United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

BACKGROUND GUIDE

Vancouver Model United Nations The Nineteenth Annual Session | February 14–16, 2020

Dear Delegates,

My name is Tiara Safaei, and I am honoured to serve as your Director for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at VMUN 2020. I am currently a senior at Crofton House School, and this is my fifth and final year participating in Model United Nations. Though I entered the world of Model UN by walking into the wrong club room as a naïve Grade 8—and nearly left when I realized this activity involved public speaking—I have since fallen in love with MUN’s ability to connect people and ideas. In my time not consumed by Model UN and academics, I am most often found figure skating, working on research projects, or teaching myself coding languages through trial and error.

Joining me on your dais team will be your Chair, Kevin Roe, and your Assistant Director, Brooke Glazier. At VMUN 2020, UNESCO will be exploring two topics of debate: Ethics of Genetic Engineering and World Heritage Sites in Conflict Zones. In the upcoming debate, you will be prompted to not only examine the significance of protecting human heritage and history in today’s world, but also recognize the influences of new technology and their implications in the present and future. UNESCO bridges the gap between politics, science, and culture. As such, I encourage you to approach these topics creatively, both in your preparation for the conference and during debate.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the dais at unesco@vmun.com. Position papers, though not required, are mandatory for award consideration and highly recommended in order to ensure that you are confident discussing the topics. On behalf of the dais team, welcome to UNESCO at VMUN 2020, and I look forward to meeting you all in February!

Best Regards,

Tiara Safaei UNESCO Director

Steven Long Co-Secretary-General

Alex Shojania Co-Secretary-General

Jessica Lin Chief of Staff

Albert Chen Director-General

Jamin Feng USG General Assemblies

Ronald Wu USG Specialized Agencies

Carol Lu USG Conference

Christopher Bong USG Finance

William Tsai USG Delegate Affairs

Vivian Gu USG Delegate Affairs

Christina Su USG Design & Media

Position Paper Policy

What is a Position Paper?

A position paper is a brief overview of a country’s stance on the topics being discussed by a particular committee. Though there is no specific format the position paper must follow, it should include a description of your positions your country holds on the issues on the agenda, relevant actions that your country has taken, and potential solutions that your country would support.

At Vancouver Model United Nations, delegates should write a position paper for each of the committee’s topics. Each position paper should not exceed one page, and should all be combined into a single document per delegate.

For the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, position papers are not mandatory but highly recommended, and required for a delegate to be considered for an award.

Formatting

Position papers should:

— Include the name of the delegate, his/her country, and the committee

— Be in a standard font (e.g. Times New Roman) with a 12-point font size and 1-inch document margins

— Not include illustrations, diagrams, decorations, national symbols, watermarks, or page borders

— Include citations and a bibliography, in any format, giving due credit to the sources used in research (not included in the 1-page limit)

Due Dates and Submission Procedure

Position papers for this committee must be submitted by midnight on February 7th, 2020. Once your position paper is complete, please save the file as your last name, your first name and send it as an attachment in an email, to your committee’s email address, with the subject heading as your last name, your first name — Position Paper.

Please do not add any other attachments to the email or write anything else in the body.

Both your position papers should be combined into a single PDF or Word document file; position papers submitted in another format will not be accepted.

Each position paper will be manually reviewed and considered for the Best Position Paper award.

The email address for this committee is unesco@vmun.com.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 1

Ethics of Genetic Engineering ....................................................................................................... 3

Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Timeline ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Historical Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5

Past UN/International Involvement .................................................................................................... 8

United Nations ...................................................................................................................................................8

UNESCO .............................................................................................................................................................8

International Bioethics Committee (IBC) ......................................................................................................9

Current Situation ................................................................................................................................... 9

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) .....................................................................................................9

Medical Genetic Engineering ........................................................................................................................ 10

Possible Solutions and Controversies ................................................................................................ 12

Ethical Education ............................................................................................................................................ 12

International Frameworks ............................................................................................................................. 13

National or Regional Ethics Committees .................................................................................................... 14

Bloc Positions ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Developed Nations ......................................................................................................................................... 14

European Nations ........................................................................................................................................... 15

China and Russia ............................................................................................................................................ 15

Developing Nations ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Discussion Questions ........................................................................................................................... 16

Additional Resources ........................................................................................................................... 16

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 18

World Heritage Sites in Conflict Zones...................................................................................... 21

Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 21

Timeline ................................................................................................................................................. 22

Historical Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 24

The World Wars ............................................................................................................................................. 25

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 2

Modern History .............................................................................................................................................. 26

Past UN/International Involvement .................................................................................................. 27

United Nations ................................................................................................................................................ 27

UNESCO .......................................................................................................................................................... 27

Blue Shield International ............................................................................................................................... 28

Current Situation ................................................................................................................................. 29

Terrorist Groups ............................................................................................................................................. 29

UNESCO World Heritage Sites .................................................................................................................... 30

Possible Solutions and Controversies ................................................................................................ 31

Public Initiatives ............................................................................................................................................. 31

Prevention ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

Repatriation and Reconstruction .................................................................................................................. 31

Bloc Positions ....................................................................................................................................... 32

Southwest Asia ................................................................................................................................................ 32

Africa ................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Western Nations ............................................................................................................................................. 33

Discussion Questions ........................................................................................................................... 34

Additional Resources ........................................................................................................................... 34

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 35

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 3

Ethics of Genetic Engineering

Overview

Genetic engineering—the editing of genetic material—is widely used to modify the characteristics of organisms. Though scientists have been experimenting with genetic engineering for a long time, the process of deleting, inserting, activating, or deactivating genes was an imprecise and expensive procedure.1 However, the recent discovery of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), a more precise and cost-efficient bacterial system that can be programmed to edit specific sequences of DNA, has made genetic engineering processes more affordable and accurate, thus accelerating the speed of research.

In medicine, gene editing is increasingly being used to make treatments more effective and personalized; however, new potential treatments—especially those that aim to cure more severe diseases such as immunodeficiency or autoimmune diseases—are surrounded by several ethical issues. While some treatments currently involve gene therapies, several researchers believe that the most effective method to treat autoimmune or immunodeficiency diseases involves the editing of germline cells. However, this is a subject of contention because the modifications are heritable and may alter gene pools. Further, the long-term effects of an edited gene for both an individual generation and future generations have not yet been determined.2 As such, the editing of germline cells is restricted in several countries and was not used on living human beings until November, 2018.3

Beyond medicine, genetic engineering is also used in several other fields, including agriculture. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are found in several countries, and used for purposes such as the development of plants that grow faster, stay ripe longer, or have higher concentrations of specific nutrients.

Despite the numerous benefits of genetic engineering, the far-reaching societal, environmental, and medical impacts of such technologies reveal that genetic engineering technology may have severe consequences if research remains unregulated. As such, the ethics of genetic engineering are considered at the institutional, national, and international levels.

Ethics, by definition, are the moral principles that govern the behaviour and conduct of a particular group, field, or individual. Although genetic engineering technology is used globally and could potentially influence the future of every nation, countries and individuals all hold drastically different stances on the technology because of differing paces of research and development, differing cultural beliefs, and different human experiences with such technologies. Due to these differences, countries have struggled to agree upon a particular way that research and development in the field of genetic engineering should proceed. However, if policies cannot keep up with

1 David Cyranoski, "Russian Biologist Plans More CRISPR-edited Babies," Nature News, June 10, 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01770-x. 2 "International Declaration on Human Genetic Data: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization," UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genetic-data/. 3 David Cyranoski, "The CRISPR-baby Scandal: What's next for Human Gene-editing," Nature News, February 26, 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 4

emerging technologies, the misuse of said gene editing technologies will almost certainly have irreversible impacts.

Timeline

1967 — IR8, a high-yield hybrid rice variant, is sown in India. The crop quickly gains attention and is planted around the world due to its remarkable productivity.4

1972 — Californian scientists Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer produce the first recombinant DNA by splicing and joining segments of DNA from different organisms, and then inserting the edited genome into a bacterial host cell.5

1975 — The Asilomar Conference is held to set guidelines for future experimentation in genetic engineering. The conference is prompted by researchers, who had called for a voluntary moratorium on experiments involving recombinant DNA, with the goal of evaluating whether the moratorium could be lifted and under what regulations experimentation involving recombinant DNA could proceed safely.6

1993 — The UNESCO Bioethics Programme is founded. At this time, the programme only consists of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC), which was founded in 1993 as well.

1994 — The United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves the sale of the Flavr Savr Tomato, which becomes the first commercialized GMO.

April 4, 1997 — The Oviedo Convention, otherwise known as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, is presented in Oviedo, Spain. The Oviedo Convention is the only legally binding international instrument that addresses human rights in the biomedical field.7

November 11, 1997 — The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights is presented, recognizing the role of the genome as the heritage of the human race.8 Moreover, the document outlines the importance of privacy in research involving the human genome, which is reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration

4 Justin Rowlatt, "IR8: The Miracle Rice Which Saved Millions of Lives," BBC News, December 01, 2016, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38156350. 5 "1972: First Recombinant DNA," Genome.gov, https://www.genome.gov/25520302/online-education-kit-1972-first-recombinant-dna. 6 Paul Berg, "Meetings That Changed the World: Asilomar 1975: DNA Modification Secured." Nature News. September 17, 2008. https://www.nature.com/articles/455290a. 7 "The Oviedo Convention: Protecting Human Rights in the Biomedical Field," COE, The Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/bioethics/oviedo-convention. 8 "Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization," UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genome-and-human-rights/.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 5

on Bioethics and Human Rights. The significance of this document is noted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which endorsed it the following year.9

1998 — The Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) is formed, joining the IBC as one of the two permanent UNESCO subcommittees that constitute the UNESCO Bioethics Programme.10

2005 — Cas9, a key protein involved in the bacterial system CRISPR, is discovered at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research.11 Further research on the Cas9 protein and the bacterial system CRISPR result in the increased accessibility and accuracy of genetic engineering technologies.

September 2012 — A publication from Vilnius University in Lithuania outlines the function of the Cas9 protein.12 Though the CRISPR mechanism has been studied since the 1990s, the technology and its applications are first characterized in 2012 as a result of multiple studies, including the aforementioned study as well as research in labs around the world.

