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

Home , World Heritage site

Presented by: Kyle Brenner Melissa High School, Melissa, Texas

Representing the University Interscholastic League

World Heritage Sites

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 3 Proposed Resolution ...... 4 Actor ...... 4 The United Nations ...... 4 The United States ...... 5 Support ...... 5 World Heritage Convention ...... 6 List of World Heritage in Danger ...... 6 Current List of World Heritage in Danger June 2016 ...... 6 Narrow the Resolution ...... 8 In the Arab States ...... 8 In Latin America and the Caribbean ...... 9 In Specified Countries ...... 9 Timeliness of World Heritage in Danger ...... 9 Affirmative Ground ...... 9 Negative Ground ...... 10 Conclusion ...... 10 Acknowledgements ...... 10 Bibliography ...... 11 End Notes ...... 11

World Heritage Sites

Introduction

In March of 2001, the Taliban erupted onto the international scene by dynamiting and destroying the famed Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were chiseled out of the cliffs and have survived the armies of Genghis Khan and the introduction of Islam, but were unable to survive the iconoclastic Taliban regime of the 21st century.i (See Figure 1) The Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley have now found its way on the the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) List of World Heritage in Danger. Since the destruction by the Taliban, UNESCO, the Afghan government, and locals have failed to reach a consensus on the Figure 1: The taller Buddha of Bamiyan before (left) ideal method to rehabilitate the ruination. and after the destruction (right). UNESCO/A Lezine

Sadly, the destruction of the cultural, historical, and natural sites is not confined to the Bamiyan Valley. All around the world, particularly in the Arab States, World Heritage Sites are under assault. In May of 2015, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) scored a colossal victory by taking control of the historic Site of Palmyra in the Syrian Arab Republic. Over the months that followed, ISIL continued a deliberate campaign of cultural desecration punctuated by mass executions in Palmyra’s ancient amphitheater to get publicity, attention, and vilification from the world’s media. UNESCO led the charge and publically denounced the carnage of Palmyra as a war crime. As the world howled, aghast, over the atrocities in Palmyra, ISIL celebrated with a fresh influx of recruits and funds raised from the illicit antiquities sold on the black market. The United Nations and the rest of the global community did little as ISIL turned the site to ruins. (See Figure 2) By late April 2016, the Russian backed Syrian Army had Figure 2: Temple of Bel Aug 27, 2015 (Left) and Aug 31, 2015 managed to retake the site. A Rapid (Right.) UNITAR-UNOSAT; AFP Assessment Mission supported by UN Security Forces found that statues and sarcophagi were defaced, smashed, heads severed, and fragments left scattered throughout the site. Much of the existing architecture was severely damaged, but a full survey has yet to be completed due to slow demining operations.ii

World Heritage Sites

The destruction of the historic Site at Palmyra (See Figure 3) is just one example of that irreparable damage that has been done since the last time the National Federation of High School held their Topic Selection Meeting last summer. There are five other sites within the borders of Syria that have experienced similar levels of destruction during the last year and with ISIL threatening to move the

Figure 3: A picture showing the Templ of Bel before it destruction throughout the region. To be clear, was destroy by ISIS; Joseph Eid/AFP terrorist/extremist organizations such as ISIL and the Taliban are not the only threat to World Heritage Sites nor are they the only criteria for a site to appear on the UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger. The destruction pictured above makes for compelling imagery and, thus, are much more likely to reported by the media. The world has an obligation to preserve and protect our shared cultural, historic, and natural sites for future generations. As Irina Bokova, the Director-General of UNESCO, articulates, “In a world of change, world heritage is a reminder of all that unites humanity.”iii Thus,

Proposed Resolution

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

Actor The United Nations

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

World Heritage Sites

It is likely that the Marshall Subcommittee or the Wording Committee will recommend that the actor should not be the United Nations and be replaced with the traditional United States federal government. Here is a list of several reasons why the committees should consider using the United Nations. 1. The policy debate community has focused on the United States government, the wording has varied slightly, since 1975-1976 with the topic Resolved: That the development and allocation of scare world resources should be controlled by an international organization.v 2. The policy debate community has not discussed the United Nations since 2004-2005 with the topic Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. 3. The policy debate community has not solely focused on the United Nations since 1960-1961 with the topic Resolved: That the United Nations should be significantly strengthened. 4. The policy debate community should embrace the United Nations as an actor as a means to further grow the educational opportunities for all who participate in the activity at the secondary level and beyond

