Cultural heritage under threat. How targeting of heritage is used in conflicts seen through the conflict of Nagorno Karabakh
Anna Guðný Gröndal
We live in a time where we are confronted with war and destruction, a tragic reality that has persisted throughout history. The destructive consequences of war and conflicts extend to all aspects of the societies involved. They lead to loss of life, disrupt culture, communities, and security, and leave long-lasting psychological scars on all members of the affected community. It’s a known fact that cultural heritage has been a target in many conflicts. Over the course of history, various parties have employed deliberate targeting of cultural heritage as a means of as a weapon, tool, or means of asserting dominance.
In this article, I will explore the concept of targeting cultural heritage during conflicts, investigating the reasons behind such actions and their consequences. To illustrate this, I will examine the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, focusing specifically on the targeting of Shusha/Shushi and the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral during the latter phase of the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war.
Losing a form of cultural heritage can have a major impact on a population and erode its sense of identity. In times of conflict, cultural heritage sites such as buildings, monuments, artwork, and artefacts often become targets of various actors, including governments, rebels, or rioters. These attacks are carried out for different purposes and in diverse ways, aiming to take control, inflict damage, or completely destroy these sites, affecting both the people using them and the structures themselves (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 248-9). Looking through history, conflicts have impacted all forms of cultural heritage, from collateral damage to buildings and monuments to the looting of artwork and artefacts (Winchester 2022). Historical conflicts and recent events, such as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of 2020, highlight the persistent threat to cultural heritage. Armed conflicts pose significant risks to cultural heritage. Attacks on tangible and intangible heritage often occur simultaneously, with destructive force affecting both aspects. While tangible heritage, such as buildings, artefacts, and historic sites, is more visibly affected during armed conflicts, the damage to tangible heritage also has severe consequences for the intangible dimension of cultural heritage. The destruction of cultural heritage during armed conflicts has a transformative impact on the affected population. It damages morale, instils fear, disrupts cultural traditions, and undermines the cultural foundations of identity, beliefs, and dignity. Acts of cultural heritage destruction serve not only to terrorise local populations but also to obliterate their cultures. The intentional destruction of cultural heritage is often seen as a component of broader plans that involve ‘cultural engineering,’ ‘cultural cleansing,’ or even ‘cultural genocide.’ This form of destruction represents a type of ‘cultural’ warfare, specifically targeting the symbolic representation of a group’s identity (Chainoglou 2017, 113-115).
Understanding the motives behind the destruction of cultural property can vary depending on the type of armed conflict, whether it is an interstate conflict, a civil war, or a communal conflict. It is crucial to comprehend the reasons for attacking cultural heritage to address this issue effectively (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 250-251).
In the article “Heritage Under Attack,” Brosché, J. et al. created a typology that categorises the motives behind deliberate attacks on cultural property during armed conflict. This typology provides a theoretical framework for understanding why cultural property is often targeted in such situations. There are four main types of incentives for attacking cultural property, which can be categorised as conflict goals, military-strategic reasons, signalling, and economic incentives. The first category explains the reasons behind the attacks, while the other three categories focus on how the attacks are carried out (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 249).
In armed conflicts, parties fight over goals related to identity, territory, religion, or economics. Attacking cultural sites, symbols of identity and memory, is a tactic to achieve these goals and weaken the enemy’s sense of belonging and gain control. Motivated by ethnic, religious, or political factors, these attacks aim to enforce ideologies or resist foreign influence. Cultural property destruction can establish power, erase belonging, or assert claims to power and land. Communal conflicts can also arise from competing claims to sacred sites (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 251-252).
Military-strategic reasons for attacking cultural property are to gain tactical advantages. Cultural property may be seen as having military importance and attacking it can provide tactical advantages in the conflict. Cultural heritage sites are commonly used as spaces for political discussions and organising opposition. Attacking these sites, like churches, mosques, temples, or synagogues, can disrupt the social and organisational networks of the opposition. This is particularly significant in civil wars where rebel groups rely on secrecy and trust for success (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 253).
Targeting heritage as a means of signalling in armed conflicts is intended to show strength, and determination and to get more attention. By targeting symbolically significant sites, such as cultural heritage locations, they demonstrate their unwavering determination to continue the fight and can leverage these attacks to demand concessions. Signalling is crucial in armed conflicts to convey capabilities and commitment to opponents and other stakeholders, such as the international community and potential supporters. The deliberate targeting of cultural property serves as a potent signal, capturing attention due to the symbolic value associated with cultural heritage (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 253).