January 2013 — The CRISPR-Cas9 system is successfully used to modify the genome of a eukaryotic cell by Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute.13 The findings of Zhang’s lab are similar to those of George Church’s lab at Harvard. The findings of both teams are published together. The demonstration of targeted genome cleavage and modification using CRISPR reveals the technology’s potential to be used as a highly accurate mechanism for genetic engineering.

January 29, 2000 — The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is adopted. Under the Cartagena protocol, living modified organisms (LMOs) and GMOs that are intended for animal feed, distribution, or processing must be identified. Although the protocol is binding, several countries with a large agricultural industry have not endorsed the Cartagena protocol, including the United States.14

November 2018 — Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui claims to have been involved in the birth of three individuals that arose from edited embryonic genomes.15

Historical Analysis

Through selective breeding, humans have strengthened particular traits of plants and animals for thousands of years. However, research in the field of genetic engineering arose in the late 1900s as a result of the discovery of

9 "UN Panel Studies Medical Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering | UN News,” United Nations, May 12, 2003, https://news.un.org/en/story/2003/05/67522-un-panel-studies-medical-ethics-age-genetic-engineering. 10 "International Bioethics Committee: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization," UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/. 11 "CRISPR Timeline," Broad Institute, December 07, 2018, https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/crispr-timeline. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 "UN Announces New Measures to Boost Safety in Trade of Genetically Modified Organisms | UN News," United Nations, February 27, 2002, https://news.un.org/en/story/2004/02/95482-un-announces-new-measures-boost-safety-trade-genetically-modified-organisms. 15 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 6

DNA and its connection to visible traits. Up until this point in time, humans had known that breeding organisms of specific traits could be used to engineer organisms, but lacked a scientific understanding of how traits were passed through generations. Once DNA was discovered, researchers began to deliberately experiment with modifying DNA. In the 1960s, genes were modified by bombarding organisms with radiation in hopes of developing a useful or interesting mutation.16 In subsequent decades, methods of genetic engineering became more specific, leading to the first genetically modified animal’s birth in 1974, the first patent on a genetically modified bacterium in 1982, and the first genetically engineered (GE) food—the Flavr Savr tomato—being distributed in 1994. Nevertheless, as researchers continued to develop new uses for gene editing technologies and improve upon the accuracy and affordability of genetic engineering methods, these advancements have initiated dialogue on ethics and regulation in this field. Although some scientists continue to support GE projects, other researchers are wary of how quickly genetic engineering research is progressing. These researchers have called for changes to regulations in the biomedical and biological fields not only due to the rapid evolution of genetic engineering technologies, but also due to the changing social, ethical, legal, and environmental implications of genetic engineering.

Despite genetic engineering emerging as a popular field of science in recent years, humans have been influencing the genetic material of non-human organisms for over 30,000 years through the process of artificial selection—the selective breeding of particular organisms in order to maintain particular traits.17 This strategy is commonly used today on farms for the cultivation of popular crops, such as corn, bananas, and broccoli. Whether used in crops or bacteria, genetic modification has an array of benefits that may solve ecological, economic, and social issues.

A notable genetically modified crop being used to solve social and economic issues is the IR8 rice variety. In 1967, the genetically modified IR8 rice was introduced in India. As a hybrid rice plant, the IR8 had a crop yield of approximately ten times that of other rice varieties, earning it the title of “miracle rice.”18 In the following years, miracle rice was spread around the world, initiating the Green Revolution in agriculture—the spread of new technologies and research that resulted in increased agricultural production worldwide. The benefits of IR8 are undeniable: the increased yield of IR8 rice meant that land could be used more productively, and IR8 is cited as having prevented famine in several regions of Asia.19

Nevertheless, the widespread cultivation of IR8 presented several problems. The introduction of a new crop species may have negatively impacted native crops and organisms previously inhabiting those areas. For instance, microorganisms or algae that grew on or near native rice varieties will often die when genetically modified (GM) rice varieties overtake these regions. Moreover, as communities became solely dependent on IR8, they made themselves vulnerable to famine should the IR8 crop be affected. Since IR8 was able to grow very well and

16 "Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR," Kurzgesagt, August 10, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY. 17 "From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology," Harvard University, October 23, 2016, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 7

outcompete native plants, biodiversity was reduced. As such, in the event of a disaster decimating the IR8 crop, local communities would have no other crop to rely on as a source of food.20

While it has become a popular example of a crop developed by humans, IR8 rice was developed in the 1960s prior to the development of more precise methods of genome editing. As such, the rice was produced through the hybridization of two rice varieties as opposed to the direct modification of a particular gene. The first truly GE food to be distributed for commercial use was the Flavr Savr tomato. This GMO was developed by the California-based biotechnology company Calgene, which modified a gene to ensure that ripe tomatoes remained firm for a longer time, thus increasing the shelf life, appearance, and marketability of Flavr Savr tomatoes.21

There are several applications of genetically modified organisms outside of agriculture. In 1982, the United States’ FDA approved the medication Humulin, which was the first medication to be produced using a genetically modified organism. The Humulin bacteria is genetically engineered to synthesize human insulin, which can then be purified and packaged as medication for diabetes patients. The development of Humulin made it far easier to provide diabetics with medicine.

Following the development of Humulin, scientists began using genetic engineering far more frequently to produce medicine. Other medical applications of genetic engineering, such as gene therapy, work by modifying the genome of human body cells. Although most of these treatments are still in the clinical trial phase or are not widely available due to high costs, research in gene therapy may provide a solution to several diseases that do not currently have a cure. For instance, a 2016 study on HIV-positive rats demonstrated that simply injecting CRISPR into the animals’ tails reduced the number of its cells containing the HIV genome by over 50 percent.22

These innovations and discoveries cause new ethical questions regarding genetic engineering technologies to arise. Bioethics is a field which addresses the values and regulations of biological research, medicine, and patient care.23 Due to the rapid advancement of biological and biomedical research and the introduction of relatively new technologies such as genetic engineering, bioethics has become a major area of focus for UNESCO, the United Nations, and society as a whole. Each innovation in the field of genetic engineering has prompted new dialogue and regulations in the fields of biological and biomedical research.

For instance, the Asilomar Conference of 1975 was held following researchers’ calls for a voluntary moratorium on potentially hazardous experiments involving gene editing. 24 Specifically, the Asilomar Conference was prompted by the discovery of recombinant DNA practices, which allow researchers to cut pieces of DNA that don’t naturally occur together and recombine them to form a new genome. Precise recombination of genetic material would allow researchers to manipulate and study cancer genomes or genomes of other diseases, but

20 Ibid. 21 G. Bruening and J.M. Lyons, "Archive," California Agriculture, July 1, 2000, http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v054n04p6. 22 Ibid. 23 "What Is Bioethics," Dalhousie University, https://medicine.dal.ca/departments/department-sites/bioethics/about/what-is-bioethics.html 24 Paul Berg and Maxine F. Singer, "The Recombinant DNA Controversy: Twenty Years later.", PNAS, September 1995, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/92/20/9011.full.pdf.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 8

concerns that this technology could have unforeseen consequences prompted researchers to call on a moratorium that prohibited projects involving the recombination of potentially dangerous genetic material.

Past UN/International Involvement

United Nations Though bioethics has been an area of discussion for a large part of human history, the United Nations took an active role in establishing an international platform to discuss and develop regulations in bioethics and biomedicine in the 1970s. Around this time, research involving recombinant DNA and genetic engineering began to grow rapidly. The United Nations has emphasized the importance of forming an international approach to ethical concerns in medical research and development and the implications of new technologies in medicine. Although the majority of dialogue on the ethics of genetic engineering is conducted by UNESCO, the UNGA has noted the pertinence of this issue and, at times, demonstrated that this issue is of utmost concern. For instance, following the presentation of The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights—a product of the UNESCO Bioethics Programme—in 1997, the UNGA endorsed said Declaration in 1998.

UNESCO Due to the rapid pace of innovation and research today, bioethics has become one of UNESCO’s top five priorities.25 As a result, UNESCO has been heavily involved in promoting international dialogue in the area of bioethics. Most notably, UNESCO serves as the Secretariat to the UN Inter-Agency Committee on Bioethics (UNIACB), established in March 2003 to promote international dialogue and cooperation in bioethics.The committee convenes at least once a year to discuss current issues, advancements, and concerns.26 Aside from UNESCO, the member agencies of the UNIACB are the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labour Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations University, the World Health Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.27 Several more agencies serve as associate members to the committee, one of which is the International Centre for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering.

Moreover, UNESCO has established two other subcommittees: the IBC and IGBC.28 The IBC is composed of 36 independent experts in areas such as the life sciences and law, while the IGBC is composed of 36 representatives of member states. Together, the IBC and IGBC form UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme. This Programme’s first major success was the aforementioned Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights of 1997.

25 "UN Panel Warns against 'designer Babies' and Eugenics in 'editing' of Human DNA | UN News," United Nations, October 5, 2015, https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/10/511732-un-panel-warns-against-designer-babies-and-eugenics-editing-human-dna. 26 "UN Inter-Agency Committee on Bioethics: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization," UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/un-inter-agency-committee-on-bioethics/. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 9

International Bioethics Committee (IBC) Aside from the Declaration, the IBC has also taken several actions in the area of genetic engineering, including a recent call for a moratorium on genome engineering of human germline cells. Presently, the IBC believes that the use of genetic engineering to modify or intervene in the human genome should be used only for medical purposes, including therapeutic, diagnostic, and preventative procedures. Moreover, the IBC believes that all modifications involving the human genome should not be hereditary. In other words, the IBC recommends that modifications to genetic material are unable to be passed down to future generations. Modifications will be passed to future generations if intervention is in the genomes of germline or early embryonic cells but not if the gene editing occurs in the genomes of somatic cell genomes.

