Countering the erasure of cultural identity in war and peace
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 26 June 2024 (19th and 20th sittings) (see Doc. 16003, report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education
and Media, rapporteur: Ms Yevheniia Kravchuk). Text adopted by the Assembly on
26 June 2024 (20th sitting).See also Recommendation 2280 (2024).
1. Following the occupation of Crimea
and parts of the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine by the Russian Federation
in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022,
conventional military targeting has been accompanied by a systematic,
State-driven policy of Russification of the occupied areas, imperialistic
and neocolonial historical revisionism, and denial of a distinct
cultural Ukrainian identity to those under occupation. This denial
is based in particular on putting into question the existence of
the Ukrainian language, culture and history, and on a portrayal
of Ukraine and Ukrainians as a lower caste, ethnicity and race.
It is carried out through: removal of archives; confiscation or
replacement of history textbooks; indoctrination, including through militarisation
of education; impeded access to education in native, including indigenous,
languages; decontextualisation of artefacts through relocation or
changing narratives around them; narrowing the diversity of commemorative
practices; looting; destruction of cultural objects and heritage
sites; intentional refusals to preserve cultural heritage in order
to showcase certain layers of history and erode others; distortive
and ethnically biased restoration of cultural objects; and neo-imperial
renaming of geographical sites.
2. For its part, the Belarusian Government has been implementing
a consistent policy of Russification since 1994. This policy has
taken on a clearly punitive character since 2020, when peaceful
mass protests took place against the disputed results of the presidential
election. Censorship is implemented through blacklists of politically
undesirable writers, artists, photographers, actors, musicians,
tour guides and museum workers. More than 200 non-governmental organisations
related to the cultural sphere of Belarus have been forced to cease
their activities and close.
3. Furthermore, the Russian Federation is pursuing a Russification
policy towards numerous indigenous peoples in the country, progressively
erasing their cultural identities by restricting the use of their
languages, especially in the education system, reducing the domains
of their cultural expressions, distorting their history and depriving
them of their historical memory, as well as by capturing and prosecuting
ethnic minority activists.
4. The Parliamentary Assembly holds that the Russian Federation
is using cultural cleansing as a weapon of war within its broader
campaign of extreme violence, in order to deny the existence of
a different cultural identity and erase its historical roots, values,
heritage, literature, traditions and language. Such cultural erasure,
and the deliberate and systematic destruction or looting of cultural
property, amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and
also reveal, together with the official rhetoric of the Russian
Federation to justify its war of aggression, the specific genocidal
intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group or at least part
of it, notably through the destruction of Ukrainian identity and
culture. This cultural erasure and the deliberate destruction and
looting of cultural property are part of the campaign of genocide
being pursued by the Russian Federation against the Ukrainian people
in blatant violation of treaty and customary international law.
5. The Assembly underlines that the right to access culture and
the right to enjoy one’s own cultural heritage form part of international
human rights law. It strongly condemns the deliberate destruction
of cultural heritage occurring in Ukraine today. According to the
Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy, 1 062 cultural
heritage sites have been either destroyed or damaged during the
aggression. This unnecessary, unjustified and arbitrary military
destruction of cultural heritage is not just an assault on built
fabric, but also on what it means for the Ukrainian people and their
well-defined historical European cultural identity, in accordance
with the principles of the Council of Europe Framework Convention
on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (CETS No. 199, “Faro
Convention”).
6. A legal response to these threats to cultural heritage, destruction
of collective and individual identity and affront to human dignity
can be found in an effective implementation of relevant treaty and
customary international law, including the Hague Convention for
the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
(1954) and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War (1949) and their respective protocols, and
human rights instruments governing the enjoyment of cultural rights
and expression of cultural identities. However, the international
legal framework concerning cultural heritage in armed conflict remains
fragmented and has significant gaps, particularly in relation to
new types of warfare and the safeguarding of cultural heritage after
conflicts. The return of cultural heritage and restoration of damaged heritage
objects are also matters of concern. In addition, loopholes in international
law and differences in the way different legal orders recognise
and implement the principle of universal jurisdiction over international crimes
make it difficult to bring perpetrators to justice before international
or national courts. This further leads to difficulties in providing
full reparations for destroyed, looted and irreversibly damaged
objects of cultural property, and in many instances restitution
for such losses or the return of objects remains a difficult challenge. Practical
steps are needed to remove these obstacles to judicial remedies.
7. While the Ukrainian situation and the tragic disrespect of
Ukrainian cultural heritage and identity by the Russian Federation
are extreme examples of this form of barbarism and call for specific
responses, the Assembly is also deeply concerned about the frequent,
severe threats to both tangible and intangible cultural heritage
and to cultural identities of populations, faced in other contexts
and locations and triggered by war or by tensions among communities
in post-war periods.
8. Recalling its
Resolution
2057 (2015) “Cultural heritage in crisis and post-crisis
situations”, the Assembly emphasises that corrosive and coercive
policies of cultural erasure require in response a holistic policy
action across the fields of culture, education, heritage management,
mass media, criminal accountability, reparations, remembrance, transitional
justice and reconciliation. Remedial action is necessary, but there
is also a need to work more on prevention to put an end to the ongoing
destructive acts against cultural heritage. A human rights approach,
with a key role for education, should be embedded in this holistic
strategy. Local populations should be involved in this sensitive
policy making, since local knowledge, attention to local perspectives
and community participation are crucial in countering the erasure
of cultural identity, restoring cultural heritage and objects as
part of the collective memory, and promoting cultural resilience
during and after the war.
