World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /  
 

2022 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 9 of 10:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next »

Author elsslots
Admin
#121 | Posted: 14 Apr 2022 01:10 

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#122 | Posted: 14 Apr 2022 02:10 | Edited by: winterkjm 
The problem seems to be the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee acting as a barrier to the 21 member world heritage committee from conducting a vote on relocation or stripping the chair from Russia, etc.

The Bureau of the Committee:
"coordinates the work of the Committee and fixes the dates, hours and order of business of meetings."

Russia, India, Argentina, Italy, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand

Only Argentina and Italy condemned Russia.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-seeks-cancellation-of-unescos-world-heritage-meeting-in-russia/

Thailand and India seem set on their opinion. Even if South Africa is persuaded it might not be enough.

Why India Won't Condemn Russia

Russia-Thailand ties remain strong despite Ukraine

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#123 | Posted: 15 Apr 2022 12:37 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Might we see committee members resign?

https://www.rmf24.pl/regiony/krakow/news-kolejny-apel-o-odwolanie-spotkania-komitetu-ochrony-swiatowe,nId,5953051#crp_state=1

If a decision is to be made, it must happen soon. Meanwhile, from a Ukrainian News channel they are certainly dialing up pressure internationally to change the location of the World Heritage Conference. [youtube video]

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#124 | Posted: 17 Apr 2022 01:56 | Edited by: Solivagant 
If the constitution and politics of the WHC does stymie any attempt to move the 2022 venue from Kazan and remove Russia from the Chair then what might any WHC meeting which did take place look like? I have hypothesized as follows -

a. The WHC
This would consist solely of those States which were prepared to attend. I see nothing in the Operational Guidelines (OG) which sets a number for a quorum so, it would seem that a legally constituted "rump" WHC of whatever number, is still empowered to act as a WHC with all its "powers". I think there have been occasions in the past when at least one member of the WHC hasn't been present for some or all of the discussions but there has never been any suggestion that this invalidated anything decided
Would not go - Arg, Bel, Bul, Gr, It, Jap
Would go - Eth, Rus
Would probably go - Egy, India, Maldives, Mex, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, St Vinc, Saudi. S Afr, Zambia, Rwanda.
It is possible that a small number of these "abstainers" or "did not votes" on other related matters regarding Ukraine might also not attend - but it would seem that a WHC of no more than 15 members (or possibly slightly fewer) would "turn up"!

b. Advisory Bodies (ABs)
We have heard absolutely nothing as far as I can discover on the matter from ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM etc. The idea of a WHC without at least the first 2 would seem inconceivable....but would probably still be "constitutionally" OK? These bodies are completely separate from UNESCO and are entitled to make their own decisions. Would they turn up to a "rump" WHC boycotted by at least 46 States and around a third of the WHC. Would they regard their "voice" at such a meeting as not being capable of being "properly" heard and acted upon? If so they might decide that they couldn't maintain their political impartiality by attending..... On the other hand they might regard not attending as itself being a "political act! I have had a quick look at the "constitutions" of both ICOMOS and IUCN but it isn't clear how they would reach a decision on this matter. Their revenue streams are also potentially at risk from both ends! They will be in a difficult position if the meeting does go ahead as planned!! They must be hoping that the need for a decision is taken out of their hands!!

c. The Other "members"
It has never been clear to me how many of the States Parties which are NOT on the WHC actually send a delegation. Certainly not all. Those with nominations turn up to make their final pleas - as well as to make their acceptance speech if successful! Certain others facing issues regarding inscribed sites also turn up for the same reasons. A range of other organisations involved in "heritage" are also present beyond the main ABs and It is generally recognised that a significant value of the WHC lies in the "behind the scenes" networking on Heritage matters across all attendees. The loss of the contributions of at least 46 Countries would considerably reduce the "value" of the WHC and potentially turn its very existence and hence all of its decisions into a "political statement".

d. UNESCO/World Heritage Centre staff
If the 21 members of the WHC can make a decision on whether that body meets in Kazan under a Russian chair do the staff of the "World Heritage Centre" simply have to follow that decision and "turn up"? UNESCO has been trying hard to distance itself from the WHC decision - "UNESCO is at pains to emphasise that the decision on the meeting is not taken by UNESCO's leaders but by the members of the World Heritage Committee." but, if it does go ahead, then UNESCO itself can't avoid having to make its own decisions - and its own "constitutional arrangements" (which are different from those of the WHC) would come into play.

Generally it would seem that, if the WHC were to "decide" (either actively or, because it couldn't reach an agreement to the contrary, passively) not to alter the current arrangements for the WHC, the result would be a "mess". Other states and bodies would be forced to stop hiding behind the WHC decision making process and make their views public. The result would split the "heritage world". Any meeting which did take place, and all its decisions, would be tainted. The Olympic movement has faced such issues in the past with boycotts and has survived.... though the medals "won" at such games have never quite had the same credibility as others.

One aspect about all this which hits me is in just how much of a minority the countries "actively opposing" Russia via a policy of trying to alter the WHC arrangements are - a "mere" 46 - which is largely "European" and also includes a fair number of micro states.
( I list them again -
1 Afghanistan, 2 Albania, 3 Andorra, 4 Australia, 5 Austria, 6 Canada, 7 Colombia, 8 Croatia, 9 Cyprus, 10 Czech Republic, 11 Denmark, 12 Ecuador, 13 Estonia, 14 Finland, 15 France, 16 Georgia, 17 Germany, 18 Hungary, 19 Iceland, 20 Ireland, 21 Latvia, 22 Lithuania, 23 Luxembourg, 24 Malta, 25 Moldova, 26 Monaco, 27 Montenegro, 28 Netherlands, 29 New Zealand, 30 Nigeria, 31 North Macedonia, 32 Norway, 33 Peru, 34 Poland, 35 Portugal, 36 Republic of Korea, 37 Romania, 38 Saint Kitts & Nevis. 39 San Marino, 40 Slovakia, 41 Slovenia, 42 Spain, 43 Sweden, 45 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 44 Ukraine, 46 United States of America)
.

