World Heritage Sites National Federation of High Schools Debate Topic Proposal Topic Selection Committee Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Summer 2016 Presented by: Kyle Brenner Melissa High School, Melissa, Texas Representing the University Interscholastic League
12
Embed
World Heritage Sites - NFHSUNESCO via the World Heritage Committee according to Article 11.4 of the World Heritage Convention which was established to preserve and protect World Heritage
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Introduction InMarchof2001,theTalibaneruptedontotheinternationalscenebydynamitinganddestroyingthefamedBuddhasofBamiyaninAfghanistan.TheBuddhasofBamiyanwere chiseled out of the cliffs and have survivedthearmiesofGenghisKhanandtheintroductionofIslam,butwereunabletosurvivetheiconoclasticTalibanregimeofthe21stcentury.i (SeeFigure1)The Cultural Landscape and ArchaeologicalRemainsoftheBamiyanValleyhavenowfounditsway on the the United Nations Education,Scientific,andCulturalOrganization(UNESCO)ListofWorldHeritageinDanger.SincethedestructionbytheTaliban,UNESCO,theAfghangovernment,andlocalshavefailedtoreachaconsensusontheidealmethodtorehabilitatetheruination. Sadly,thedestructionofthecultural,historical,andnaturalsitesisnotconfinedtotheBamiyanValley.Allaroundtheworld,particularlyintheArabStates,WorldHeritageSitesareunderassault. InMayof2015,theIslamicStateof IraqandtheLevant(ISIL)scoredacolossalvictorybytakingcontrolofthehistoricSiteofPalmyraintheSyrianArabRepublic.Overthemonthsthatfollowed,ISILcontinuedadeliberatecampaignofculturaldesecration punctuated bymass executions in Palmyra’s ancient amphitheater to getpublicity,attention,andvilificationfromtheworld’smedia.UNESCOledthechargeandpublicallydenouncedthecarnageofPalmyraasawarcrime.Astheworldhowled,aghast,
over the atrocities in Palmyra, ISILcelebratedwitha fresh influxof recruitsandfundsraisedfromtheillicitantiquitiessold on the black market. The UnitedNations and the rest of the globalcommunitydidlittleasISILturnedthesitetoruins.(SeeFigure2)BylateApril2016,the Russian backed Syrian Army hadmanaged to retake the site. A RapidAssessment Mission supported by UN
Security Forces found that statues and sarcophagi were defaced, smashed, headssevered, and fragments left scattered throughout the site. Much of the existingarchitecturewasseverelydamaged,butafullsurveyhasyettobecompletedduetoslowdeminingoperations.ii
Figure 2: Temple of Bel Aug 27, 2015 (Left) and Aug 31, 2015(Right.)UNITAR-UNOSAT;AFP
WorldHeritageSites
4
Thedestructionof thehistoric SiteatPalmyra(SeeFigure3)isjustoneexampleofthatirreparabledamagethathasbeendonesincethelasttimetheNationalFederationofHighSchoolheldtheirTopicSelection Meeting last summer. There are fiveother sites within the borders of Syria that haveexperiencedsimilarlevelsofdestructionduringthelast year and with ISIL threatening to move thedestruction throughout the region. To be clear,terrorist/extremist organizations such as ISIL andthe Taliban are not the only threat to World
ActorTheUnitedNations The United Nations (UN) is the optimal actor because they have the mostexperience operating under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the WorldCultural and Natural Heritage which guides UNESCO’s efforts of World Heritageprotection.Sincetheadoptionofthe1972Convention,178nationshavesignedonwith1,031recognizedpropertiesacrosstheglobe.TheUNcontrolsthemeagerfundsoftheWorldHeritageFund(US$4million,annually)thatisusedtofinanceandfundprojects.ThisexpertisemakestheUNthebestactortosupportsitesontheListofWorldHeritageinDanger.AsRoyRodriquez,authorofthe2015TopicProposalonGlobalMalnutrition,argues, “having the UN as themain actor would allow for debaters to gain a betterunderstandingoftheUNandhowiffunctionsasanorganization,essentialknowledgeintoday’ssociety.”iv
It is likely that the Marshall Subcommittee or the Wording Committee willrecommendthattheactorshouldnotbetheUnitedNationsandbereplacedwiththetraditionalUnitedStatesfederalgovernment.HereisalistofseveralreasonswhythecommitteesshouldconsiderusingtheUnitedNations.
1. The policy debate community has focused on the United Statesgovernment,thewordinghasvariedslightly,since1975-1976withthetopicResolved: That the development and allocation of scare world resourcesshouldbecontrolledbyaninternationalorganization.v
2. ThepolicydebatecommunityhasnotdiscussedtheUnitedNationssince2004-2005 with the topic Resolved: That the United States federalgovernment should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing itssupportofUnitedNationspeacekeepingoperations.
4. The policy debate community should embrace theUnitedNations as anactorasameanstofurthergrowtheeducationalopportunitiesforallwhoparticipateintheactivityatthesecondarylevelandbeyond
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantiallyincrease its support for one ormore sites on the UnitedNationsWorldHeritageConvention’sListofWorldHeritageinDanger.
This resolutionwith theUSFGas theactorwouldmakevery similar to the2004-2005policydebatetopicofpeacekeepingoperations.Support Theterm“support”willbeoneofthemostdubiouswordofthisresolution. Ingeneral,therewillbetwolikelyoverarchingcompetinginterpretationsoftheterm.Thenegative is likely to argue that the affirmative must provide some kind of concreteassistancetotheendangeredsite.Affirmatives,inanattempttoescapelikelyarguments,willuseadefinitionthatdoesnotrequireconcretetangible/physicalassistance.
