Commentary: Threats to Afghan Cultural Heritage Continue

By Nancy Hatch Dupree

The current situation in Afghanistan puts at further risk a cultural heritage already threatened by looting, pillaging and deliberate destruction. Only the thought that the military offensive might rid the country of foreign extremist elements has eased some of the anxiety. The wilful destruction of cultural property as a political instrument wielded by non-Afghan influences through their Afghan agents was a perfidious act of singular gravity. The Arab extremist members of Al-Qaeda, who had exerted control on key decision makers in the Taliban, have now been dislodged from Kabul. It was their undue influence which prompted the issue of an edict for the destruction of all non-Islamic statues on 26 February. Apart from the well-publicized onslaughts on pre-Islamic artefacts in the Kabul Museum and the elimination of the Bamiyan Buddhas in March, high officials later smashed the contents of some twenty out of 200 cases containing museum objects stored for safe-keeping at the Ministry of Information and Culture. Despite international pleas, Taliban leader Mullah Omar seemed unconcerned that ten previous edicts for the protection of cultural heritage had been negated. It is now clear that the mullah and his associates no longer had control; the Arab political agenda had overwhelmed his authority. Petitions by UNESCO, dialogue through diplomatic channels and the efforts of individuals had been to no avail. The right of a state to retain its cultural property is widely respected in international law. Many critics are quick to point out those efforts to move museum objects to safe havens outside the country have been thwarted by archaeologists and international organizations who rigidly adhere to this rule. In order to satisfy all competing interests, what should be the appropriate form of international intervention? Since 1992, the Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage (SPACH) has explored various options. The right to retention carries with it an obligation to provide protection, especially when cultural property is endangered. In countries like Afghanistan, this raises difficulties, as cultural heritage is inevitably bonded to national honour. Insiders, not outsiders were the primary blockers to shifting pieces abroad. Obtaining consensus from decision makers has been a major hurdle. While some officials enthusiastically concurred with the wisdom of removing museum collections outside conflict areas, those at the apex of authority often demurred. When Ahmad Shah Masood was the power in Kabul, he told me: `It would be disastrous for us. People would say we are weak, that we are unable to protect our cultural heritage and that we are selling our cultural heritage for personal gain. No one would understand.' Similar sentiments were echoed by members of the Taliban high council when they still looked kindly on the protection of their pre-Islamic heritage. The Bamiyan incident has prompted UNESCO and others into rethinking policies that have been in place for 30 years. Many issues have to be resolved: What principles will apply regarding the purchase of artefacts? Who will determine provenance and authenticity? Which institution will be designated as a depository? How will legal issues be resolved with the countries in which objects are obtained? Sadly opportunists far outnumber altruists. Within days of the iconoclastic destruction, the bazaars of Peshawar were brimming with new artefacts, said to have been transported with the express connivance of the Taliban. Hooded trucks seen along the road from Kabul to Peshawar were rumoured to contain cases from the Ministry of Information and Culture. Truck-loads of rubble believed to be from Bamiyan had arrived for sale. Taliban officials were said to have approached Western experts for help in illegally excavating new sites for their own profit, offering half of any finds as an incentive. A few of those contacted reason that it might be worthwhile to cooperate - at least half would be saved. This parallels the rather smug comments by dealers and collectors that their purchases over the years have at least `saved' many prime pieces. The extent of damage inflicted by the present conflict is an added worry. For what it was worth, a list of monuments was sent to the military command. Most, like the minaret of Jam and the Noh Gumbad mosque at Balkh, are from the Islamic period. Except for some stupas and the Bamiyan caves, there are few pre-Islamic monuments still standing above ground. As repositories for what remains of the looted National Museum collections, the Ministry of Information and the presidential palace are high on the list of sites to be spared. Battles rage near some of these sites. Others are exposed along the flight path to major targets, or located near military installations or potentially dangerous gas fields. As of 19 November, there have been no reports of damage to historical buildings. The future is uncertain; the failure to install some sort of governing body in the capital immediately after it was vacated by the Taliban has left a dangerous vacuum. The regime of President Rabani (1992-96) was highly supportive of heritage protection. One can only hope that the new government, whatever its form, will reflect the traditional Afghan respect for heritage in their new policies. For the time being we will have to wait and see. But there are many other urgent things to be done. Guidelines for the future can be formulated so that heritage protection issues can be incorporated within the reconstruction programmes which will be inevitably be implemented by a new government. Publication of materials enhancing awareness of the protection of cultural property will also have to be accelerated. This will not only edify policy makers and project planners, it will also educate the communities they live in. Spontaneous gestures by a few individuals are heartening. In London and Tokyo, two priceless objects from Ai Khanoum in northern Afghanistan were anonymously pledged for eventual return: a fountain spout in the shape of a dolphin head and a sculptured marble foot of a 3-metre tall deity. Meanwhile, projects designed to keep alive the memory of the Bamiyan Buddhas flourish outside Afghanistan. A plan to replicate the large Buddha in limestone at Kullu in India's Himachal Pradesh state has been announced. In China, 400 stonecutters are working on a replica for a tourist park in Sichuan province. The inspiration of Bamiyan lives on - although not, perhaps, in the way its creators intended.