Economic incentives can also play a significant role in motivating attacks on cultural heritage. Wars are costly, which is why cultural property may be targeted as a means to fund them. In modern conflicts, financial support for warring parties often comes from looting, illicit trade, or exploiting valuable cultural artefacts. Historically, victorious armies used cultural property as spoils of war, but this practice declined after World War II. Today, armed groups resort to looting and selling antiquities as alternative funding sources, reflecting a shift in cultural property looting motivations and methods (Brosché, J. et al. 2017, 255).
One significant concern regarding targeting is how to respond when cultural heritage is threatened or attacked. Protecting heritage in danger requires a delicate approach. It is crucial for international communities and organisations to consider how to react to these circumstances and prevent the destruction of heritage sites. The international community and organisations have obligations to act when heritage is threatened. However, these actions can have counter-objective effects. In other words, highlighting the significance of cultural property can make it a target for destruction, putting the heritage at risk. (Rosén 2020, 496).
While the international community’s efforts to protect cultural heritage are well-intentioned, it is vital to acknowledge the unintended consequences that can arise. By fuelling the value of cultural heritage as a security issue, inadvertently drawing attention to it, and lacking sufficient competence and capacity, the international community has unintentionally paved the way for further destruction. (Rosén 2020, 505)
Nagorno Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh is a region within Azerbaijan’s borders primarily populated by Armenians. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artshak) has a long and complex history (BBC 2023). The conflict dates back to the start of the 20th century and is an ongoing conflict. For the most part of the 20th century, the two groups lived together peacefully with some classes. During the late 1980s, as tensions rose in the USSR under the glasnost policy, Armenians and Azerbaijanis became more politically active regarding issues of ethnicity.
This led to increased sensitivity and conflict over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, which became a point of contention between the two nations. The situation eventually escalated into armed conflicts in 1988, lasting for six years, known as the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. During this time, Armenia gained control of the region, and tensions remained high until 2020. That year, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War broke out and ended with a ceasefire agreement, resulting in Azerbaijan gaining control over the region. (Horák and Hoch 2023, 26)
The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has brought to the forefront the issue of cultural heritage in the region. The territory is home to numerous sacred buildings, including churches, monasteries, and mosques, that hold cultural and historical significance. During the past decades, the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh have shifted several times due to conflicts, resulting in damage to many of these cultural monuments. Both sides, Armenia and Azerbaijan, have been accused of damaging or destroying religious and cultural monuments as part of their tactics in the conflict. This intentional targeting has been used to assert control and eliminate the presence of the opposing side. (Horák and Hoch 2023, 26)
In the Second Nagorno Karabakh War in 2020, Shusha/Shushi became the primary target of Azerbaijani military operations, and its seizure marked the conclusion of the armed phase of the conflict. The city holds immense significance to both sides, with each side attributing it as a centre of their cultural heritage. For the Azerbaijani side, Shusha/Shushi symbolised not only their military victory but also a rejection of all things Armenian, representing the establishment of a new order. (Horák and Hoch 2023, 28, 31-32) On the 8th of October 2020 Azerbaijan attacked and damaged the Holy Savior Cathedral, also known as the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. The cathedral was targeted in two separate attacks, damaging its dome and interior. The cathedral was constructed in 1887 and was a representation of the Armenian community’s cultural and economic prosperity.
Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in 2007It was one of the largest Armenian churches and a tribute to the successful Shusha Armenian elite. However, during Soviet rule, the Armenian population was expelled from the city, and the church lost its religious significance. It was converted into a ”cultural monument”, and its main tower’s spire was shortened to benefit the Azerbaijani authorities. After the first Nagorno-Karabakh war, the Armenian population regained control, and the cathedral was restored and re-sacralised. The surrounding buildings that were damaged during the war were demolished. With donations from the Armenian diaspora and other donors, the cathedral was one of the first sites to be restored. The octagonal cupola was remodelled to resemble its original appearance, and it became a powerful symbol of the region’s rebirth. The cathedral served as a pilgrimage site and played a significant role in symbolic processions honouring the city’s liberation for Armenians. (Horák and Hoch 2023, 33).
Overview of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral after the shelling.The Armenian Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the act as a ”monstrous crime” and a violation of civilised norms. They emphasised that targeting religious sites is classified as a war crime. Azerbaijan’s Defence Ministry denied responsibility for the attacks on the cathedral, stating that its military does not intentionally target historical, cultural, or religious buildings and monuments. (DW 2020) The Azerbaijani government has denied accusations of deliberately targeting the church, claiming without presenting evidence that it was either attacked by Armenian forces as a provocation or mistakenly struck by Azerbaijani artillery. Multiple factors indicate that both attacks were directed at the church, including the remnants found and the precision of the strikes. The consistency in the point of impact and the absence of additional reports of strikes in the area support the conclusion that each attack was deliberate.Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, emphasised the urgency of investigating the attacks in Shusha/Shushi and holding the responsible parties accountable. Williamson stated that these attacks serve no military purpose and all parties involved should take steps to punish and prevent such acts of violence. (Human Rights Watch 2022).