Current Situation

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Following the development of IR8 rice, subsequent GM rice varieties with specific traits—including pest and disease resistance—were developed. In recent years, a new variant of GM rice has gained a lot of attention: “golden rice.” Named golden rice due to its unique colour, this rice variant was developed with the aim of reducing Vitamin-A deficiency, a prevalent health issue in Asia. Though golden rice could provide a solution to Vitamin-A deficiency, trials of the crop have been met with resistance from protesters. Most notably, protesters in the Philippines have uprooted trial crops of golden rice under the International Rice Research Institute, preventing the crop from being submitted to authorities for a safety evaluation.29 The group responsible—Sikwal-GMO—said in a statement that they do not believe GM technology should be used to solve malnutrition in the Philippines.30 The beliefs of the Sikwal-GMO group are akin to the beliefs of civilians all around the world, who believe that GM technology projects conducted in their country may negatively impact the ecosystem or have health consequences.

While some criticisms of GMOs and GE technology in agriculture have a philosophical or religious basis, the majority of criticism is based on environmental or health concerns.31 As a result of concerns raised by activists and increased public awareness, labelling requirements for GE foods are used in 64 countries.32 Although GE products may pose several problems, it is important to remember that GE technology may provide a solution to many pertinent modern problems. For instance, a prevalent issue that is addressed by GE foods is the increasing demand for food as a result of population growth. In the past 50 years, the human population has doubled and continues to grow by approximately 100 million people per year.33 To match the exponential increase of people, GE research is necessary. Furthermore, crops may be genetically modified to reduce their environmental impact. For instance, a strain of GE rice currently undergoing field trials transfers the crop’s growth from the roots to

29 Matt McGrath, "'Golden Rice' GM Trial Vandalised in the Philippines," BBC News, August 09, 2013, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 10

the grains, making the crop more productive, increasing its yield, and reducing the rice strain’s output of methane––a harmful greenhouse gas—by 97 percent.34

Despite its benefits, GE crops may have potentially negative environmental impacts. Though malnutrition is a prevalent global issue, several communities in developing countries continue to protest against the distribution of GE foods and believe that issues like malnutrition should be solved without GMOs. The volume of food that is produced is certainly not a main cause of malnutrition for approximately 800 million people worldwide, as worldwide production of food is enough to feed 11 billion; rather, it is the inequality of the distribution of this food. As such, though GE technology may be used to reduce malnutrition, many believe that solving world hunger requires a solution that addresses uneven global development instead of increasing agricultural output unnecessarily. Moreover, introducing new plants to the environment may negatively impact the biosphere or surrounding ecosystem. For instance, in the case of the aforementioned golden rice, decreased root growth may impact populations of insects or bacteria species that have a symbiotic relationship with crop roots and require them as a source of nutrients or protection. An analysis of GM foods provides insight into how GE technologies affects communities, ultimately demonstrating that the application of GE technology to global issues often may not be the best approach.

Medical Genetic Engineering Currently, human genome editing is used in some medical treatments, often through gene therapy. In 2015, scientists used CRISPR to cut the HIV viral genome out of cells, demonstrating that CRISPR technology could potentially be used as a therapy to cure HIV and similar retroviruses, which work by embedding their own genome into the human DNA.35 Similarly, uses of CRISPR in treatments for cancer and several genetic diseases are currently in their clinical trials or research phases. For instance, a modified version of CRISPR-Cas9 that is able to change a single letter of genetic code may be able to cure thousands of genetic disorders. Though gene therapy methods are becoming increasingly popular and are currently used on humans, the modification of the human germline genome is restricted in most countries as modifications to the germline cell genome are heritable. Though current medical applications of genetic engineering are very diverse, they all have one thing in common: they modify human body cells—not reproductive cells—and have no effect on the gene pool.

As genetic engineering technologies evolve and are applied in new areas, UNESCO must continue to provide a forum for international reflection and discussion on the usage and regulation of gene editing, and the agency must allow researchers, organizations, and nations to come together and discuss not only the opportunities that genetic engineering presents but also its potential consequences. While researchers are often primarily concerned with the unforeseen health consequences of projects involving genetic engineering, there is a wide array of concerns regarding GE technology that have been raised by people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. A great fear for many is that humans are trying to “play God” without fully recognizing the consequences of GE technology. As most applications of genetic engineering technology are quite new, many trials have yielded unforeseen consequences, hence the scientific community’s hesitance to perform ambitious GE projects on humans.

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 11

In light of Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui’s claim to have genetically engineered the genomes of two twin girls and one unborn child to make them HIV-resistant in November 2018, the ethics of gene editing have become an area of focus.36 He’s modification of the germline genome is of concern since these modifications are heritable. As such, any unforeseen consequences of He’s gene editing procedure may be passed onto future generations. Further, should He Jiankui’s experiment prompt other researchers to begin looking into experimentation with human germline cells, gene editing will slowly but irreversibly result in the modification of the human gene pool. Seeing as human embryonic cells are already used for experimentation in several countries such as the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States, modifying the genome of a live embryo that will develop into a human is certainly feasible, and is hardly different from current experimentation aside from the fact that cells currently used do not develop into a human. At this point in time, regulations in the area of genetic engineering have fallen behind scientific progress, as several scientists—including Russian scientist Dennis Rebrikov—appear to already be considering new projects on human embryos to establish HIV-resistance.37

Moreover, critics are concerned that human engineering projects in medicine will inevitably lead to the use of GE to make aesthetic changes to embryos, including genes that confer better metabolism, different hair colours, or intelligence. The modifications He Jiankui made to the human genome were for medical purposes, since the three individuals are supposedly immune to HIV due to his modifications.38 UNESCO and the IBC should anticipate that He Jiankui’s intervention in the genome of human germline cells may inspire future projects that use GE technology for human enhancement. This may, in turn, lead to the popularization of eugenics––a social philosophy that promotes the improvement of the human genome and inherited traits through active intervention (i.e. gene editing)—an arguably dangerous direction. Though such a future may seem far-off, prenatal genetic screening methods used to ascertain whether the embryo carries any genetic disorder are already used to determine the fate of an early pregnancy. In European countries, most notably Iceland, when prenatal genetic screening detects of trisomy 21 (down syndrome) in the embryo’s genome, this results in the choice to have an abortion for approximately 90 percent of the population.39

36 Ibid. 37 "He Jiankui: China Condemns 'baby Gene Editing' Scientist," BBC News, January 21, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46943593. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 12

Graph demonstrating the total corrected and live birth (LB prevalenc e for every 10,000 births with down syndrome. Data collected

demonstrates these rates in 12 European countries from 2000–2009.40

Possible Solutions and Controversies

In a 2003 press release, UNESCO noted that the human and social implications of genetic engineering are terrifyingly vast, raising the question of how to ensure that humans are protected against the possible abuse of power in biomedical research. When considering the implications of genetic engineering, delegates may take a scientific, philosophical, or humanitarian approach to the subject by considering the topic through a research and progress, human values and rights, or social inequality lens.

Ethical Education Member States emphasized the need to support and initiate teaching programs in ethics at the 32nd UNESCO General Conference in 2003.41 As a result of the conference, UNESCO initiated the Ethics Education Programme (EEP) in 2004.42 The Ethics Education Programme began primarily in Central and Eastern Europe and, in the following years, expanded into Southeast Asian and Arab states.43 The EEP program focuses on the principles of

40 Maria Loane et al, "Twenty-year Trends in the Prevalence of Down Syndrome and Other Trisomies in Europe: Impact of Maternal Age and Prenatal Screening," European Journal of Human Genetics : EJHG, January 2013, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522199/. 41 "Ethics Education Programme: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization," UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/ethics-education-programme/. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 13

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Specifically, it explains how the principles of the Declaration are applied in the real world through informed debate, ethics committees, and transparent decision-making.

The programme mentions genetic data, referencing previous UNESCO resolutions, human rights, medical applications of GE, and the use of GE in germline genomes. Unfortunately, gene editing research has evolved rapidly since the establishment of the EEP. As such, many relevant problems, such as the use of CRISPR-Cas9 and eugenics, are not addressed. Moreover, as GE technologies begin to be targeted towards particular countries, such as the GE golden rice in Asia, nations may benefit from the creation of a more specialized ethics programme on genetic engineering that focuses on differences in the perception and progress of GE technology between the scientific community and the rest of the world.

Nevertheless, though education may allow people to gain a better understanding of the implications of genetic engineering or of how people of different backgrounds perceive the subject, education is not an infallible solution. For one, an education programme may unintentionally be biased by focusing on a particular area of GE or a specific perspective. A programme would unlikely be able to address the concerns of civilian groups such as the Sikwal-Gmo; instead, there would be more emphasis on UNESCO declarations or research projects and their implications. No matter how slight, the underrepresentation or unintentional emphasis of a particular viewpoint results in a lack of information about said subject. As a result, certain groups may find the program less relevant to their region, harder to comprehend, or learn a less nuanced view on the implications of genetic engineering technologies. Moreover, education may not have a sufficient effect on ethics in GE research. Though researchers are often educated in the ethics behind their practices, they often prioritize producing scientific results over all else. Projects that raise said ethical concerns could likely only be limited or slowed through national regulations or international research standards.

