Introduction

It has been said many times that if the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) did not exist, it would have been invented now, in the twenty-first century, at a time in which international cooperation in the areas of education, science, and culture is so critical to the world we live in. My experience as former director-general of this unique United Nations (UN) agency highlighted for me UNESCO’s global importance in ways more dramatically than in its entire previous existence. I have said many times that culture alone is not enough to build peace. But without culture, peace cannot be lasting. In a time that has seen cultural destruction on an arguably unprecedented scale, the need to focus on exploring the links between the preservation of cultural heritage and peace has never been greater.

UNESCO is unique because of the idea inscribed in the preamble to its constitution, that “a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and that the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”³

This powerful idea, that peace should be built differently, was launched well before the end of World War II by the Allied countries, including the United States. It was the American poet Archibald MacLeish, the Librarian of Congress until late 1944, who famously penned the following phrase in the preamble: “[S]ince wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” After leaving this post, MacLeish served as an assistant secretary of state and as the chair of the US delegation to the San Francisco Conference, which founded the UN in 1945.

Another American, J. William Fulbright, was also prominent among supporters of the creation of a new United Nations agency with a mandate to promote international cooperation in education, culture, and science. He attended one of the preparatory meetings on the drafting of the UNESCO constitution, at which time he was a young US congressman from Arkansas, later to become senator.

Addressing the closing plenary session of the San Francisco Conference on June 26, 1945, US president Harry S. Truman declared: “We must set up an effective agency for constant and thorough interchange of thoughts and ideas, for there lies the road to a better and more tolerant understanding among nations and among peoples.”⁴ This was, and still is, a highly humanistic idea, relevant in a world of rapid change, shifting geopolitics, and disruptive technology, defining every aspect of our lives and the newly emerging questions about identities, cultural divides, and living together.

These were also the challenges that confronted me when I became the tenth director-general of UNESCO in 2009. I ran the elections on a platform of “UNESCO in a Globalized World: New Humanism for the 21st Century.” An important part of this proposed agenda was the idea that culture and heritage protection should find their rightful place in all UN efforts to promote inclusive and sustainable development, intercultural dialogue, and peace.

At every crossroad of human history for the last seventy-five years, UNESCO has served as a global platform for intellectual debate, fostering partnerships, encouraging the creation of knowledge, and launching new ideas. This is how the concept of “world heritage” and a whole range of cultural conventions, ideas, and principles were born, such as education for all, knowledge-based societies, expressions of cultural diversity, the ethics of science, and ethical principles in relation to climate change.

Nevertheless, while considered the “laboratory of ideas” of the UN system, UNESCO has been increasingly torn between its intergovernmental nature and the expectations of an independent intellectual debate. Not that they are always opposite to each other, but with time more questions have emerged. These include: Is UNESCO still the “intellectual” agency of the UN or merely a technical one that sets up targets and benchmarks and implements projects in the field? How do you measure the impact of its various normative documents and new ideas in the areas of education, the sciences, and culture? How should they be quantified? And how do you apply such measures to culture and heritage protection? These are all relevant questions that clearly define two distinct approaches, a “technical” and a “political,” and the constant necessity to take both into account.

Such a dichotomy is at the same time an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity, as UNESCO has a huge convening power and unmatched normative outreach to define areas of common public good, such as education for all or heritage protection. And a challenge, as it requires navigating through a complex political landscape, competing regional and national agendas, and often minefields of unresolved historical narratives that may lead to conflict.

Like the United Nations itself, UNESCO reflects, sometimes even more so, political shifts and ambitions—all becoming more visible and contentious with competition and conflicting narratives over history, heritage, and identity. If anything, this has only intensified with the end of the Cold War, and new geopolitical realities, which opened unresolved historical disputes and unhealed wounds, have challenged the very system of norms established by UNESCO. It happened with the wars in the former Yugoslavia, with the conflicts in the post-Soviet space, and in Asia, including the Far East. Not to mention the most conspicuous, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the status of the Old Town of Jerusalem, sacred to the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The latter issue came dramatically to the fore in November 2011, when UNESCO’s General Conference, which consists of representatives of the organization’s member states, adopted a decision to grant Palestine full membership. This triggered the automatic suspension of the American contribution to the regular budget, under a 1990 US law that prohibits the funding of any UN body that “accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the status of member state.” Losing 22 percent of the budget was a major blow to UNESCO, weakening its capability to deliver on its programs and mandate.

However, the suspension of US funding was more than simply a financial issue. The universality of UNESCO was at stake, its ability to be the broad multilateral platform for international cooperation, negotiation, and decision-making in its area of competence. I deeply regretted this development: the consequences were quite obvious—both UNESCO and the United States were losers. I was consequently committed to preserving the universality of the organization and to keeping the United States as a member. The country was not only a founding member state but a valuable partner supporting education for all, women’s empowerment, science, freedom of speech, and particularly the protection of world heritage.

After all, it was an American, Russell E. Train, who strongly promoted the concept of world heritage in the early decades of the UN. He left an indelible mark on environmental protection in the United States and a deep imprint on the world through his leadership of the World Wildlife Fund and, not least, his vision of world heritage. For example, Train participated in the 1965 White House conference that established the idea of combining the preservation of cultural and natural sites, and it was his discussions with Dr. Joseph Fisher, chairman of the conference’s Committee on Natural Resources, that led to the creation of a World Heritage Trust to, in their words, “identify, establish, develop, and manage the world’s superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and future benefit of the entire world citizenry.”⁵

Invited to address the celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in Venice in 2002, the year following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, Train famously remarked: “At this particular time in history, as the fabric of civilized human society seems increasingly under attack by forces that deny the very existence of a shared heritage, forces that strike at the very heart of our sense of community, I am convinced that the World Heritage holds out a contrary and positive vision of human society and our human future.”⁶

These words encapsulate the spirit of world heritage. While years have passed, they have lost none of their relevance or urgency.