan Opinion, 2020).

Fig. 15.2

Church of the Holy Virgin of Levisha/Ljeviša and the surrounding area. (Note. Image by L. Hisari, 2021)

In reality, the buffer zone of the World Heritage site of the Church of Levisha/Ljeviša now presents a fraction of a wider protective area of the whole historic environment with potential impacts on the effective conservation and management of the site. As a consequence, there might also be socio-political implications in the future. For instance, in the high-level dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, which the European Union (EU) started to facilitate in 2011, as an ongoing political and technical process for the normalization of relations (Strategic Communications EEAS, 2020) cultural heritage is expected to be on the negotiating table. Further alternatives that include “territorial solutions” in Kosovo, such as enclaves, extraterritoriality or dual sovereignty – condominium, are considered as possible options (Surlić & Novaković, 2020). Are these suggestions well-informed by the reality on the ground? How will they impact, for example, a multi-ethnic historic urban environment, such as the Historic Center of Prizren? Will they contribute to inter-community post-war reconciliation and peace or induce further segregation and new rounds of conflict? These are the questions that must be considered and discussed.

5 UNESCO Reconstruction Projects and the Socio-Political Dynamics of Reconciliation: The Case of Revive the Spirit of Mosul

UNESCO’s “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” project in Iraq, whilst contemporary, ongoing and incomplete, represents several issues which have accompanied UNESCO’s similar projects previously. Although the project has the potential to not only reconstruct what has been lost but also “build back better” through the management of change and continuity (Khalaf, 2020), we want to highlight the necessity of a people-centred, if not people-led, approach, the need for continuous dialogue with the local population, and the consequences of neglecting these elements, which can already be seen in the project.

Mosul certainly has international importance; it was here at the al-Nouri mosque in 2014 that the Islamic State declared their Caliphate, and through the destruction of the same mosque three years later that they were declared to be defeated. However, UNESCO’s competition to design the reconstruction of al-Nouri mosque has been met with outrage and upset, including accusations that Iraqis have been almost systematically excluded from the process. The winning Egyptian firm has chosen a modernist, cubist style, along with new changes in purpose that include a mixed-sex school and a public garden. This has been one of the main points of contention, with some saying this design belongs more in the UAE than in the architecturally unique Mosul. Professor Ihsan Fethi has been one of the most outspoken critics. In his open letter, he describes this competition as “un-necessary and flawed… without any real consultation with all members of the”Technical Committee “which was treated more like a formality rather than a real partner in taking important decisions” (Cambridge Heritage Research Centre Bulletin, May 2021, p. 12).

Revive the Spirit of Mosul is concentrated on very few landmark sites, namely, Al-Nouri Mosque and its Al-Hadba Minaret, the Nabi Younis Shrine, Al Saa’a Church and Al Tahera Church. Whilst UNESCO and the EU want to reconstruct houses and schools in the Old City of Mosul and Basra, interviewed heritage professionals who have worked on the project highlighted that focusing overwhelmingly on landmark sites risks obscuring other sites that are important to different communities in Mosul.

The potential risk is that this neglect and prioritization could inadvertently prolong the conflict through heritage management, and, as such, we should reflect not only on the nature of the conflict and its causes but also on how much this is caused by the dynamics of international intervention. Other participants spoke of how projects in Syria and Yemen have been affected, if not ceased, because of the attention the landmark sites of Mosul have attracted. With $100 million, “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” has the biggest budget that UNESCO has ever managed, with a large amount of funding received from the UAE. In interviews, participants emphasized how much decision-making power the funders had over which sites were chosen and how the politics of post-conflict societies generally make heritage management difficult. As one anonymous participant described:

There is a lot of work in Iraq, most of which was neglecting Kurdistan, as well as the south of Iraq. This is why five out of the 20 million Euros of the European Union project on Mosul are addressing the restoration of historic houses in the Old City of Basra. We tried our best to cover the different areas of the country. The south of Iraq is in turmoil, to the extent that the government is resigning because of corruption or the shortage of basic services. So, we always try to look at that part of the country as well. But it is obvious that the interest and focus of UNESCO is on Mosul.

As such, one of the neglected problems in post-conflict heritage research has been who has the most influence over projects and, therefore, on the future management, memory and identity issues that will shape these societies for generations, with the potential upset and animosity this could cause.

However, from a theoretical perspective, such projects present positive opportunities for redevelopment and reconciliation. Greater community engagement and even leadership can be harnessed by focusing on the issues of who, which would allow these projects to capture the new values and meanings generated through the destruction and reconstruction of heritage and provide meaning-making and purpose, and, in turn, advancing the process of reconciliation. One method, suggested by one of our interview participants, was to pay for and teach reconstruction skills to local people through projects, which they could then reinvest in their own properties. A strategy like this should be explored further to integrate heritage into broader urban development.