International Frameworks Today, there are several international documents outlining regulations and standards in the field of genetic engineering. Several documents focus on a specific aspect of the field, whether it be human rights, the use of genetic data, or research standards. Nevertheless, there is still a need for principles to be agreed upon internationally, especially those outlining how gene editing research should be conducted and the importance of human rights and dignity in procedures involving genetic engineering, gene therapy, or genetic screening.44 Moreover, as gene editing research progresses, new frameworks may be required to address ethical issues, such as eugenics, that are rapidly increasing in severity or gaining popularity. Further, frameworks will have to take into consideration the variety of applications of a single technology. For instance, research using the CRISPR-Cas9 system presents several opportunities: curing cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell disease, and several cancers. However, the same technology may be used to enhance or modify human traits for non-medical purposes. Though international frameworks are effective in that they allow for international dialogue and reflection in the area of genetic engineering, researchers, institutions, and governments must cooperate with each other and enforce the frameworks. Historically, frameworks have not been enforced by all countries. For example, the

44 "UNESCO Panel of Experts Calls for Ban on "editing" of Human DNA to Avoid Unethical Tampering with Hereditary Traits," UNESCO, March 22, 2016, https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-panel-experts-calls-ban-editing-human-dna-avoid-unethical-tampering-hereditary-traits.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 14

United States has not begun to enforce the Cartagena Protocol. As a result, GMO and LMO products from the United States, a major global agricultural provider, remain unidentified.45

National or Regional Ethics Committees Though UNESCO and its Bioethics Programme seek to promote international dialogue on bioethics, nations may benefit from individual ethics committees. Aside from UNESCO, the IBC, IGBC, and UNIACB provide some of the main platforms to discuss bioethical concerns; however, the platforms only allow for a limited amount of international involvement. For example, the IBC is composed of 36 individuals who represent not only their country but also their background and profession. As such, national and regional issues are often not the primary focus of the committee. The IGBC provides a platform for 36 Member States that rotate every four years to discuss bioethics. The 36 selected states provide the committee with diverse geographical, social, economic, and scientific backgrounds and perspectives; however, they do not provide a forum for nations from particular regions to discuss such issues. The UNIACB is the largest and most international, composed of several agencies and regional bodies that act as associate members. However, this committee is also a forum that would have trouble discussing regional perspectives on bioethical concerns and enforcing protocols in said regions. Ethics committees at the regional or national level would be effective in discussing specific concerns with regards to ethical progress. Thus, such committees would be more likely to effectively address concerns regarding specific topics such as particular research projects, regional beliefs, or the environmental impact of genetic engineering technologies. Moreover, such committees would be able to more directly oversee the regional enforcement of international and national protocols or frameworks, thus working in tandem with solutions regarding international frameworks.

Bloc Positions

Developed Nations In countries with a highly developed research programme, labs have access to CRISPR technology. As such, these nations have gene editing technologies at their disposal and the means to conduct experimentation. Though all these nations have the capabilities for research, the progress of research differs among developed nations. For instance, research progress is especially rapid in the United States, Japan, and Canada.46 As such, these nations set a precedent for other countries with access to these technologies, meaning that any research projects or publications in these nations are likely to be followed by similar projects around the world. In particular, the United States’ future research and approach to gene editing will be very important due to the country’s position as a world leader and its abundant resources in the field.

Aside from variations in the pace of GE research in these countries, regulations in developed nations vary. Some of these nations may allow for the modification of the human embryonic genome—provided that the modified gene is not in cells that will fully develop into a human—some may have varying standards for the labelling of GMOs and LMOs, and many may have varying procedures required to get a research project approved. In particular, Canada, France, and New Zealand have strongly expressed concerns regarding progress in gene

45 Ibid. 46 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 15

editing. As such, these nations and European nations are often the most likely to call on moratoriums in scientific research due to their high levels of involvement.

European Nations Though European Nations are highly developed and have research facilities not unlike those of the United States, Canda, Japan, and other developed nations, but bioethics and regulations in European nations differ due to the active roles that the European Union (EU) and Council of Europe (CoE) have taken in addressing GE technologies. The EU has required the labelling of GMOs since 1998, prior to the enforcement of the Cartagena Protocol. 47 Further, the CoE serves as one of the associate members to the UNIACB. Nevertheless, many European countries have ongoing genetic engineering projects, some of which are certainly considered ethically controversial. For example, the UK’s research in human embryos began in 2016 when a team from the Francis Crick Institute of London was granted permission to genetically modify human embryos. Later in 2016, Fredrik Lanner at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden modified the genomes of several embryos. Both of these experiments were done to research particular conditions and the embryos did not develop beyond a week.

China and Russia Though China and Russia both have the technology and funding for research in genetic engineering at their disposal, recent project proposals that have been regarded as ethically controversial have emerged from both countries. With rapid research and fewer regulations regarding the use of genetic engineering technology than Western nations, these two countries are in a pivotal position with regards to GE technology. Since November 2018, China has been investigating He Jiankui’s claim to have edited the genomes of babies and recently sentenced the biophysicist to three years in jail.48 Controversial gene editing practices in China began in 2014 when it became the first country to begin the experimentation of gene editing using human embryos. However, experimentation was strictly for research, and the country placed restrictions on using gene editing technologies in embryonic cells that were not strictly for research purposes. Though the nation has made it clear that intervention in germline cells for reproductive purposes is illegal and placed He under house arrest, further actions taken by the country in addressing the scandal could greatly impact gene editing research in the future.

Russia also plays an integral role in the regulation of gene editing. In Russia, molecular biologist Denis Rebrikov is currently considering implanting embryos with edited genomes in HIV-positive women, and is hoping to get approval by the end of the year.49 Rebrikov’s project, largely in response to He’s gene editing scandal, reveals how He’s actions may have opened avenues for scientists to begin experimenting on human reproductive genes.

Developing Nations Due to comparatively limited resources, developing nations have less control over progress in genetic engineering. However, as genetically engineered products and medical procedures become more widespread, these nations have become increasingly concerned with the potential issues that GE technologies may pose to

47 Ibid. 48 Dennis NormileDec et al, “Chinese Scientist Who Produced Genetically Altered Babies Sentenced to 3 Years in Jail”, Science, December 30, 2019, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/chinese-scientist-who-produced-genetically-altered-babies-sentenced-3-years-jail. 49 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 16

them. Several ongoing research projects in developed countries currently target issues found in developing nations. The largest issue to be tackled using GE technology is malnutrition, which several projects—through the development of increasingly productive or nutritious crops—have attempted to combat. For instance, in the case of golden rice, the intent of the technology was to reduce vitamin-A deficiency in developing countries. However, several nations are concerned by the social and environmental implications the introduction of such technologies may have on them; new GE crops introduced to the environment may negatively impact the ecosystem, resulting in the extinction or endangerment of native species. Moreover, developed nations may use GE technology as an “easy fix” to issues in developing nations, as opposed to addressing underlying issues such as economic instability or poverty. Such issues contribute to problems such as malnutrition, and, by introducing new GE technologies, developed nations may evade their responsibility to help these nations with more prevalent problems. Further, medical procedures using GE technology will likely be expensive and primarily found in developed nations. As such, should procedures that modify the human genome for medical, enhancement, or aesthetic purposes become available, developing countries will once again benefit less from the technology due to the unequal access to said procedures.

Discussion Questions

1. How can international frameworks regarding the ethics of genetic engineering encompass the values of individuals and groups of different backgrounds?

2. Will ethical education have to address several perspectives on genetic engineering from around the world or focus on the scientific consensus on the technology?

3. Given the prevalence of malnutrition and hunger worldwide, should GE foods be produced and distributed in developing regions?

4. To what extent is the use of embryonic cells in genetic engineering research ethical?

5. What entities or groups should be allowed to experiment with GE technology?

6. When developing new GE technologies or foods, should the cultural and social values of target communities that the new technology seeks to aid be prioritized over health concerns in their region?

7. In a world where expensive medical procedures are often limited to wealthy individuals, how can it be ensured that progress in the field of genetic engineering will benefit everyone?

8. Beyond medicine, gene editing in humans presents a multitude of opportunities, including manipulation of human traits and even stopping or drastically slowing the ageing process. What are the possible benefits and consequences of such capacities?

Additional Resources

Are GMOs Good or Bad? Genetic Engineering & Our Food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 17

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever — CRISPR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

UN Could Lead Debate on Gene Editing: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00324-5

The CRISPR-baby Scandal: What's next for Human Gene-editing: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1

Asilomar 1975: DNA Modification Secured: https://www.nature.com/articles/455290a

Genetically Modified Food Can Boost Health but Risk Assessment Must Continue: https://news.un.org/en/story/2005/06/142172-genetically-modified-food-can-boost-health-risk-assessment-must-continue-un

Steady Increase in Incidents of Genetically Modified Crops Found in Traded Food, UN agency reports: https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/03/463922

UN Panel Studies Medical Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering: https://news.un.org/en/story/2003/05/67522-un-panel-studies-medical-ethics-age-genetic-engineering

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 18

Bibliography

"1972: First Recombinant DNA." Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/25520302/online-education-kit-1972-first-recombinant-dna.

Berg, Paul, and Singer, Maxine F. "The Recombinant DNA Controversy: Twenty Years later." PNAS. September 1995. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/92/20/9011.full.pdf.

Berg, Paul. "Meetings That Changed the World: Asilomar 1975: DNA Modification Secured." Nature News. September 17, 2008. https://www.nature.com/articles/455290a.

Bruening, G., and J.M. Lyons. "Archive." California Agriculture. July 1, 2000. http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v054n04p6.

"CRISPR Timeline." Broad Institute. December 07, 2018. https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/crispr-timeline.

Cyranoski, David. "The CRISPR-baby Scandal: What's next for Human Gene-editing." Nature News. February 26, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1.

Cyranoski, David. "Russian Biologist Plans More CRISPR-edited Babies." Nature News. June 10, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01770-x.

"Ethics Education Programme: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/ethics-eduction-programme/.

"From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology." Science in the News. Harvard University. October 23, 2016. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-histoy-of-gmo-technology/.

"He Jiankui: China Condemns 'baby Gene Editing' Scientist." BBC News. January 21, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46943593.

"Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/intergovermental-bioethics-committee/.

"International Bioethics Committee: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/.

"International Declaration on Human Genetic Data: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genetic-data/.

Loane, Maria, Joan K. Morris, Marie-Claude Addor, Larraitz Arriola, Judith Budd, Berenice Doray, Ester Garne, Miriam Gatt, Martin Haeusler, Babak Khoshnood, Kari Klungsøyr Melve, Anna Latos-Bielenska, Bob McDonnell, Carmel Mullaney, Mary O'Mahony, Annette Queisser-Wahrendorf, Judith Rankin, Anke

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 19

Rissmann, Catherine Rounding, Joaquin Salvador, David Tucker, Diana Wellesley, Lyubov Yevtushok, and Helen Dolk. "Twenty-year Trends in the Prevalence of Down Syndrome and Other Trisomies in Europe: Impact of Maternal Age and Prenatal Screening." European Journal of Human Genetics : EJHG. January 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522199/.

McGrath, Matt. "'Golden Rice' GM Trial Vandalised in the Philippines." BBC News. August 09, 2013. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042.

