World Heritage Sites - NFHS

[Pages:12]World Heritage Sites

National Federation of High Schools Debate Topic Proposal Topic Selection Committee Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Summer 2016

Presented by: Kyle Brenner Melissa High School, Melissa, Texas Representing the University Interscholastic League

World Heritage Sites

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................3 Proposed Resolution...........................................................................................................................4 Actor............................................................................................................................................................. 4

The United Nations..................................................................................................................................4 The United States .................................................................................................................................... 5 Support ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 World Heritage Convention ........................................................................................................................ 6 List of World Heritage in Danger.................................................................................................................6 Current List of World Heritage in Danger June 2016..............................................................................6 Narrow the Resolution ................................................................................................................................ 8 In the Arab States....................................................................................................................................8 In Latin America and the Caribbean ....................................................................................................... 9 In Specified Countries .............................................................................................................................. 9 Timeliness of World Heritage in Danger ............................................................................................9 Affirmative Ground.............................................................................................................................9 Negative Ground...............................................................................................................................10 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................10 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................11 End Notes..........................................................................................................................................11

2

World Heritage Sites

Introduction

In March of 2001, the Taliban erupted onto the international scene by dynamiting

and destroying the famed Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan. The Buddhas of Bamiyan

were chiseled out of the cliffs and have survived

the armies of Genghis Khan and the introduction of

Islam, but were unable to survive the iconoclastic Taliban regime of the 21st century.i (See Figure 1)

The Cultural Landscape and Archaeological

Remains of the Bamiyan Valley have now found its

way on the the United Nations Education,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) List

of World Heritage in Danger. Since the destruction

by the Taliban, UNESCO, the Afghan government,

and locals have failed to reach a consensus on the Figure 1: The taller Buddha of Bamiyan before (left)

ideal method to rehabilitate the ruination.

and after the destruction (right). UNESCO/A Lezine

Sadly, the destruction of the cultural, historical, and natural sites is not confined to the Bamiyan Valley. All around the world, particularly in the Arab States, World Heritage Sites are under assault. In May of 2015, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) scored a colossal victory by taking control of the historic Site of Palmyra in the Syrian Arab Republic. Over the months that followed, ISIL continued a deliberate campaign of cultural desecration punctuated by mass executions in Palmyra's ancient amphitheater to get publicity, attention, and vilification from the world's media. UNESCO led the charge and publically denounced the carnage of Palmyra as a war crime. As the world howled, aghast,

over the atrocities in Palmyra, ISIL celebrated with a fresh influx of recruits and funds raised from the illicit antiquities sold on the black market. The United Nations and the rest of the global community did little as ISIL turned the site to ruins. (See Figure 2) By late April 2016, the Russian backed Syrian Army had Figure 2: Temple of Bel Aug 27, 2015 (Left) and Aug 31, 2015 managed to retake the site. A Rapid

(Right.) UNITAR-UNOSAT; AFP

Assessment Mission supported by UN Security Forces found that statues and sarcophagi were defaced, smashed, heads severed, and fragments left scattered throughout the site. Much of the existing architecture was severely damaged, but a full survey has yet to be completed due to slow demining operations.ii

3

World Heritage Sites

The destruction of the historic Site at Palmyra

(See Figure 3) is just one example of that irreparable

damage that has been done since the last time the

National Federation of High School held their Topic

Selection Meeting last summer. There are five

other sites within the borders of Syria that have

experienced similar levels of destruction during the

last year and with ISIL threatening to move the

Figure 3: A picture showing the Templ of Bel before it destruction throughout the region. To be clear,

was destroy by ISIS; Joseph Eid/AFP

terrorist/extremist organizations such as ISIL and

the Taliban are not the only threat to World

Heritage Sites nor are they the only criteria for a site to appear on the UNESCO List of

World Heritage in Danger. The destruction pictured above makes for compelling imagery

and, thus, are much more likely to reported by the media. The world has an obligation to

preserve and protect our shared cultural, historic, and natural sites for future generations.

As Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO, articulates, "In a world of change, world heritage is a reminder of all that unites humanity."iii Thus,

Proposed Resolution

Resolved: The United Nations should substantially increase its support for one or more sites on the United Nations' World Heritage Convention's List of World Heritage in Danger.

Actor The United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is the optimal actor because they have the most experience operating under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage which guides UNESCO's efforts of World Heritage protection. Since the adoption of the 1972 Convention, 178 nations have signed on with 1,031 recognized properties across the globe. The UN controls the meager funds of the World Heritage Fund (US$4 million, annually) that is used to finance and fund projects. This expertise makes the UN the best actor to support sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger. As Roy Rodriquez, author of the 2015 Topic Proposal on Global Malnutrition, argues, "having the UN as the main actor would allow for debaters to gain a better understanding of the UN and how if functions as an organization, essential knowledge in today's society."iv

4

World Heritage Sites

It is likely that the Marshall Subcommittee or the Wording Committee will recommend that the actor should not be the United Nations and be replaced with the traditional United States federal government. Here is a list of several reasons why the committees should consider using the United Nations.

1. The policy debate community has focused on the United States government, the wording has varied slightly, since 1975-1976 with the topic Resolved: That the development and allocation of scare world resources should be controlled by an international organization.v

2. The policy debate community has not discussed the United Nations since 2004-2005 with the topic Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations.

3. The policy debate community has not solely focused on the United Nations since 1960-1961 with the topic Resolved: That the United Nations should be significantly strengthened.

4. The policy debate community should embrace the United Nations as an actor as a means to further grow the educational opportunities for all who participate in the activity at the secondary level and beyond

The United States

Using the United States federal government (USFG) as the actor would be far more palatable to the policy debate community and could be directly substituted for the United Nations in the proposed resolution.

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its support for one or more sites on the United Nations World Heritage Convention's List of World Heritage in Danger.

This resolution with the USFG as the actor would make very similar to the 2004-2005 policy debate topic of peacekeeping operations.

Support

The term "support" will be one of the most dubious word of this resolution. In general, there will be two likely overarching competing interpretations of the term. The negative is likely to argue that the affirmative must provide some kind of concrete assistance to the endangered site. Affirmatives, in an attempt to escape likely arguments, will use a definition that does not require concrete tangible/physical assistance.

5

World Heritage Sites

World Heritage Convention

The World Heritage Convention is the document that specifically spells out how States Parties to the Convention get sites recognized on the World Heritage List and doles out emergency assistance to any site that may need it. The Convention requires that the World Heritage Committee create and maintain a List of World Heritage in Danger.

List of World Heritage in Danger

The List of World Heritage in Danger is a term of art created and maintained by UNESCO via the World Heritage Committee according to Article 11.4 of the World Heritage Convention which was established to preserve and protect World Heritage Sites. Any site appearing on the endangered list requires major operation for conservation and for which assistance has been requested. Dangers for heritage sites include armed conflict and war, earthquakes and other natural disasters, pollution, poaching, uncontrolled urbanization and unchecked tourist development. Dangers can be `ascertained', referring to specific and proven imminent threats, or `potential', when a property is faced with threats which could have negative effects on its World Heritage values. The World Heritage Committee carefully curates the List of World Heritage in Danger so that at the time of this writing there are only 48 such sites across the globe. As of June 2016, these would be the sites eligible for affirmatives:

Current List of World Heritage in Danger June 2016

Site Name

Abu Mena Air and Tenere Natural Reserves

Ancient City of Aleppo Ancient City of Bosra Ancient City of Damascus Ancient Villages of Northern

Syria Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati

Monastery Belize Barrier Reef Reserve

System Chan Chan Archaeological Zone Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage

