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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- th world heritage
- message from ms audrey azoulay director general of
- unesco world heritage sites in india
- world heritage sites national park service
- world heritage sites nfhs
- the protection of heritage and cultural diversity unesco
- world heritage site management plan 2020 2025
- tourism management at unesco world heritage sites
- the process of selecting unesco world heritage sites
- unesco world heritage sites in india gradeup
Related searches
- new unesco world heritage sites
- world heritage list 2018
- world heritage sites list
- unesco world heritage sites china
- unesco world heritage sites usa
- world unesco heritage sites map
- unesco heritage sites map
- world heritage sites in usa
- unesco world heritage sites list
- unesco world heritage sites italy
- unesco world heritage sites map
- world heritage sites by country