NormileDec, Dennis, Rodrigo Pérez Ortega, Adrian ChoJan, and Eva FrederickJan. “Chinese Scientist Who Produced Genetically Altered Babies Sentenced to 3 Years in Jail.” Science, December 30, 2019. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/chinese-scientist-who-produced-genetically-altered-babies-sentenced-3-years-jail.

"Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR." Kurzgesagt. August 10, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY.

"Roundtable on "Genome Editing: Why Ethics Matter?": United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. September 24, 2018. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/roundtable_on_genome_editing_why_ethics_matter/.

Rowlatt, Justin. "IR8: The Miracle Rice Which Saved Millions of Lives." BBC News. December 01, 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38156350.

Ryan, Jackson. "CRISPR Gene Editing Explained: What Is It and How Does It Work?" CNET. February 28, 2019. https://www.cnet.com/news/crispr-gene-editing-explained-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work-genetic-engineering/.

Simmons, Danielle. "Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering." Nature News. 2008. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-inequality-human-genetic-engineering-768.

"The Oviedo Convention: Protecting Human Rights in the Biomedical Field." COE. The Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/bioethics/oviedo-convention.

"UN Announces New Measures to Boost Safety in Trade of Genetically Modified Organisms | UN News." UN News. United Nations. February 27, 2002. https://news.un.org/en/story/2004/02/95482-un-announces-new-measures-boost-safety-trade-genetically-modified-organisms.

"UN Inter-Agency Committee on Bioethics: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/un-inter-agency-committee-on-bioethics/.

"UN Panel Studies Medical Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering | UN News." UN News. United Nations. May 12, 2003. https://news.un.org/en/story/2003/05/67522-un-panel-studies-medical-ethics-age-genetic-engineering.

"UN Panel Warns against 'designer Babies' and Eugenics in 'editing' of Human DNA | UN News." UN News. United Nations. October 5, 2015. https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/10/511732-un-panel-warns-against-designer-babies-and-eugenics-editing-human-dna.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 20

"UNESCO Cautions against Reckless Application of Gene Editing." UNESCO. February 07, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-cautions-against-reckless-application-gene-editing.

"UNESCO Panel of Experts Calls for Ban on "editing" of Human DNA to Avoid Unethical Tampering with Hereditary Traits." UNESCO. March 22, 2016. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-panel-experts-calls-ban-editing-human-dna-avoid-unethical-tampering-hereditary-traits.

"Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization." UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genome-and-human-rights/.

"What Are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?" Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns.

"What Is Bioethics?" Dalhousie University. https://medicine.dal.ca/departments/department-sites/bioethics/about/what-is-bioethics.html.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 21

World Heritage Sites in Conflict Zones

Overview

Prior to the establishment of the World Heritage Site designation, the international community aimed to protect both tangible cultural property and intangible cultural traditions. Cultural property includes monuments as well as relics which serve of evidence of human cultural heritage and history. UNESCO is dedicated to maintaining and protecting sites around the world that hold a historical or cultural significance to a particular nation, region, or the international community as a whole. For example, the Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi in India is the oldest existing Buddhist sanctuary.50 Although it originated in India, Buddhism is a universalizing religion that is not specific to a particular ethnic group. Thus, Buddhism has been adopted by communities and individuals around the world. As such, the Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi are significant to international cultural heritage as they represent the early monuments built for this extremely influential and widespread religion. Today, UNESCO maintains over 1000 World Heritage Sites.51 This designation allows us to recognize the social changes, scientific progress, and different civilizations of the past, all of which remain integral to the understanding of human history and cultural identity in today’s societies. By protecting designated World Heritage Sites as well as all cultural property, UNESCO aims to promote sustainable development and the establishment of peaceful, unified societies.

“You ask me about the sack of Baghdad… It was so horrible there are no words to describe it. I wish I had died earlier and had not seen how the fools destroyed these treasures of knowledge and learning. I thought I understood the world, but this holocaust is so strange and pointless that I am struck dumb. The evolution of time and its decisions have defeated all reason and knowledge.”

— Persian poet Saadi of Shiraz, on the destruction of Baghdad by Genghis Khan 125852

Because of its political, social, or religious significance to particular groups, the destruction of cultural heritage has existed as a means of ideological warfare as long as war itself. Tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia reference the deliberate destruction of enemy property. This practice has continued throughout history as the looting and destruction of enemy property were seen as common or even customary as the right of the victors. Though the significance of cultural properties and relics had been considered by several scholars, the plunder of enemy territory remained relatively unquestioned until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. During this period, the emphasis placed on the arts, architecture, and science inevitably drew scholars’ attention to historical works, and for the first time, it was considered that such antiquities should be protected for their academic significance.53 Following the World Wars, protocols proposed by the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 which addressed the protection of cultural heritage were further developed, and it was considered for the first time that

50 “Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi”, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/524. 51 “UNESCO in Brief - Mission and Mandate.” UNESCO, August 12, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco. 52 “History.” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/about-us/history/. 53 Van Bokkem, Rachel. “History in Ruins: Cultural Heritage Destruction around the World.” American Historical Association, April 1, 2017. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/april-2017/history-in-ruins-cultural-heritage-destruction-around-the-world.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 22

cultural property and heritage are significant not only to their nation of origin but also bear international significance.

UNESCO is heavily involved in the protection of cultural heritage and seeks to prevent the destruction and looting of cultural property, both of which are often a result of conflict. Today, much of this conflict is a result of ideological warfare is conducted by terrorist factions. In events where a cultural property or heritage site is in danger due to regional conflicts and threats, UNESCO works with other organizations to provide resources for military protection of cultural heritage. In the case of cultural property that has already been damaged, either as a result of conflict or due to other causes, UNESCO works with nations to lead initiatives for the reconstruction and restitution of cultural monuments and properties. For example, UNESCO is involved in the reconstruction of the Ancient City of Palmyra in Syria, which was reclaimed from ISIS jihadists for the second time in 2017.

Cultural property may also be damaged as a result of other causes such as natural disasters, man-made causes, accidental or collateral damage, and development. In order to protect and preserve cultural heritage around the world, UNESCO primarily employs global initiatives to raise awareness and educate people on the significance of cultural heritage. For example, education programs and resources targeted towards particular regions provide them with information regarding what measures should be taken to provide cultural heritage and what organizations—of which UNESCO is one—will aid them in ensuring that their cultural heritage is preserved.

Timeline

1899 — The first Hague Peace Conference convenes to discuss and revise the Brussels Declaration of 1874.54 This document is the result of the Brussels Conference of 1874, which consisted of 15 European States that convened to write the document, but none were willing to ratify it. In contrast, fifty states ratified the Hague Convention of 1899.55 This document describes the laws and customs that pertain to land warfare.

1907 — The Hague Convention is revised at the Second Hague Peace Conference. However, only minor revisions are made at this time. As such, there are very few differences between the 1899 and 1907 versions of this document.56 The Second Hague Peace Conference is called on as a result of the 1899 convention’s failure to properly address the limiting of armaments; however, this conference is also unable to establish a way to limit armaments and restrict their uses.57

April 15, 1935 — The Roerich Pact is signed by twenty-one American Governments. Initially developed as a private project by Russian artist Nicholas Roerich, the Roerich Pact is the first agreement to focus only on the protection of cultural property and heritage.58 The treaty remains in effect across most of North, Central, and

54 “History of Protection of Cultural Property Timeline.” U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/timeline.html. 55 Ibid. 56 “Laws and Treaties Protecting Cultural Property 1899 & 1907 Hague Conventions.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/1899---1907-hague-conventions.html. 57 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Hague Convention.” Encyclopædia Britannica, June 8, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Hague-Conventions. 58 “Roerich Pact.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/1935-roerich-pact.html.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 23

South America. This is because the 1954 Hague Convention specifies that for nations party to both the Roerich Pact and 1954 Hague, that latter serves as supplementary to the Roerich pact as opposed to replacing it.59

May 14, 1954 — Following the plunder of cultural property in World War II, The First Protocol of the Hague Convention is introduced. The protocol addressed the protection of cultural property during armed conflict. Nations party to the First Protocol agreed to take measures to ensure that in the case of an occupied territory, the exportation of cultural property from the territory is prevented, any property of historical or cultural significance moved from an occupied territory is taken into custody, and such property is returned to authorities of previously occupied territories.60

1972 — The World Heritage Convention is created. Nations party to the World Heritage Convention pledge to protect World Heritage sites within their country as well as National heritage not designated as a World Heritage Site. Although the Convention does specify nations’ responsibility to protect their cultural heritage, the Convention’s ultimate goal is to identify and designate sites as having universal value to World Heritage, thus stressing the international significance of designated sites.61

1996 — During the 1954 Hague Convention the Blue Shield symbol is established to indicate protected cultural heritage sites at times of armed conflict. This is followed by the establishment of the International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS) in 1996.62 The ICBS aims to safeguard cultural property by responding to cultural property threats, aiding disaster recovery processes, and cooperating with other organizations. Moreover, National Blue Shield committees have been established by several nations to more closely observe local threats to cultural heritage.63

May 26, 1999 — The Second Protocol of the Hague Convention Second is signed by 84 countries. The Second Protocol gives the ICBS the role of advising the Inter-governmental Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.64 Moreover, the Second Protocol emphasizes measures that should be taken by nations during peacetime to ensure that cultural heritage is protected.65

March 2001 — The Bamiyan Buddhas—two giant Buddha states located in Bamiyan, Afghanistan—are destroyed by the Taliban. The destruction of the Buddhas is indicative of the Taliban’s goals to erase evidence of non-Islamic history in Afghanistan “so that no one can worship or respect them in the future.”66

59 Ibid. 60 “1954 First Protocol: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/1954-first-protocol/. 61 “World Heritage Convention.” IUCN, February 14, 2017. 62 “ICOM and the International Committee of the Blue Shield.” ICOM. http://archives.icom.museum/emergency.html. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 “Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/1979-second-protocol.html. 66 Boggs, Eleanor. “UNESCO Takes on the Taliban: The Fight to Save the Buddhas of Bamiyan.” Virginia Tech Undergraduate Historical Review, May 26, 2017. https://vtuhr.org/articles/10.21061/vtuhr.v5i1.39/.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 24