Route, Bethlehem Comoe National Park

Coro and its Port Crac des Chevaliers and Qal'at

Salah El-Din

Location Egypt Niger Syria Syria Syria Syria Iraq Georgia

Belize Peru

Palestine

Cote d'Ivoire Venezuela

Syria

Endangered 2001 1992 2013 2013 2013 2013 2003 2010

2009 1986

2012

2003 2005 2013

Reason Environmental Conflict, Environmental

Conflict Conflict Conflict Conflict Development, Political Development

Environmental, Development Environmental

Development

Conflict, Political Development Conflict

6

World Heritage Sites

Cultural Landscapes Archaeological Remains of the

Bamiyan Valley East Rennell

Everglades National Park Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San

Lorenzo

Garamba National Park

Hatra Historical Monuments of

Mtskheta Historic Town of Zabid Humberstone and Santa Laura

Saltpeter Works Kahuzi-Biega National Park Liverpool ? Maritime Mercantile

City Manovo-Gounda St Floris

National Park Minaret and Archaeological

Remains of Jam Medieval Monuments in Kosovo

Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve

Niokolo-Koba National Park

Okapi Wildlife Reserve

Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls

Old City of Sana'a

Old Walled City of Shibam

Rainforests of the Atsinanana

Rio Platano Bioshpere Reserve Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara

Salonga National Park

Samarra Archaeological City

Simien National Park

Site of Palmyra

Timbuktu

Tomb of Askia Tombs of Buganda Kings at

Kasubi Tropical Rainforest Heritage of

Sumatra

Virunga National Park

Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines ? Cultural Landscape of

Southern Jerusalem, Battir

Afghanistan

Solomon Islands Unite State of America

Panama

Democratic Republic of the Congo Iraq Georgia Yemen Chile

Democratic Republic of Congo United Kingdom

Central African Republic

Afghanistan Kosovo

Cote d'Ivoire Senegal

Democratic Republic of the Congo

No Nation Named by UNESCO

Yemen Yemen Madagascar Honduras

Tanzania Democratic Republic of the

Congo Iraq Ethiopia Syria Mali Mali

Uganda

Indonesia Democratic Republic of the

Congo

Palestine

2003

2013 1993-2007, 2010

2012

1984-1992, 1996 2015 2009 2000 2005 1997 2012

1997

2002 2006 1992 2007 1997

1982 2015 2015 2010 1996-2007, 2011 2004

1999 2007 1996 2013 2012 2012 2010

2011

1994

2014

Conflict, Political

Development, Environmental Development, Environmental

Environmental, Political

Environment, Political Conflict Political

Environmental Political, Environmental Environmental, Conflict

Development

Political, Conflict

Political Political, Conflict Development, Political Political, Environmental Political, Conflict

Development, Political Conflict

Conflict, Political Development, Political Development, Political

Environmental

Conflict, Political Conflict, Political Environmental

Conflict Conflict Conflict Environmental

Development, Political

Environmental, Conflict, Political

Environmental, Political

This list is updated annually. If this topic is selected for 2017-2018 the list may be updated to include new sites or existing sites may be removed with the 40th Session of the Committee scheduled to meet in Istanbul in July of 2016. The 41st Session has yet to be

7

World Heritage Sites

scheduled, but it can safely be assumed that it will occur sometime during the summer of 2017.

Narrow the Resolution

The current List of World Heritage in Danger has 48 sites from across the globe which to some may see far too broad to be an effective topic. It is likely that throughout the debate season that the community would self limit the resolution without the Committee narrowing the topic. The following possible limiters could be added to the end of the resolution.

In the Arab States

This UNESCO provided term would limit the affirmative ground to the following countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Effectively this limiter would cover 15, or nearly one-third, of endangered sites covering six countries found on the List of World Heritage Endangered. This limiter could be beneficial as the policy debate community has not focused significantly on this region of the world in the past.

Resolved: The United Nations (or USFG) should substantially increase its support for one or more sites on the United Nations' World Heritage Convention's List of World Heritage in Danger in the Arab States.

In Africa

This UNESCO provided term would limit the affirmative ground to the entire African continent proper including Egypt and Madagascar. Effectively this limiter would cover 16, or one-third, of endangered sites covering 10 countries found on the List of World Heritage Endangered. This limiter could be beneficial as the region has a more varied list of reasons why their Heritage Sites are included on the List of World Heritage in Danger. This limiter could be beneficial as the policy debate community has never focused on the entire African continent.

Resolved: The United Nations (or USFG) should substantially increase its support for one or more sites on the United Nations' World Heritage Convention's List of World Heritage in Danger in Africa.

8

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download