In 2021, Azerbaijan initiated renovations at the cathedral. According to reports, these renovations had the aim of removing Armenian elements and ”de-Armenianizing” the site The official stance portrays the restoration as a display of ethnic and religious tolerance. However, concerns have been raised that the cathedral may lose its religious significance and become a mere tourist attraction or museum, prompting strong protests from the Armenian community. These objections highlight the perception of Azerbaijani vandalism in this context. (Horák and Hoch 2023, 33).More than a year after the Church of Ghazanchetsots was hit, videos and photos show minimal renovation work inside the building. The Azerbaijani side removed rubble, collapsed walls, and the church dome, altering the building’s appearance. Inscriptions were also erased. Despite these actions, no significant visible alternations were made to rebuild the church, and the church remains in disrepair The surrounding area shows signs of neglect, with overgrown grass on the roof and damage left unaddressed. (Monument watch 2022)
The international community strongly condemned the shelling of the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and other destruction of cultural heritage in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Entities such as the European Parliament, UNESCO, the UN, and ICOMOS expressed their concern and reminded both parties of the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The European Parliament passed a resolution on March 10, 2022, focused on safeguarding Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh. It condemned Azerbaijan’s policy of erasing and denying Armenian cultural heritage and highlighted the destruction and damage caused to Armenian churches, monasteries, and cemeteries during and after the 2020 war. The resolution called for the protection, restoration, and preservation of Armenian cultural heritage sites, emphasising the importance of international cooperation and the involvement of UNESCO. It also addressed issues of historical revisionism, territorial claims, and the need for reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. (European Parliament 2023)
To address the protection of cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh, UNESCO proposed a preliminary field mission to conduct an inventory of the region’s significant cultural assets. The goal was to assess the situation on the ground, identify valuable cultural assets, and establish a foundation for their protection. (UNESCO 2020) Azerbaijan has restricted access to cultural heritage sites in the region, prompting the EU to urge them to grant UNESCO access to conduct inventories and ensure the protection of sites in the region. (European Parliament 2023)
This section on Nagorno-Karabakh has specifically examined the deliberate attacks on the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that numerous other instances of cultural heritage sites being targeted have occurred in this region and other conflict zones nearby. For instance, 89 Armenian churches and 20,000 graves, and more than 5,000 headstones were destroyed, particularly in Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, another region that the two counties have been conflicted over. Similar destruction and looting have also occurred in former conflict areas returned to Azerbaijan by Armenia, notably Aghdam and Fuzuli. (European Parliament 2023) The destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh not only involves physical damage but also the falsification of history. There have been attempts to erase its Armenian roots by presenting it as a ”Caucasian Albanian.” This is part of a broader systematic and state-level policy fuelled by Armenophobia, historical revisionism, and hatred propagated by the Azerbaijani authorities. This policy includes dehumanisation, glorification of violence, and territorial claims against the Republic of Armenia, posing a significant threat to peace and security. (European Parliament 2023)
Conclusion
The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is a prime example of a communal conflict involving self-perceived identity differences among the actors involved. In communal conflicts, cultural property often becomes a target due to its significant symbolic value for opposing groups. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, the conflict involved ethnic and territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The region of Nagorno-Karabakh is historically and culturally significant for both parties, with Armenian and Azerbaijani communities laying claim to the area.
During the conflict, attacks on cultural property occurred as a means to target and undermine the cultural identities of the opposing group. The destruction of religious sites, monuments, and cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh was not only a consequence of the armed conflict but also a deliberate tactic to weaken the cultural and historical ties of the opposing group to the region.
The typology of incentives provided in the article can help understand the motives behind these attacks in Nagorno-Karabakh. The conflict goals were driven by contested issues of territorial control and ethnic identity, which led to the targeting of cultural property associated with the opposing group. Additionally, military-strategic reasons may have played a role, as both parties sought to gain an advantage by undermining the cultural heritage of the other side. Signalling also comes into play in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as the destruction of cultural property can be seen as a way to demonstrate strength and commitment to the opposing group and the international community.