July 1, 2002 — The International Criminal Court (ICC) is established, becoming the first permanent criminal court able to address issues of international concern. Since its inception, the ICC has worked closely with UNESCO to address the destruction of cultural heritage.67

October 17, 2003 — UNESCO’s Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage is adopted. The Declaration reiterates the impact that the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas had not only on Afghanistan but on the international community as a whole and further outlines the importance of nations taking the appropriate measures to protect and preserve cultural heritage as well as prosecute individuals involved in the destruction of cultural heritage.68

2015 — ISIS seizes the Ancient City of Palmyra in Syria. They destroy much of the historic site, which bears evidence of historic Greco-Romantic, Islamic, and Persian influences in the region. Palmyra is reclaimed by the Syrian Government in 2016, only to be seized for a second time by ISIS in 2017. The Syrian Government is once again able to claim the site later that year, but cultural monuments and relics in Palmyra sustained significant damage.69

Historical Analysis

Cultural heritage describes the elements of culture and way of living passed down from generation to generation. Aspects of a culture’s heritage include tangible objects such as paintings, artworks, or buildings as well as intangible traditions such as language or rituals.70 Together all aspects of a group’s cultural heritage constitute their sense of identity and community. As such, the destruction of cultural heritage symbols is a powerful tool that has been used in conflict to undermine the cultural identity and sovereignty of nations. At these times, the plundering of cultural heritage was widely used as a means of establishing dominance and power over another cultural group. For instance, during the First Jewish-Roman War in 70 CE, the Roman Army pillaged and destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem.71 Nevertheless, historical critics of this practice existed. Such figures included the Greek historian Polybius, who considered that the plundering of cultural heritage may result in rebellion against the victors, thus weakening the Government. 72 Moreover, evidence of restitution—the restoration of property to return it to its original state or owner—and repatriation—the return of people to their own country—dates as far back as the 6th century BCE to the Persian Empire.73 For instance, following the

67 “International Criminal Court and UNESCO Strengthen Cooperation on the Protection of Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre, November 6, 2017. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1742. 68 “UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO, October 17, 2003. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. 69 Cascone, Sarah. “Nearly Destroyed by ISIS, the Ancient City of Palmyra Will Reopen in 2019 After Extensive Renovations.” Artnet News, August 27, 2018. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/syria-isis-palmyra-restoration-1338257. 70 “Definition of the Cultural Heritage: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/. 71 Ibid. 72 “War on Memory: International Law and the Destruction of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict 1979-2018.” University of Oslo, June 1, 2018. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/64519/5/kandidat_219.pdf. 73 Miles, Margaret M. “Still in the Aftermath of Waterloo: A Brief History of Decisions about Restitution.” Boydell and Brewer, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt81qd4.7.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 25

expansion of the Persian Empire into Babylon, Persian King Cyrus the Great allowed the Jewish people previously held captive in the region to return to Jerusalem and restore their temple. Nevertheless, the plundering of cultural heritage continued to be widely used as a symbol of control in the Medieval and early modern time warfare.74

The customary pillaging and looting of cultural property were often seen as the “right of the victors”; therefore, this practice was not widely questioned until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.75 During this period, cultural heritage began to be considered as not only as a symbol of a particular cultural or religious group, but as monuments or relics of academic, scientific, and aesthetic significance. The first international treaty to address any form of restitution of cultural heritage and relics was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which was signed following the Thirty Years War. During the early 19th century it was first considered that cultural heritage must be protected. 76 The Brussels Declaration of 1874 asserted that cultural property and heritage was worth protecting, and further expanded the definition of cultural heritage from religious and educational structures to encompass ”the arts and sciences, works of art and science, historic monuments”.77 Though the 1874 Brussels Declaration was never ratified, it impacted subsequent developments in international humanitarian law, most notably laying the foundations for the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.78

The 1899 Convention laid the foundations for subsequent policies addressing the protection of cultural heritage. Several clauses aim to prohibit the pillaging and destruction of cultural heritage and forbidding the unnecessary or avoidable destruction of property. Further, Article 56 of the 1899 Convention defines cultural property and sites as “historic monuments, works of art and science”, asserting that the destruction of these cultural properties during wartime “is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.”79 Additionally, though their destruction is not subject to legal proceedings, steps should be taken to protect “edifices of religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals”.80

The World Wars Following the plunder of artworks in World War I and World War II, most notably conducted by the Nazis, further evaluation of the existing documents that addressed the protection of cultural heritage was called on. In 1943, seventeen nations were partially successful in the restitution of artworks plundered by the Germans through the signing of the Declaration Regarding Forced Transfers of Property in Enemy-controlled Territory.81 On August 8, 1945, The Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the

74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Dowdeswell, Tracey Leigh. “The Brussels Peace Conference of 1874 and the Modern Laws of Belligerent Qualification.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2017. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3159&context=ohlj. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 “History of Protection of Cultural Property World War II & Monuments Men 1943 - 1949.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/world-war-ii---monuments-men.html#jan5-1943.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 26

European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal was adopted in London. Under the London Charter, the unnecessary plunder of property, towns, villages, and cities was deemed a war crime subject to trial and punishment by the International Military Tribunal. Under the London Charter, the Allied forces held the Nuremberg Trials, a series of legal proceedings which held Germans responsible for war crimes, which included the plunder of property.82

The World Wars were followed by the First Protocol of the Hague Convention in 1954, which internationalized the concept of cultural heritage by asserting that “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever” is internationally recognized as “damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind”.83 Moreover, chapters of the First Protocol contained guidelines for the general protection, special protection, and transportation of property during peacetime and armed conflict, as well as defining the scope and execution of the Convention.84 Although the protocol successfully outlined measures that should be taken to prevent the destruction or plunder of cultural property, the First Protocol failed to identify the consequences for criminals, leaving the prosecution of criminals to individuals nations. Though this decision was made in order to limit intervention in sovereign nations, it poses an issue as nations may not prosecute perpetrators appropriately.

Modern History Though the Hague Convention of 1954 significantly influenced the approach to the protection of cultural property, the international perspective and approach to the destruction of cultural heritage have shifted since the World Wars and the First Protocol. One of the most significant developments was the consideration of cultural trafficking as a war crime. The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention expands upon the belief that the destruction and plunder of cultural property should not only be considered a war crime but addressed accordingly. As defined in Article 15 the Second Protocol, the five explicit violations of the Second Protocol are:

• “making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack;

• using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action;

• extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol;

• making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack;

• theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.”85

82 Ibid. 83 Fiankan-Bokonga, Catherine. “A Historic Resolution to Protect Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO, November 21, 2017. https://en.unesco.org/courier/2017-october-december/historic-resolution-protect-cultural-heritage. 84 “Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954.” UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. 85 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 27

The first three offences of the article are accepted as international law. Thus, serious violations of the Second Protocol may be subject to universal prosecution.86 Moreover, UNESCO’s cooperation with the ICC since its establishment in 2002 has allowed for stronger enforcement of protocols and international law.

Past UN/International Involvement

United Nations Although UNESCO remains the primary UN body to address the protection of cultural heritage, actions have been taken by other UN bodies to address the trafficking of cultural property. In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the International Guidelines for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Responses with Respect to Trafficking in Cultural Property and Other Related Offences.87 These guidelines focus primarily on addressing serious criminal offences relating to the trafficking of cultural property, as they align with the UNODC’s mandate in the area of criminal offences related to the trafficking of cultural property.88 Moreover, the protection of cultural heritage in areas of conflict has been a growing concern for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) since the rise in terrorist activities related to the destruction and looting of cultural property. In 2015, the UNSC Resolution 2199 addressed the looting of cultural antiquities in the Middle East by establishing a ban on the trade of illegally transported relics from Iraq and Syria.89 Two years later, Resolution 2347 was unanimously adopted by the UNSC. This resolution was the UNSC’s first to focus only on the protection of cultural heritage and notably recognized that the protection of cultural property in conflict is closely related to the establishment of peace and security. Moreover, the prevention of the illicit trade of cultural property helps weaken the influence of terrorist factions which use such activities as a means of financing their organization. Although the UNSC is also able to prosecute war criminals, it is important to note that China and Russia, two permanent members of the Security Council, tend to be strongly against international protocols that may undermine their sovereignty and thus tend to disagree with protocols that allow for international intervention in the prosecution of criminals and other scenarios that are traditionally addressed by the state.

UNESCO “Since wars begin in the minds of men and women, it is in the minds of men and women that the defences of peace must be constructed.”

— UNESCO Constitution

Although other UN bodies, such as the UNODC and the UNSC focus primarily on the criminal and conflict aspects of this subject, UNESCO remains the primary UN body to address the protection of cultural heritage. Since its establishment in 1958, UNESCO’s mandate has been to “build the defences of peace in the minds of

86 Ibid. 87 “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2014”, UNODC, January 26, 2015, https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/trafficking_in_cultural/RES-681-86/A_RES_69_196_E.pdf. 88 Antoaneta Seitz, “United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime”, UNODC, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/emerging-crimes/trafficking-in-cultural-property.html. 89 Kristin Hausler, “Cultural Heritage and the Security Council: Why Resolution 2347 Matters”, Questions of International Law, March 31, 2018, http://www.qil-qdi.org/cultural-heritage-security-council-resolution-2347-matters/.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 28

men and women” and assure “the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science”.90 UNESCO works closely with national governments and international organizations to provide capacity building, specialized training, and military resources. UNESCO also participates in awareness-raising activities that seek to increase public knowledge of the 1954 Convention and its two Protocols addressing cultural heritage. UNESCO aims to highlight the importance of education and awareness through several projects each year, as well as the worldwide movement #Unite4Heritage.91 Although UNESCO primarily focuses its actions in the areas of education and awareness, UNESCO works with other organizations—including the ICC, INTERPOL, UNODC, UNSC, and individual nations—to address criminal activity or conflict that involves the endangerment of cultural property or monuments. However, UNESCO’s education and awareness-focused interventions have not always worked. For instance, when the Taliban’s plans for the Bamiyan Buddhas were announced, UNESCO attempted to prevent their destruction through negotiations with the Taliban as well as by public awareness, but their actions only amounted to failure.92