WorldHeritageSites
6
WorldHeritageConvention TheWorldHeritageConvention isthedocumentthatspecificallyspellsouthowStatesPartiestotheConventiongetsitesrecognizedontheWorldHeritageListanddolesoutemergencyassistancetoanysitethatmayneedit.TheConventionrequiresthattheWorldHeritageCommitteecreateandmaintainaListofWorldHeritageinDanger.ListofWorldHeritageinDanger TheListofWorldHeritageinDangerisatermofartcreatedandmaintainedbyUNESCO via the World Heritage Committee according to Article 11.4 of the WorldHeritageConventionwhichwasestablishedtopreserveandprotectWorldHeritageSites.Anysiteappearingontheendangeredlistrequiresmajoroperationforconservationandfor which assistance has been requested. Dangers for heritage sites include armedconflict and war, earthquakes and other natural disasters, pollution, poaching,uncontrolled urbanization and unchecked tourist development. Dangers can be‘ascertained’, referringtospecificandproven imminentthreats,or ‘potential’,whenaproperty isfacedwiththreatswhichcouldhavenegativeeffectsonitsWorldHeritagevalues. TheWorldHeritageCommitteecarefullycurates theListofWorldHeritage inDangersothatatthetimeofthiswritingthereareonly48suchsitesacrosstheglobe.AsofJune2016,thesewouldbethesiteseligibleforaffirmatives:
Thislistisupdatedannually.Ifthistopicisselectedfor2017-2018thelistmaybeupdatedto include new sites or existing sites may be removed with the 40th Session of theCommitteescheduledtomeetinIstanbulinJulyof2016.The41stSessionhasyettobe
WorldHeritageSites
8
scheduled,butitcansafelybeassumedthatitwilloccursometimeduringthesummerof2017. NarrowtheResolution ThecurrentListofWorldHeritage inDangerhas48sitesfromacrosstheglobewhichtosomemayseefartoobroadtobeaneffectivetopic.Itislikelythatthroughoutthe debate season that the community would self limit the resolution without theCommitteenarrowingthetopic. Thefollowingpossiblelimiterscouldbeaddedtotheendoftheresolution.IntheArabStates ThisUNESCOprovidedtermwould limittheaffirmativegroundtothefollowingcountries:Algeria,Bahrain,Djibouti,Egypt,Iraq,Jordan,Kuwait,Lebanon,Libya,Malta,Mauritania,Morocco,Oman,Palestine,Qatar,SaudiArabia,Somalia,Sudan,SyrianArabRepublic,Tunisia,UnitedArabEmirates,andYemen.Effectivelythislimiterwouldcover15,ornearlyone-third,ofendangeredsitescoveringsixcountriesfoundontheListofWorld Heritage Endangered. This limiter could be beneficial as the policy debatecommunityhasnotfocusedsignificantlyonthisregionoftheworldinthepast.
Resolved: TheUnitedNations (orUSFG) should substantially increase itssupport for one or more sites on the United Nations’ World HeritageConvention’sListofWorldHeritageinDangerintheArabStates.
InAfrica This UNESCO provided term would limit the affirmative ground to the entireAfricancontinentproperincludingEgyptandMadagascar.Effectivelythislimiterwouldcover16,orone-third,ofendangeredsitescovering10countries foundon theListofWorldHeritageEndangered. This limitercouldbebeneficialas theregionhasamorevariedlistofreasonswhytheirHeritageSitesareincludedontheListofWorldHeritageinDanger. This limitercouldbebeneficialasthepolicydebatecommunityhasneverfocusedontheentireAfricancontinent.
Resolved: TheUnitedNations (orUSFG) should substantially increase itssupport for one or more sites on the United Nations’ World HeritageConvention’sListofWorldHeritageinDangerinAfrica.
Resolved: TheUnitedNations (orUSFG) should substantially increase itssupport for one or more sites on the United Nations’ World HeritageConvention’s List ofWorld Heritage in Danger in Latin America and theCaribbean.
InSpecifiedCountries ThislistcouldspecifyvariouscountrieswithWorldHeritageSiteinDanger.Thejustificationforthelistcouldbevaried.Theauthorrecommendsthatifalimiterisaddedwith specific countries these countries should be the primary focus: Georgia, Mali,Panama,Kosovo,Egypt.ThislistcouldbealteredtoincludeanycountryfoundontheListofWorldHeritageinDanger.
Resolved: TheUnitedNations (orUSFG) should substantially increase itssupport for one or more sites on the United Nations’ World HeritageConvention’s ListofWorldHeritage inDanger inEgypt,Georgia,Kosovo,Mali,Panama.
AffirmativeGround The affirmativewas a vast array of actions to considerwhichwould provide abountifulselectionofcases.Thiswould,theoretically,avoidthecreationofasmallsetofcoreaffirmativesthatdebaterscoulduse.Thevarietyofaffirmativeswouldstemfromtheuseoftheterm“support”andthemultitudeoflocations.Thecombinationofcultural
WorldHeritageSites
10
andnatural siteswould keep thedoor open for a variety of affirmative types (policy,critical,alternativeadvocacies).
NegativeGround Tocombatthebroadnatureoftheaffirmative,thenegativehasplentyofgroundtomakeanydebateroundcompetitive. Firstandforemost,thereisamplegroundforcounterplans(consult,agent,etc.)anddisadvantagesgalore,particularly iftheUSFGisselected as the actor. There is great ground for the K debate with issues such asimperialism,nationalbuilding,andcolonialism.Overall,itappearsasiftheissufficientbalancebetweenbothsidesofthedebate.
Conclusion We have a special obligation to protect our World Heritage. This topic willintroduceanentiregenerationsofteachers,debaters,andthegreaterdebatecommunitytotheconceptofWorldHeritage.Withallofourhelp,maybewecansavethesesitesforourchildren.