Never was my argument and sorry if it sounded that way. I just think it should be pointed out that Saazer hops is called Saazer because the town used to be called Saaz historically. It's not called Saaz anymore. It was just something I found interesting, how Lithuania and Czechia handle the same sensitive issue.

Side note: For me the German Bad nominations are an error, too. The best Bad is Karlsbad/Karlovy Vary. And all German sites are well represented by this Czech site in Bohemia.

Shantiniktan[India]

ICOMOS team is visiting Shantiniketan

https://www.edexlive.com/news/2021/oct/26/will-tagores-visva-bharati-be-declared-world-heritage-site-heres-why-unesco-delegation-visited-25100.html

New Committee members were elected:

"During the session, the General Assembly elected twelve new members to the World Heritage Committee:
Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Zambia

The current composition of the World Heritage Committee is therefore as follows:

Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mali, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Zambia"

So pesky Norway is gone... and none of the new ones sound particularly threatening to new nominations (on the contrary: India, for example, was always quite anti-Icomos). 2022 could be another shoo-in for new sites.

First calls for changing locations.

From Czechia

"Finally, the Minister of Culture suggested not organizing the annual session of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee next June in the Russian city of Kazan."

https://francais.radio.cz/ministre-de-la-culture-la-tchequie-est-prete-a-aider-les-artistes-et-les-8743074

From Lithuania

"The illegal military actions undermine European and global stability and security. Russia bears full responsibility for this act of aggression and all the destruction, loss of life and heritage it will cause. Also, this country can no longer serve as the Chair of the World Heritage Committee, and host the Committee's 45th session in Kazan this summer."

https://unesco.lt/archives/5077

Various NGO's

#Russia can no longer chair the #UNESCO WHC!

https://twitter.com/WH_Watch

"The Committee's meeting is scheduled for the Russian city of Kazan in late June, but the BBF said it should be shifted to Paris under the Director-General of UNESCO. Russia has forfeited the right to chair and host this year's meeting of the World Heritage Committee," said Bob Brown Foundation spokesperson, Geoff Law. "President Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine violates UNESCO's mission to foster peace through science, culture and education."

https://www.bobbrown.org.au/mr_25_02_2022

I don't know why WHC sessions are quite unlucky, this maybe the third time that something wrong with the host and need to move to UNESCO HQ in Paris, if I recall correctly, 35th in Manama during Arab Spring, Coup during 40th in Istanbul and now war 45th with Russia. Every 5 sessions !!

Regarding the possible (probable?) need to move the 2022 WHC from Kazan to Paris (currently being discussed under the 2023 Forum Topic!!)
Is it as simple a matter as just moving the location "away" from Russia? What would be the argument for so doing? Not safety surely in Kazan? To "demonstrate" the "World's" (or at least a part of it's) views about Russia's actions in Ukraine? The practical recognition that, if it were to be held in Russia, many delegations wouldn't be prepared to attend? Would Russia be prepared to accept such a demonstration or such a practicality - it of course holds that its "goal is to protect people who have been abused by the genocide of the Kyiv regime for eight years." and ultimately to "strive for the demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians". (V Putin). Should it be "punished" for that?? .....it would say!

I presume that the previous moves of WHCs from their original locations (Manama and, partially, Istanbul) were made with the agreement of the respective States Parties. In the case of Bahrain they were given (and presumably promised at the time?) a reprise slot a few years later. In both cases the moved WHC was still chaired by the representative of the State Party as Chairperson of the WHC. The 44th WHC made its decision and the Russian WHC Chairperson took over the moment that the 44th Session closed and is currently and legitimately "in harmess" until the end of the 45th Session.

Is the WHC regarded as just another arm of UN where one sits down with representatives of every UN recognised country whatever might be thought of their actions within or outside their borders? And is there any mechanism to move the meeting without the agreement of the Chair.....can there be a "special meeting" of the WHC to achieve this - even without the agreement of the Russian Chairperson? Would the States Parties currently making up the WHC support such action (Argentina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mali, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Zambia)....as a member of the Security Council, India (together with UAE and China) recently abstained on a motion calling on Russia to "desist" on the basis that such a motion could hinder future diplomacy.