Every country in the G7 but, from the G20, no Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey.
It is perhaps too easy to take a "Eurocentric" view on this matter and expect every country to see a war in Ukraine through the same eyes. They clearly do not!!

Author Jurre
Partaker
#125 | Posted: 17 Apr 2022 15:50 | Edited by: Jurre 
Solivagant:
Every country in the G7 but, from the G20, no Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey.
It is perhaps too easy to take a "Eurocentric" view on this matter and expect every country to see a war in Ukraine through the same eyes. They clearly do not!!

Maybe Noam Chomsky explained this well in this interview he had with a Belgian journalist: Interview with Noam Chomsky (from 1:13 - 2:11)

The world outside the US an Europe looks very different. Countries imposing sanctions are the English speaking countries, Western Europe, Japan. All the other countries take a neutral stance. They are used to atrocities. They don't share the moral outrage of the US and Europe, since the latter countries were praising the invasion in Iraq with noble intentions a couple of years ago.

So maybe the West asking / demanding to share the outrage and to condemn Russia can be considered as another act of Western imperialism / paternalism or an act of "Westsplaining". Why should the West dictate how the rest of the world needs to react to this invasion?

Author Euloroo
Partaker
#126 | Posted: 17 Apr 2022 22:37 | Edited by: Euloroo 
Solivagant:
The Olympic movement has faced such issues in the past with boycotts and has survived.... though the medals "won" at such games have never quite had the same credibility as others.

Helpful analogy and I suspect where things will head with, no doubt, a counter-boycott in a few years time when one of the boycotting countries hosts. Could we therefore expect Germany, France, Spain and others to withdraw their 2022 submissions in this scenario?

Author Zoe
Partaker
#127 | Posted: 21 Apr 2022 11:54 

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#128 | Posted: 21 Apr 2022 13:04 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Zoe:
https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/unesco-meeting-in-russia-on-world-heritage-postponed-indefinitely
No meeting this year at all?

Indeed not. Interesting to read the Russian take on the postponement in Tass
"The majority of World Heritage Committee states do not want to support such anti-Russia attacks"
and
"We plan to start discussing the new date soon"

Kicking the can down the road?? What conditions will have to exist before a "reasonably valid" WHC could be held in Kazan under a Russian chair?
One would think that a fair number of the 46 states would have to change their mind and be prepared to attend. Would they require some sort of "peace" agreement first? Even then would a "forced" peace really overcome the objections to the original action or would enough states find at least the end of widespread fighting and destruction enough?

Author Liam
Partaker
#129 | Posted: 21 Apr 2022 13:32 
The diplomatic equivalent of going to the Winchester, having a nice cold pint, and waiting for this all to blow over...

Author Walter
Partaker
#130 | Posted: 21 Apr 2022 14:29 | Edited by: Walter 
Officially postponed:

Information – 45th session of the World Heritage Committee
Following a consultation of the members of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, it was decided that the 45th session of the World Heritage Committee, initially scheduled from 19 - 30 June 2022, is postponed.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#131 | Posted: 22 Apr 2022 02:06 
Who would have thought, but it looks like we might have another back to back WHC. Russia might still be positioning itself to hold the WHC in 2023, when the "Astronomical Observatories of Kazan Federal University" is scheduled.

"It could happen that this extraordinary Committee decided not to celebrate the 45th edition this year and hold a double session in 2023."

More details are provided here.

2020-2021 (34 new inscribed properties)

2022-2023 (TBD)

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#132 | Posted: 22 Apr 2022 03:38 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I linked above to the Russian "take" in Tass on the postponement of the 45th WHC.
Here is a link to a Ukrainian "take".
I suppose that, when one is fighting a battle for the very existence of one's country, then objective reporting can get lost... also one looks for even the slightest sniff of a "victory" to celebrate, but the Ukrainian assessment that "UNESCO snubs Russia venue for annual event.....The UNESCO Committee granted the request of the Ukrainian side to cancel its session set to be held in Russia.......Another victory for our cultural front. The 45th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee will not take place in Kazan." seems excessively positive! A limited victory "of sorts" I suppose.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#133 | Posted: 22 Apr 2022 05:46 
By the way.... in another "victory on the cultural front" against Putin's Russia UNESCO has postponed this year's "Russian Language Day" scheduled for Jun 6. Normally it is celebrated annually on what was Pushkin's birthday - there is 1 such day for each of the official UN languages. Not needed to help spread the use of Russian as Putin has taken his own action to do so?
I note that the wording is still that the day is "postponed" rather than "cancelled".

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#134 | Posted: 22 Apr 2022 18:22 
It seems Unesco jinx the world. One session expected in China, postponed due to a pandemic started in China; now the session in Russia postponed due to this war started by Russia...where the next sessions will take place lol?

Author carlosarion
Partaker
#135 | Posted: 22 Apr 2022 19:22 
This might be two consecutive back-to-back sessions, 2020-2021 and 2022-2023. But why do I feel like there is a possibility that this will be a norm in the future, regardless of pandemics, wars, etc?

Page  Page 9 of 10:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2022 WHC

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