9. On this basis, the Assembly recommends that member States
of the Council of Europe:
9.1 sign
and ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value
of Cultural Heritage for Society and the Council of Europe Convention
on Offences relating to Cultural Property (CETS No. 221, 2017, “Nicosia
Convention”), if they have not yet done so;
9.2 co-operate with the United Nations, the European Union
and other relevant organisations, to undertake a review of the Hague
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event
of Armed Conflict (1954) and of the Geneva Convention relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) and their
protocols, in particular to:
9.2.1 establish more robust
pre-emptive protective mechanisms for both tangible and intangible
cultural heritage of all groups and communities, in times of war
and in post-conflict situations;
9.2.2 reinforce sanctions for arbitrary military destruction
which is not justified by an “imperative military necessity”, an
exception which should be subject to strict interpretation and be
convincingly proved by the perpetrators;
9.2.3 expand their regulatory scope to address less obvious
violations against cultural heritage such as cultural cleansing
and cultural erasure;
9.2.4 provide for full reparations, based on international law
on State responsibility, in particular through restitution, compensation,
rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition of
damages to and destruction of tangible and intangible heritage;
9.3 strengthen their domestic legal frameworks to prosecute
war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, the crime of aggression
and serious human rights violations and, in particular:
9.3.1 review
their legislation to enable swift and effective universal jurisdiction
over all international crimes;
9.3.2 strengthen existing domestic war crimes units or establish
such units, and ensure that they have designated teams specialised
in cultural heritage crimes;
9.3.3 ensure that cultural erasure, deliberate, indiscriminate
and systematic destruction of cultural heritage, looting and unlawful
transfer of cultural property are effectively prosecuted as war
crimes, crimes against humanity or human rights violations, holding
perpetrators and their military and political commanders accountable
before national courts;
9.3.4 provide training on heritage crimes for criminal investigators,
prosecutors and specialists who collect evidence;
9.3.5 consider not only action aimed at a criminal-justice response
to illegal acts against cultural heritage and identity, but also
more holistic approaches aimed at ensuring full, effective reparations,
including collective reparations aimed at communities and victim
groups, as provided for in international law;
9.4 reinforce their ability to combat illegal trafficking
of cultural property and abusive expropriation of artefacts, and,
in particular:
9.4.1 provide for deterrent sanctions against
all those who operate or facilitate the illicit transfer or trade
of artefacts, conduct or organise illegal excavations, or use artefacts
for their own purposes (exhibitions, auctions, academic publications),
and ensure that the authorities and complicit public institutions
(cultural, academic or others) of the States responsible for these
acts are also held accountable;
9.4.2 develop training for military personnel, police, customs
officers and criminal-justice professionals, especially within domestic
war crimes units, to facilitate the prevention, investigation and
prosecution of violations affecting cultural heritage;
9.4.3 raise awareness in the art market of the International
Council of Museums (ICOM) Red Lists of Cultural Objects at Risk,
and of the specific ICOM Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at
Risk for Ukraine;
9.5 use their political leverage at international level and
develop co-operation, in particular with the Committee of Ministers
and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council
of Europe and with relevant international organisations, human rights
groups and cultural institutions, with an aim to:
9.5.1 promote
human rights and peace education, and multiperspectivity in history
teaching, which should provide learners with the keys of mutual
understanding and recognition, foster pluralism and overcome denials
that fuel hatred;
9.5.2 promote effective protection of endangered cultural identities,
cultural heritage and cultural rights;
9.5.3 organise international events on the preservation and
restoration of cultural heritage sites damaged or threatened as
a consequence of an armed conflict;
9.5.4 raise awareness of how propaganda and imperial and neo-imperial
practices, notably the ideology of the “Russian World” (“Russkiy mir”), can lay out the basis
for violations of international law, including those against cultural
heritage;
9.5.5 raise awareness of the Russian Federation targeted indoctrination
and militarisation of Ukrainian children in occupied territories.
10. The Assembly urges member States to mutualise resources and
co-ordinate their efforts, to provide Ukraine with the support it
may need to implement a holistic strategy in response to the Russian
Federation’s coercive policies aimed at erasing cultural identity,
including the following actions in relation to:
10.1 remedial strategies:
10.1.1 gather, record, document and preserve evidence of crimes
committed by the Russian Federation against tangible and intangible
cultural heritage in Ukraine, also with a view to assessing damages
and seeking reparations;
10.1.2 assist in digitalising objects of cultural heritage and
property, in order to transform and store them in digital formats
on various online platforms and databases, permitting unimpeded public
access to these;
10.1.3 build institutional capacity to ensure the best use of
funding provided by outside agencies and donors, to enhance heritage
management and to carry out sound reconstruction processes;
10.1.4 develop adaptation programmes for Ukrainian child victims
of deportation to the Russian Federation or of cultural cleansing
policies in territories under Russian control, carefully considering
their age, gender, regional background and the duration and level
of indoctrination to which they have been subjected;
10.1.5 develop transitional justice, with due consideration for
truth seeking, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition;
10.2 post-conflict reconstruction, recovery and peace building:
10.2.1 develop specific projects for cultural heritage, support
for cultural vitality and cultural exchanges by providing support
and resources for artists, writers, musicians and other cultural professionals
and by funding initiatives, providing grants and residency programmes;
10.2.2 develop remembrance, reconciliation and educational policies
that encourage democratic citizenship and civic engagement;
10.2.3 raise awareness among local populations of the importance
of cultural heritage and cultural rights, create spaces of dialogue
with them and associate them properly in policy implementation.