And, if it does go ahead in Paris then who would the Chairperson be? It is currently H.E. Mr. Alexander Kuznetsov. Should he be regarded primarily as a "Heritage professional" who is no more responsible for Russian actions than is the majority of ordinary Russians... or is he inevitably a representative of the Putin regime... and if so does that make a difference?. Mr Kuznetsov's CV is here . It includes being Ambassador to Spain so, he is basically another career Diplomat "serving" his country in a wide range or roles rather than being a "Heritage" expert. In May 2020 he was reported as supporting the Putin line on Crimea thus "Putting cultural and educational sites of Crimea on this so-called sanction list shows that the Ukrainian authorities regard these sites, which are [according to Kiev] supposedly located in Ukraine, with contempt and indifference," Kuznetsov said, adding that "the so-called sanctions have no practical use."

So, we could be faced with a WHC taking in place in Paris discussing "Heritage matters" chaired by a representative of the Putin government whilst Kyiv is being reduced to the ruined state of Grozny by bombardment and street fighting.....on the other hand Ukraine might have capitulared and be under the control of a quisling leader. Would that make things "Ok"? How late can any "decision" be left? (of course we could all be "nuclear toast" by that time!)

It could be said that WHCs took place whilst monuments in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc etc were being threatened/damaged...there may even have been representatives of one or other of the warring parties on the WHC... but not as Chairperson!

I have moved these posts now to here (above)

Thanks Solvigant for the analysis and pointing out my mistake posting in the wrong forum! I suppose we might see an announcement soon.

"Ukraine asked UNESCO to exclude Russia from the organization and deprive the session in Kazan. The department noted that they are waiting for a "response and decision" from UNESCO as soon as possible."

https://www.rosbalt.ru/world/2022/02/28/1946245.html

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/803718.html

Does it change something for the Historic center of Gorokhovets inscription? Should it be postponed?

From the UK:

"Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said it was "inconceivable" that the Unesco conference could be held in Russia and said the UK would boycott the event unless it was moved to another country."

News in Korea about the 45th Session of the World Heritage Committee:

Will the World Heritage Committee site change from Kazan, Russia in June?

I believe an announcement may be imminent.

jeanbon
I don't think a postponement would happen, especially considering that all evaluations will start surfacing rather soon. But if the session is changed to Paris and the Russian chairperson deprived of the event, it would be much more unlikely that Russia gets a "prize" inscription for organizing the session, as has been the case so many times before.

Here is the video https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-and-cambodia-jointly-promote-safeguarding-koh-ker-cultural-heritage-site

I find this statement interesting under some aspects for what we are going through in society right now. Given that I agree on the appropriateness of not holding the session in Russia, it is not really clear to me for which law of compensation it should be held in Ukraine instead, as it it is hinted in this communication. Moreover, I also don't understand why keeping it in Russia would be a "mockery of innocent Ukrainian victims", as it is an event that would not have any correlation with this war. I don't think this is the rhaetoric we need right now; I agree however that it might better to not hold it in Russia because its government is showing a behaviour that goes counter to UNESCO's fundamental principles of co-operation... let's do on the neutral (?) grounds of Paris as a back.off solution and that's it. But of course this raises lots of questions about many other places, too. At the same time I hope that Russia won't be excluded from the session and that its proposal of Gorokhovets will be fairly judged only for what it is.

But more interesting to me is the note about the absence of a possible debate of the status of Auschwitz-like sites on the List, which reminds me of that report which was linked here on the forum some times ago. So this has grown into the need of urgent discussion? Is this related to some other event of the last period (I can only think of the supposed damaging of the Holocaust memorial in Kyiv, which however appears to be unscathed)?