The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh stands as a poignant testament to the challenges faced in safeguarding cultural heritage amidst armed conflicts. Deliberate targeting and destruction of religious and cultural monuments by both Armenia and Azerbaijan have inflicted irreversible damage, perpetuating a cycle of devastation and retaliation. Despite widespread condemnation from international bodies such as the European Parliament, UNESCO, the UN, and ICOMOS, efforts to protect cultural heritage in the region have faltered. Azerbaijan’s stringent control over access to the area has impeded UNESCO’s attempts to conduct inventories and secure heritage sites effectively. This dire situation underscores the urgent necessity for a comprehensive and strategic approach to cultural heritage preservation in conflict zones. States and international organisations must uphold and respect international conventions, notably the Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention. Collaborative initiatives spanning diverse sectors are indispensable to preserve cultural heritage. Relying solely on the heritage community and cultural sector proves inadequate; instead, enhancing competencies and capacities within defence and security institutions, policy-making spheres, and academic expertise is imperative to combat the destruction of cultural heritage effectively.
The Nagorno-Karabakh case serves as a stark reminder that safeguarding cultural heritage demands a multifaceted approach, integrating legal, diplomatic, and practical measures. However, the intricate nature of conflicts means that one detonation can obliterate vast areas swiftly. War operates in a realm where rules and laws can be easily discarded, making tough diplomatic approaches challenging to implement effectively. These methods, while optimal, require time, a precious commodity in times of war. Therefore, proactive planning before potential conflicts erupt is crucial. Formulating pre-emptive strategies and responses to safeguard heritage can mitigate the impact of destruction, offering a semblance of hope amid the chaos.
The current situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is fragile and tense. In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a full-scale military operation, gaining total control and compelling thousands of Armenians to flee their homes. The European Parliament and various human rights organisations have strongly condemned Azerbaijan’s actions, accusing them of ethnic cleansing. (Euronews 2023) The fate of cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh remains uncertain, but Armenian cultural assets in the area are undoubtedly at risk in the current circumstances. (Cornell University news 2023)
References
BBC. (2023, October 2) “Nagorno-Karabakh Profile”. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18270325 (Accessed: 10 October 2023)
Brosché, J. et al. (2017). “Heritage under attack: motives for targeting cultural property during armed conflict. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23:3, pp. 248-260.
Chainoglou, K. (2017). “The Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict: Dissolving the Boundaries Between the Existing Legal Regimes?” Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2:3, pp. 109-134.
Cornell University, news. (2023, September 21). “Hundreds of Armenian heritage sites at risk in Nagorno-Karabakh” Available: https://as.cornell.edu/news/hundreds-armenian-heritage-sites-risk-nagorno-karabakh (Accessed: 2 october 2023).
DW. (2020, August 10). “Nagorno-Karabakh: Cathedral hit by shelling“. Available: https://www.dw.com/en/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-claims-cathedral-hit-by-azerbaijan-shelling/a-55209042 (Accessed: 20 September 2023).
Euronews. (2023, October 5)“EU Parliament accuses Baku of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Nagorno-Karabakh“. Available: https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/05/eu-parliament-accuses-baku-of-ethnic-cleansing-in-nagorno-karabakh (Accessed: 10 october 2023).
European Parliament. (2022, March 9).“Joint motion for a resolution on the destruction of cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh.“ Document: RC-B9-0146/2022. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2022-0146_EN.html (Accessed: 20 September 2023).
Horák S. and Hoch, T. (2023). “The fate of sacred places in Nagorny Karabakh as a symbol of unsuccessful conflict transformation.” Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 59, 25-40. DOI: http://doi.org/10.12775/bgss-2023-0002.
Human Rights Watch. (2020, December 16). “Azerbaijan: Attack on Church Possible War Crime.“ Available:https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/16/azerbaijan-attack-church-possible-war-crime#(Accessed: 20 September 2023)
Monument watch. (2022, May 30). “About the Azerbaijani “restoration” of Surb Amenaprkich Ghazanchetsots Church in Shushi. “ Available:https://monumentwatch.org/en/alerts/about-the-azerbaijani-restoration-of-surb-amenaprkich-ghazanchetsots-church-in-shushi/ (Accessed: 20 September 2023).
Rosén, F. (2020). “The dark side of cultural heritage protection.” International Journal of Cultural Property, 27, pp. 495–510.
UNESCO. (2020, November 20) “Nagorno-Karabakh: Reaffirming the obligation to protect cultural goods, UNESCO proposes sending a mission to the field to all parties.“ Press release. Available: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/nagorno-karabakh-reaffirming-obligation-protect-cultural-goods-unesco-proposes-sending-mission-field (Accessed: 20 September 2023).
Winchester, N. (2022, December 14) “Targeting culture: The destruction of cultural heritage in conflict “. House of Lords Library. Available: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/targeting-culture-the-destruction-of-cultural-heritage-in-conflict/ (Accessed: 20 September 2023).