6 Discussion

The World Heritage Convention has contributed significantly to the protection of heritage sites. The recognition of values at the universal level has sublimated the understanding of heritage from a common point of view in order to build a sense of shared responsibility and respect. However, war provides a particularly challenging context for heritage as it is often the target of destruction, which indicates the political nature of heritage. For instance, whilst memory and heritage are important for individual and group identity and for their sense of belonging (Apaydin, 2020), the approach of international organizations, such as UNESCO, “honors political agreements where actors are unquestionable and uncontested, while at the same time it dismisses the memories arising from conflicts, which remain unrecognized unless those memories are included in national narratives” (Jaramillo, 2015, p. 200). Moreover, heritage in a post-war period can be easily used in a misleading or destructive way, especially when the involved international actors fail to adequately engage with the local population. Furthermore, this lack of adequate engagement risks the local population and their heritage sites being exposed to further waves of violence, for example, when heritage is utilized to support state power and nationalism or when political involvement acts as “strategic manipulation” corresponding to various agendas and aims (Isakhan & Meskell, 2019; Hadžić & Eaton, 2017; Plets, 2017, p. 22).

The values are firstly associated with local communities, the people who use, live in or by the respective heritage site and are most commonly the parties that are directly affected by the consequences of war or conflict, and who need reconciliation for sustainable recovery and peacebuilding. Chapter VI of the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2019) particularly mentions the component of communities. However, the question remains, how much, if at all, is this important element of the Convention implemented in practice? The challenges of such research in complex post-war circumstances must be recognized; however, the lack of research-based decision-making and its impacts on the ground should also be emphasized. The two cases – the “freezing” of threatening factors that keep four World Heritage sites on the Danger List despite changes on the ground in Kosovo and the lack of meaningful engagement with stakeholders, particularly the local population, in a post-war reconstruction in Iraq – demonstrate the underemphasized importance of an in-depth understanding of the local context in a post-war period. Thus, we question how accurately UNESCO and the status of “World Heritage in Danger” can capture these vital elements on the ground? Can and should UNESCO have a role in reconciliation beyond “high politics”? What could this look like?

As Nikander & Zirl (2016) point out, “it will be crucial that the international community recognizes the equal and universal value of the heritage of the different communities in Kosovo, for example through the inclusion of sites representing the cultural heritage of all communities on the UNESCO World Heritage list. Such international recognition could well contribute to the communities taking pride in Kosovo’s cultural heritage and eventually losing sight of to whom it belongs” (Nikander & Zirl, 2016).

During war, there are dramatic changes at a rapid pace, which make the role of heritage in post-war conservation and reconstruction even more critical. Given the pace of change and transformation, and the nature of the Convention, which may imply a “freezing” in time for heritage sites, there may be some challenges for those planning to work with heritage for post-war reconstruction. We argue that heritage can have a “pacifying” role (contributing to peacebuilding), but this would need active, transformative actions from UNESCO, which move beyond the Convention, and, moreover, beyond politically influenced decision-making.

7 Conclusions

The 1972 Convention must be celebrated for preserving the sanctity of the post-war universalist ideas upon which UNESCO was founded and which have been threatened by the targeting and destruction of heritage ever since. However, to continue to play an effective role in reconciliation, which can help achieve the 2030 Agenda, UNESCO must bridge the gap between its policy and practice of community engagement.

As an intergovernmental organization, UNESCO is by its very nature limited in its ability to engage with local communities. Further, the fast-changing nature of post-conflict societies presents unique challenges to working on the ground, not least of which is the danger and instability of these societies limiting the effectiveness of operations.

In both cases, we can see the realities of these struggles and the theoretical limitations of capturing the rapid new dynamics through UNESCO’s conventions, policies and frameworks. For example, the ongoing high-level political dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia for the normalization of relations, which includes heritage as a topic, may need to be informed by the reality on the ground as it is directly related to sustainable conservation and, moreover, to sustainable peacebuilding. This is not necessarily the case with the ongoing efforts, and this affects the lives of people surrounding these heritage sites in multi-ethnic historic urban environments. With Mosul, there is heavy international involvement, not only from the UN and the EU but also countries like the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, whose level of influence has led some to accuse them of systematically excluding Iraqis from the “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” project.

An immediate question that arises from this chapter is how heritage plays a role beyond policy in reconciliation. It is not inevitable that a World Heritage status or a UNESCO project can enable such a process, nor that it will be sustainable. The idea of sustainable reconciliation must be built from the bottom up rather than imposed from the top down, and the change of dynamics must be recognized. As such, one recommendation is the establishment of open dialogues led by the people who have been directly affected by conflict, where communities can work together. Instead of “keeping” the WHS on the Danger List without considering the changes on the ground or planning and implementing the projects, a slight reassignment of role could enable UNESCO to mediate these conversations, providing expert advice and resources to community-led projects and processes.