The United States

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

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

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

Support

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

World Heritage Sites

World Heritage Convention

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

List of World Heritage in Danger

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

Current List of World Heritage in Danger June 2016

Site Name Location Endangered Reason Abu Mena Egypt 2001 Environmental Air and Tenere Natural Reserves Niger 1992 Conflict, Environmental Ancient City of Aleppo Syria 2013 Conflict Ancient City of Bosra Syria 2013 Conflict Ancient City of Damascus Syria 2013 Conflict Ancient Villages of Northern Syria 2013 Conflict Syria Ashur (Qal’at Sherqat) Iraq 2003 Development, Political Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Georgia 2010 Development Monastery Belize Barrier Reef Reserve Belize 2009 Environmental, Development System Chan Chan Archaeological Zone Peru 1986 Environmental Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Palestine 2012 Development Route, Bethlehem Comoe National Park Cote d’Ivoire 2003 Conflict, Political Coro and its Port Venezuela 2005 Development Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Syria 2013 Conflict Salah El-Din

World Heritage Sites

Cultural Landscapes Archaeological Remains of the Afghanistan 2003 Conflict, Political Bamiyan Valley East Rennell Solomon Islands 2013 Development, Environmental Everglades National Park Unite State of America 1993-2007, 2010 Development, Environmental Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Panama 2012 Environmental, Political Lorenzo Democratic Republic of the Garamba National Park 1984-1992, 1996 Environment, Political Congo Hatra Iraq 2015 Conflict Historical Monuments of Georgia 2009 Political Mtskheta Historic Town of Zabid Yemen 2000 Environmental Humberstone and Santa Laura Chile 2005 Political, Environmental Saltpeter Works Kahuzi-Biega National Park Democratic Republic of Congo 1997 Environmental, Conflict Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile United Kingdom 2012 Development City Manovo-Gounda St Floris Central African Republic 1997 Political, Conflict National Park Minaret and Archaeological Afghanistan 2002 Political Remains of Jam Medieval Monuments in Kosovo Kosovo 2006 Political, Conflict Mount Nimba Strict Nature Cote d’Ivoire 1992 Development, Political Reserve Niokolo-Koba National Park Senegal 2007 Political, Environmental Democratic Republic of the Okapi Wildlife Reserve 1997 Political, Conflict Congo Old City of Jerusalem and its No Nation Named by UNESCO 1982 Development, Political Walls Old City of Sana’a Yemen 2015 Conflict Old Walled City of Shibam Yemen 2015 Conflict, Political Rainforests of the Atsinanana Madagascar 2010 Development, Political Rio Platano Bioshpere Reserve Honduras 1996-2007, 2011 Development, Political Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Tanzania 2004 Environmental Ruins of Songo Mnara Democratic Republic of the Salonga National Park 1999 Conflict, Political Congo Samarra Archaeological City Iraq 2007 Conflict, Political Simien National Park Ethiopia 1996 Environmental Site of Palmyra Syria 2013 Conflict Timbuktu Mali 2012 Conflict Tomb of Askia Mali 2012 Conflict Tombs of Buganda Kings at Uganda 2010 Environmental Kasubi Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Indonesia 2011 Development, Political Sumatra Democratic Republic of the Virunga National Park 1994 Environmental, Conflict, Political Congo Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Palestine 2014 Environmental, Political Southern Jerusalem, Battir

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

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

Narrow the Resolution

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

In the Arab States

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

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

In Africa

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

World Heritage Sites

In Latin America and the Caribbean

This UNESCO provided term would limit the affirmative ground to just six sites in six different countries including Venezuela which was debated just a few years ago.