Following the large-scale systematic destruction and pillaging of cultural heritage in recent years, UNESCO adopted the Strategy for the reinforcement of the Organization’s actions for the protection of culture and the promotion of cultural pluralism in the event of armed conflict in 2015. The document outlines UNESCO’s commitment to reinforcing previous protocols as well as new initiatives to protect cultural heritage. Moreover, the strategy outlines UNESCO’s two key objectives as follows:

• “strengthening Member States’ abilities to prevent, mitigate, and recover the loss of cultural heritage and diversity as a result of conflict;

• incorporating the protection of culture into humanitarian action, security strategies and peacebuilding processes.”93

Blue Shield International Previously the International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS), the Blue Shield International is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that mandates the protection and preservation of the world’s natural as well as cultural property—both tangible and intangible—in the event of armed conflict, natural disasters, or man-made occurrences. Though not a UN or Governmental body, the work of the Blue Shield is informed by international law—particularly the two Protocols of the Hague Convention—and the international frameworks for cultural protection set by the UN and UNESCO.94 Further, the Blue Shield operates in cooperation with other organizations, among which are the Red Cross and UNESCO. Aside from the Blue Shield International, the Blue Shield consists of a network of 21 national Blue Shield committees. These previously formed the Association of

90 Ibid. 91 “Awareness-Raising: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization”, UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/activities/awareness-raising/. 92 Ibid. 93 “Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO's Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict.” UNESCO, June 28, 2017. https://en.unesco.org/heritage-at-risk/strategy-culture-armed-conflict. 94 “Who We Are.” Blue Shield International. Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/about-us/what-is-blue-shield/.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 29

National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS) until they merged with the ICBS to form the Blue Shield in 2016.95

Current Situation

Terrorist Groups “‘We don't understand why everyone is so worked up; we are only breaking stones,’ chuckled the soldiers as they blew up the statues, leaving a gap in the world. The fabled Silk Road hangs in tatters now. The wind howls in the poplars as it did once when the valley was trampled underfoot by the Great Khan and his avenging horde. Who will stop the Hun from knocking on our door?”

— R. Parthasarathy96

UNESCO has termed the deliberate attacking of cultural heritage in order to assert the beliefs or values of a particular group or organization as “cultural cleansing”.97 Though international action regarding the protection of cultural heritage has largely stagnated since the turn of the 21st century, in the past thirty years, there has been a significant increase in the number of armed conflicts in several regions around the world. In particular, the escalation of armed conflicts and terrorism in Central Asia, the Middle East, and West Africa has occurred rapidly and resulted in the destruction of several historic and cultural monuments. A large amount of destruction to cultural heritage in these regions has been conducted by terrorist groups. These groups, such as the Taliban and ISIS have used the trafficking of looted cultural relics to fund the organization. Moreover, the destruction of cultural monuments and heritage sites has been used to erase evidence of the historical culture of a region or assert the power and control of an organization. For instance, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Timbuktu Shrines in Mali, and monuments in Palmyra have been conducted by terrorist organizations aiming to enforce harsh versions of Islamic governance and Sharia law by erasing evidence of multicultural heritage in these regions.98 All of these monuments, though designated as World Heritage Sites, have been destroyed in the past 20 years. Though the Ancient City of Palmyra and the Timbuktu Shrines are currently undergoing repair, the Bamiyan Buddhas—which were previously the largest Buddhas sculptures in the world—were deemed irreparable by UNESCO following a 2011 panel consisting of Afghan officials, French donors, and scientists due to a lack of the original material as well as unfeasible costs.99 Though this decision was met with criticism by the Hazara people, an Afghan ethnic minority, the decision to only maintain what remains

95 “Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS. ” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/about-us/history/association-of-national-committees-of-the-blue-shield-ancbs/. 96 Ibid. 97 “Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflict Zones Highlighted at the Palais Des Nations: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO, September 19, 2018. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/geneva/about-this-office/single-view/news/protection_of_cultural_heritage_in_conflict_zones_highlighte/. 98 Ibid. 99 “Ancient Buddhas Will Not Be Rebuilt – UNESCO.” Inter Press Service, March 11, 2011. http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/03/ancient-buddhas-will-not-be-rebuilt-ndash-unesco/.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 30

of the cultural relics in the Bamiyan Valley is supported by the Afghan Government and the international community100

UNESCO World Heritage Sites UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) are designated by the World Heritage Committee (WHC). Since the establishment of the WHC in 1972, it has consisted of 21 member nations that meet once a year to review and designate World Heritage Sites 101 . The WHS status is determined using the selection criteria outlined by UNESCO. There are ten selection criteria, of which six pertain to cultural sites and the other four pertain to natural heritage sites. The selection criteria for cultural heritage sites are:

I. “to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

II. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

III. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

IV. to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

V. to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

VI. to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria).”102

Additionally, the WHC will review the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger and decide upon the inscription or the deletion of designated sites on this list. To date, there are 1073 World Heritage sites in 167 countries.103 The designation of a WHS may impact cultural property as well as the nation in which it is located in several ways. When a cultural site is identified as a WHS, it will draw attention to the monument or region. This can increase national pride and appreciation of culture, as well as international appreciation of the cultural site. As such, the designation of a WHS may increase tourism in the region. Further, when a cultural monument is designated as a WHS, it will receive enhanced security and protection. Nevertheless, the increased emphasis on security when a site is designated as a WHS is viewed by several countries—especially nations that tend to be more resistant to international intervention—as a breach of their sovereignty as well as reducing national control over cultural heritage.

100 Ibid. 101 “The World Heritage Committee.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/. 102 “The Criteria for Selection”, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, https://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/. 103 Ibid.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 31

Possible Solutions and Controversies

Public Initiatives Educating the local population on the significance of cultural heritage, international protocols, and emergency procedures for the protection of cultural heritage is an integral preventative measure as well as a measure that may take effect during conflict. Not only does public awareness help ensure that heritage sites are not damaged as a result of negligence or a lack of preparedness, but an enhanced understanding of cultural heritage may also foster or strengthen a sense of common identity in a community, nation, or region.104 UNESCO recognizes that the safeguarding cultural heritage is of high importance to national identity as well as the identities of ethnic minority groups. Thus, the re-establishment of links between populations and their cultural history serves to foster a sense of unity and appreciation for their national history and cultural heritage.105 This, in turn, establishes a sense of social cohesion and solidarity, which may be integral for organized efforts to protect cultural heritage.106 Moreover, access to educational resources that stress the importance of the preservation of cultural heritage and outline organizations to contact for support prevent the likelihood of individuals being pressured to become directly or indirectly involved in the destruction of cultural monuments as a result of conflict, terrorist factions, or political struggles.

Prevention In spite of potential new methods to safeguard cultural heritage in emergency, preventive measures remain one of the most effective and important methods to preserve cultural heritage. Establishing preventive or pre-conflict measures is important as it not only reduces the likelihood of a heritage site facing danger but also provides the nation and international community with a better foundation and course of action should the site face a threat. Moreover, when attention is placed on preventive methods, the likelihood of cultural properties and monuments sustaining damage as a result of development, negligence, or accidental and collateral damage is drastically reduced. 107 Though preventative measures are currently in place, they mainly consist of guidelines or recommendations to states. Such recommendations may or may not be followed due to a country’s economic, social, and political state. Although UNESCO has been successful in establishing an international perspective of cultural heritage and property, international actions taken to protect these cultural properties remain limited as they ultimately belong to the nation in which the cultural artifacts are located. Exploration of potential improvements to the methods of monitoring or recordkeeping, as well as managing data using new technologies and internet-connected resources may be used to better establish preventive measures or enhance a community’s preparedness for threats to cultural heritage sites through educational resources.

Repatriation and Reconstruction Cultural heritage sites that have already sustained damage as a result of conflict, looting, or collateral damage may be restored through international reconstruction initiatives or repatriation. Since the establishment of the

104 “Emergency Actions: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/activities/awareness-raising/emergency-actions/. 105 “Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage: Safeguarding Campaign.” World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/2/. 106 Ibid. 107 “Threats to Heritage.” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/why-we-do-it/threats-to-heritage/.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 32

1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which provided provisions for restitution at the request of the state of origin, the number of restitution cases has increased drastically.108 The promotion of restitution provides countries with a means of reclaiming their cultural property.109

Reconstruction initiatives are also integral to the preservation of Heritage Sites. Presently, international funding for reconstruction initiatives is conducted largely by European nations such as France, which has been committed to raising funds for the reconstruction of damaged cultural monuments in the Middle East and West Africa. Delegates are also encouraged to consider the application of new technologies in the reconstruction of cultural monuments as well as the implications of using such technologies.

While new technologies and methods may be able to make the processes of reconstruction more cost-effective and faster, delegates are encouraged to consider the impacts that new construction methods may have on maintaining the authenticity of cultural property. Similarly, the use of 3D scanning and virtual modelling to preserve or restore virtual renderings of cultural and archaeological heritage can make cultural heritage and monuments more accessible around the world as well as immortalize or reconstruct damaged heritage sites. However, by digitizing cultural property, it loses its local significance and connection to a geographical place on Earth, thereby losing its connection with the heritage and cultural history of a particular region, nation, or ethnic group.

Bloc Positions

Southwest Asia In recent years, Iraq and Syria have been the two countries that have experienced the most significant destruction of cultural heritage sites as a result of symbolic actions taken by the extremist groups ISIS and ISIL which wish to erase evidence of non-Islamic heritage by destroying sites that reveal the historic influence of Roman, Greek, and folk cultures within these regions.110 Seeing as terrorist groups have been at the heart of the destruction of several cultural heritage sites, countries that have had connections to terrorist groups or aided them through providing refuge or money to terrorist organizations will play a significant role in this topic. Such countries include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan. Seeing as several of these countries widely practice or enforce the values of Islam, they may also find themselves at the center of the ideological basis of cultural heritage in their region, as the actions of terrorist groups, though not explicitly related to the Government, may serve to strengthen or weaken their regime. Moreover, across the Middle East and Central Asia, urban development and the abandonment of historic sites and monuments poses a threat to their preservation. As such, it is not only terrorist groups and conflict within the region that threatens cultural heritage sites, but also several governments themselves. For instance, in 2015 a construction crane smashed into the Grand Mosque of Mecca in Saudi

108 “1970 Convention: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/1970-convention/. 109 Ibid. 110 Hond, Mereana. “UN Seeks Ways to Protect Heritage Sites in War Zones.” Al Jazeera, November 30, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/seeks-ways-protect-heritage-sites-war-zones-171130161636960.html.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 33

Arabia.111 Though a result of heavy winds, several construction sites and modern buildings in the holy city signify the Saudi Arabian government’s rapid development and modernization of Mecca, which attracts an increasing number of tourists. As an extremely significant city in the Islamic culture, this development has drawn criticism from both the Islamic and international communities.