In Specified Countries

This list could specify various countries with World Heritage Site in Danger. The justification for the list could be varied. The author recommends that if a limiter is added with specific countries these countries should be the primary focus: Georgia, Mali, Panama, Kosovo, Egypt. This list could be altered to include any country found on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Timeliness of World Heritage in Danger

Aside from the destruction already show at the historic Site of Palmyra, the World Wildlife Fund reports in April 2016 that, (Omland n.d.)“almost half of all natural World Heritage Sites, and their outstanding universal value are threatened by harmful industrial activities.”vi The reality of our world is that if we do nothing these sites may not be around for future generations to learn from and enjoy. Arguments could be made that there is an ethical, or even moral, obligation that the world take some kind of action to preserve these sites why there are still able to be saved.

Affirmative Ground

The affirmative was a vast array of actions to consider which would provide a bountiful selection of cases. This would, theoretically, avoid the creation of a small set of core affirmatives that debaters could use. The variety of affirmatives would stem from the use of the term “support” and the multitude of locations. The combination of cultural

World Heritage Sites and natural sites would keep the door open for a variety of affirmative types (policy, critical, alternative advocacies).

Negative Ground

To combat the broad nature of the affirmative, the negative has plenty of ground to make any debate round competitive. First and foremost, there is ample ground for counterplans (consult, agent, etc.) and disadvantages galore, particularly if the USFG is selected as the actor. There is great ground for the K debate with issues such as imperialism, national building, and colonialism. Overall, it appears as if the is sufficient balance between both sides of the debate.

Conclusion

We have a special obligation to protect our World Heritage. This topic will introduce an entire generations of teachers, debaters, and the greater debate community to the concept of World Heritage. With all of our help, maybe we can save these sites for our children.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Speech and Debate Team of Melissa High School and the Speech and Debate Team of Lovejoy High School for all their hard work in preparing me for this paper. The honest input made this challenging project a little less so.

World Heritage Sites

Bibliography Al Jazeera. 2015. "UN Confirms Destruction of Famed Palmyra Temple." Al Jazeera. August 31. Accessed January 16, 2016. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/confirms- destruction-famed-palmyra-temple-150831230110476.html. Bauschard, Stefan. 2004. "Topicality Issue on the Peacekeeping Topic." Blue Helmet Blues: United Nations Peacekeeping and the United States, A-9. Dalberg Global Deveopment Advisors. 2016. Protecting People Through Nature: Natural World Heritage Sites as Drivers of Sustainable Development. World Wildlife Fund. Delman, Edward. 2015. Afghanistan's Buddhas Rise Again. June 10. Accessed May 2, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/3d-buddhas- afghanistan/395576/. Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights Project. 2014. Ancient History, Modern Destruction: Assessing the Current Status of Syria's World Heritage Sites Using High-Resolution Satelligte Imagery. September. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/AAAS-SyrianWHS-9182014.pdf. National Speech and Debate Association. n.d. Past Policy Topics. Accessed May 27, 2016. http://www.speechanddebate.org/pastpolicytopics. Omland, Atle. n.d. "The Ethics of the World Heritage Concept." In The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice, edited by Chris Scarre & Geoffrey Scarre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roy R. Rodriquez, Alena Kang-Landsberg, Eric Pillai. 2015. "Global Malnutrition." 2015 Topic Selection Meeting. New Orleans: National Federation of High Schools. 5. RT. 2016. "Missing Monuments: Before & After Pics of Palmyra Show What ISIS has Destory." RT. April 3. Accessed May 20, 2016. https://www.rt.com/news/338187-palmyra-before- after-pictures/. UN News Service. 2016. UNESCO Team Assess Damanges to Syria's Palmrya World Heritage Site. April 17. Accessed May 29, 2016. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53796. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. 1972. "Convention Converning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage." General Conference at its Seventeenth Session. Paris. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. n.d. List of World Hertiage in Danger. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/. —. 2015. World Heritage Sites: A Complete Guide to 1007 UNESCO World Heritiage Sites. Buffalo, New York: Firefly Books (U.S.) Inc,.

End Notes i (Delman 2015) (Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights Project 2014) ii (UN News Service 2016)

World Heritage Sites

iii (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2015) iv (Roy R. Rodriquez 2015) v (National Speech and Debate Association n.d.) vi (Dalberg Global Deveopment Advisors 2016)