Africa Similar to Southwest Asia, cultural monuments in several African nations—primarily in North and West Africa—have sustained damage as a result of conflicts in the region or of political negligence. Historical empires such as Mali, Libya, and Ghana contain cultural monuments and artifacts that indicate the multicultural heritage of these regions. As such, regions of Africa have been targeted by terrorist factions such as Al-Qaeda who wanted to impose Sharia law in Mali at the time of the destruction of the Timbuktu Shrines. Moreover, at the time of colonization, African artifacts were looted by European nations such as France and the United Kingdom. These nations have been encouraged to return African cultural artifacts to their nations of origin on several occasions. However, many artifacts have not been returned due to concerns for the safety of cultural artifacts and relics should they be returned due to civil conflicts, ideological warfare, or economic and political instability in the artifacts’ region of origin. With several African nations being impoverished, the protection of cultural heritage is often economically unfeasible. As such, several nations in this region, as well as in other impoverished regions of the world, are highly reliant on international initiatives to protect their cultural heritage and are able to contribute little to international efforts.

Western Nations Nations in this bloc—including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain—will tend to promote adherence to international law and a cohesive global effort to address the protection of cultural property. European nations, in particular, have high amounts of historical monuments as well as evidence of their cultural heritage is found across Africa and Asia, where it spread along trade routes or through occupation. Among the countries that are helping with the preservation and reconstruction effort is Italy, who initially proposed the “Blue Helmets for Culture” to the UN General Assembly and in February 2016 created the world’s first emergency task force for culture in an agreement with UNESCO. Further, several European nations and the EU are currently working with nations to address the destruction of cultural heritage and potential means of cooperation. Such nations include France, which held an international conference on protecting cultural heritage conflicts zones with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2016. Moreover, in May 2018, the EU held a conference with the Iraqi Government to investigate potential means of cooperation to protect cultural heritage and prevent the illegal trade of Iraqi relics.112 As such, European nations may continue to promote and seek international intervention on this topic and work together with areas experiencing conflict to propose solutions.

111 Mustafa Hameed, “The Destruction of Mecca”, Foreign Policy, September 22, 2015, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/22/the-destruction-of-mecca-saudi-arabia-construction/. 112 “The EU and Iraq Join Forces to Protect Cultural Heritage and Fight Terrorism.” European Commission, June 13, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/fpi/news/eu-and-iraq-join-forces-protect-cultural-heritage-and-fight-terrorism_en.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 34

Though not areas of constant conflict or political turmoil, European nations contain a high density of World Heritage Sites and cultural monuments.

Discussion Questions

1. How can existing conventions be improved upon to ensure the protection of cultural heritage sites?

2. Should individuals or groups who destroy or traffick cultural heritage be punished and if so what would be the appropriate protocol for dealing with these people?

3. Besides UNESCO Heritage Sites, should cultural heritage and property be better defined in order to protect cultural property beyond designated heritage sites?

4. How should it be determined whether or not a destroyed cultural site should be rebuilt?

5. Should a better procedure be established in order to effectively determine how to reconstruct and restore cultural heritage sites?

6. What is defined as a threat to heritage, and how should different threats to cultural heritage and property be addressed?

Additional Resources

Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: The 1954 Hague Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqdgj1aPHqs Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/EnhancedProtection_EN_compressed_02.pdf The Challenges of Protecting Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: https://www.heritageinwar.com/single-post/2019/02/07/The-challenges-of-protecting-cultural-heritage-in-armed-conflict List of World Heritage in Danger: https://whc.unesco.org/en/158/ The Importance of Cultural Heritage: https://theblueshield.org/why-we-do-it/the-importance-of-cultural-heritage/ The Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Fund-Protection_EN-web.pdf UN Seeks Ways to Protect Heritage Sites in War Zones: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/seeks-ways-protect-heritage-sites-war-zones-171130161636960.html

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 35

Bibliography

“1954 First Protocol: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/1954-first-protocol.

“1970 Convention: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/1970-convention/.

“Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage: Safeguarding Campaign.” World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/2/.

“Ancient Buddhas Will Not Be Rebuilt – UNESCO.” Inter Press Service. March 11, 2011. http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/03/ancient-buddhas-will-not-be-rebuilt-ndash-unesco/.

“Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield (ANCBS).” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/about-us/history/association-of-national-committees-of-the-blue-shield-ancbs.

“Awareness-Raising: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/activities/awareness-raising/.

Boggs, Eleanor. “Unesco Takes on the Taliban: The Fight to Save the Buddhas of Bamiyan.” Virginia Tech Undergraduate Historical Review. May 26, 2017. https://vtuhr.org/articles/10.21061/vtuhr.v5i1.39/.

Cambridge University Press. August 22, 2018.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/isis-and-heritage-destruction-a-sentiment-analysis/CDABFFEB67F138A6B96AD45EA05A026E.

Cascone, Sarah. “Nearly Destroyed by ISIS, the Ancient City of Palmyra Will Reopen in 2019 After Extensive Renovations.” Artnet News. August 27, 2018. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/syria-isis-palmyra-restoration-1338257.

“Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954.” UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

“Definition of the Cultural Heritage: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/.

Dowdeswell, Tracey Leigh. “The Brussels Peace Conference of 1874 and the Modern Laws of Belligerent Qualification.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2017. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3159&context=ohlj.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 36

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Peace of Westphalia.” Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Peace-of-Westphalia.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Hague Convention.” Encyclopædia Britannica, June 8, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Hague-Conventions.

“Emergency Actions: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/activities/awareness-raising/emergency-actions/.

Fiankan-Bokonga, Catherine. “A Historic Resolution to Protect Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO, November 21, 2017. https://en.unesco.org/courier/2017-october-december/historic-resolution-protect-cultural-heritage.

Hameed, Mustafa. “The Destruction of Mecca.” Foreign Policy, September 22, 2015. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/22/the-destruction-of-mecca-saudi-arabia-construction/.

Hausler, Kristin. “Cultural Heritage and the Security Council: Why Resolution 2347 Matters.” Questions of International Law, March 31, 2018. http://www.qil-qdi.org/cultural-heritage-security-council-resolution-2347-matters/.

“History.” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/about-us/history/.

“History of Protection of Cultural Property Timeline.” U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/timeline.html.

“History of Protection of Cultural Property World War II & Monuments Men 1943 - 1949.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/world-war-ii---monuments-men.html#jan5-1943.

Hond, Mereana. “UN Seeks Ways to Protect Heritage Sites in War Zones.” Al Jazeera, November 30, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/seeks-ways-protect-heritage-sites-war-zones-171130161636960.html.

“ICOM and the International Committee of the Blue Shield.” ICOM. http://archives.icom.museum/emergency.html.

“International Criminal Court and UNESCO Strengthen Cooperation on the Protection of Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre, November 6, 2017. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1742.

Kerstens, Mathieu. “The EU and Iraq Join Forces to Protect Cultural Heritage and Fight Terrorism.” European Commission, June 13, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/fpi/news/eu-and-iraq-join-forces-protect-cultural-heritage-and-fight-terrorism_en.

“Laws and Treaties Protecting Cultural Property 1899 & 1907 Hague Conventions.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/1899---1907-hague-conventions.html.

Miles, Margaret M. “Still in the Aftermath of Waterloo: A Brief History of Decisions about Restitution.” Boydell and Brewer, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt81qd4.7.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 37

“Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflict Zones Highlighted at the Palais Des Nations: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” UNESCO, September 19, 2018.http://www.unesco.org/new/en/geneva/about-this-office/single-view/news/protection_of_cultural_heritage_in_conflict_zones_highlighte/.

“Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2014.” UNODC, January 26, 2015. https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/trafficking_in_cultural/RES-681-86A_RES_69_196_E.pdf.

“Roerich Pact.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/1935-roerich-pact.html.

“Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.” US Committee of the Blue Shield. https://uscbs.org/1979-second-protocol.html.

Seitz, Antoaneta. “United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.” UNODC. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/emerging-crimes/trafficking-in-cultural-property.html.

“Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO's Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict.” UNESCO, June 28, 2017. https://en.unesco.org/heritage-at-risk/strategy-culture-armed-conflict.

“Ten Years on – Remembering the Tragic Destruction of the Giant Buddha Statues of Bamiyan (Afghanistan).” UNESCO World Heritage Centre, March 3, 2011. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/718.

“Threats to Heritage.” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/why-we-do-it/threats-to-heritage/.

“UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO, October 17, 2003.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

“UNESCO in Brief - Mission and Mandate.” UNESCO, August 12, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/524.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “The Criteria for Selection.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/.

Van Bokkem, Rachel. “History in Ruins: Cultural Heritage Destruction around the World.” American Historical Association, April 1, 2017. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/april-2017/history-in-ruins-cultural-heritage-destruction-around-the-world.

“'War Crimes': UN Strengthens Resolve against Destruction of Cultural Heritage: DW: 25.03.2017.” Deutsche Welle, March 25, 2017. https://www.dw.com/en/war-crimes-un-strengthens-resolve-against-destruction-of-cultural-heritage/a-38117273.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2020 38

“War on Memory: International Law and the Destruction of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict 1979-2018.” University of Oslo, June 1, 2018. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/64519/5/kandidat_219.pdf.

“Who We Are.” Blue Shield International. https://theblueshield.org/about-us/what-is-blue-shield/.

“The World Heritage Committee.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/.

“World Heritage Convention.” IUCN, February 14, 2017. https://www.iucn.org/theme/world-heritage/about/world-heritage-convention.