Heritage for whom? A critical view of UNESCO and cultural imperialism

Human rights, enshrined in international law and championed by organisations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), a body responsible for education, science and culture, are often perceived as universal principles safeguarding the dignity and freedoms of individuals worldwide. However, a critical examination reveals a complex interplay of power dynamics, historical biases and cultural hegemony embedded within the conceptualisation and implementation of these rights.

This article asserts that Western notions of heritage heavily influence the current approach and fail to reflect the true essence of heritage for local communities. Rooted in the colonial era, this Western approach emphasises tangible elements like buildings and artefacts. Therefore, the role of UNESCO within Third World countries possibly preserves another global heritage: the legacy of colonialism in the Global South.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 enshrines the ‘right to culture’, this right appears not to be in line with the call for repatriation, especially concerning the cultural heritage of African peoples and other subalterns all over the world. Among others, the seizure of African cultural heritage during the colonial era without consent reflects this issue. The spiritual or deeper meanings of these objects have been distorted or even destroyed over time.

Consequently, the colonial plunder of African heritage continues to harm the continent. Stolen artefacts remaining in Western museums represent an ongoing imperial narrative ‘othering’ the identity and history of Africa and thwarting the continent’s cultural development. In truth, museums in the West remain “the moat around the colonial castle”.

In the absence of the voice of the world’s majority that was then colonised, the founding of UNESCO in the 1940s was a hurried endeavour driven not only by the desire to assert cultural imperialism but also to monopolise and control the world’s heritage. The dominant powers of the time sought to consolidate their influence over global cultural narratives and conservation at the expense of the economic advancement and cultural autonomy of the Third World.

Civilised nations sought to ‘lock away’ heritages of the world: a deliberate effort to withhold or sequester cultural heritage, which stifles the ability of marginalised communities to access and benefit from their own cultural assets. Consequently, this perpetuates unequal power dynamics and hinders diverse expressions of cultural identity, especially in regions historically impacted by colonialism.

The culprit is the seemingly benevolent 1972 Convention, which aims to protect cultural and natural treasures. It does so under the guise of “outstanding value to humanity”, potentially masking a Western bias and hindering Third World countries’ control over their heritage. This implies UNESCO and its collaborators must critically examine their roles and strive for post-colonial collaboration and cultural equity.

• Locating UNESCO in the global political power orbit

UNESCO seeks to implement the UN Charter and enforce the 1972 Convention. This instrument aims “to encourage the identification, protection, and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity”. In addition to its education and science portfolios, UNESCO has a cultural branch that seeks to “encourage the identification, protection, and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of value to humanity”.

While UNESCO’s efforts to protect and preserve cultural and natural treasures are commendable, they are not devoid of imperialistic undertones. The organisation’s initiatives, such as the World Heritage Convention of 1972, have been criticised for perpetuating a narrative that prioritises Western notions of cultural value and heritage preservation while marginalising the perspectives and interests of Third World countries and indigenous communities.

Since its inception over 50 years ago, UNESCO World Heritage has become a global brand whose seal is slapped on the planet’s most precious places. The Taj Mahal is on the list, alongside the Pyramids of Giza and the Grand Canyon. So far, there are ten UNESCO World Heritage Sites in South Africa, including iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Cradle of Humankind, Maloti-Drakensberg Park and Mapungubwe.

From diverse natural landscapes to sites marking human history, the World Heritage List added forty-two new locations in 2023. These world heritage sites are man-made and natural wonders considered to be of outstanding value to humanity, whose importance supposedly transcends borders, politics and even economics. However, the continued neglect of Third World perspectives and epistemologies, along with the marginalisation of the value systems of the ‘other’, casts doubt on this ideal.

• UNESCO and Imperialism

Amidst political turmoil in 1982, the Soviet bloc and Third World countries also criticised the US, Western states and multinational corporations for cultural imperialism and neocolonialism. For instance, Cuba presented a resolution titled ‘Culture and the Control of Information’, which blamed Western capitalism for worldwide cultural issues. The resolution asserted that transnational corporations dominate cultural industries, distort the cultural identity of developing countries and promote behaviours contrary to their traditional values for profit.

The Third World put forward the New World Cultural Order concept in opposition to Western dominance of cultural narratives and heritage preservation. Initially proposed as part of a broader New International Economic Order by the UN General Assembly in the mid-1970s, these initiatives faced opposition from Western nations and corporations, leading to their collapse. Despite this, similar principles are now being pursued through weakened UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and due diligence laws as part of a broader strategy to allow corporations to continue acting without strings.

Imperialism reared its ugly head when the US either sparked controversy or withdrew from UNESCO, notably in 2011 when the USA and Israel left over UNESCO’s recognition of Palestine, and again in 2017 after Hebron was designated a Palestinian World Heritage site. Similarly, the Reagan administration withdrew in 1984 due to perceived corruption and political bias. Critics like Angelo Alves see this as hypocritical, reflecting Washington’s selective respect for cooperation and a broader pattern of imperialism.

Unfortunately, acts of imperialism continue at a rapid pace as sustainable development and climate change agendas intertwine with heritage and conservation. For example, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) might abandon its support for a R165 billion heavy industry project in the Musina-Makhado area due to environmental and social concerns. This project aims to capitalise on the country’s mineral wealth to develop new industries in Limpopo. Critics argue the project could have negative environmental and social impacts.

• Weaponisation of heritage and conservation initiatives

Buried in seemingly noble goals like sustainable development and cultural appreciation, UNESCO’s heritage and conservation initiatives can sometimes be misused for tourism promotion or political agendas. Anthropologist David Berliner’s study of Luang Prabang in Laos illustrates how UNESCO protection can lead to intensified tourism development, which in turn births injustice and inequity, see ‘Global tourism: Destinations to social divisions’ (M&G, 27 February 2024).

In South Africa, heritage preservation often leads to the romanticisation of traditions while overlooking significant historical events like land dispossession during apartheid and colonial times. This perpetuates a narrative that conceals the true impact of conquest, making many heritage sites inaccessible to local communities. Furthermore, designating areas as heritage sites can restrict economic activities like mining, prioritising foreign ownership and leaving local communities unable to benefit from the natural resources in their land. For example, foreigners own expensive settlements inside heritage sites such as Cathkin Estates in the Ukhahlamba, and millions in the nearby rural villages lack access to the same privilege.

The inclusion of the Ukhahlamba on the World Heritage list in 2000 also illustrates how such designations can adversely affect local residents and their cultural practices. Occurring concurrently with dismantling apartheid in 1994, the listing was done without involvement from the local communities directly affected. The state had hoped tourism would boost the local population’s economy, but this has brought different kinds of problems for them, including intensified white dominance over the local population.

Furthermore, heritage designation can have unintended consequences for local residents. The ‘Unescoisation’ of Panama City, for example, led to gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents, thereby exacerbating social inequalities. In the 1980s, UNESCO recommended that the local population be removed from the Simien National Park in Ethiopia to preserve the ecosystem following its listing in 1978. Broadly speaking, the park exemplified what historian Martin Melosi terms ‘eco-racism’, suggesting it represents a contemporary extension of White domination over Africans post-colonialism.

European governments “remain doggedly wedded to their colonial loot” and continue to engage in imperialist behaviour. External shepherding by private and intergovernmental bodies, such as IUCN, UNESCO and WWF, translates to infantilising nearby local communities, implying they cannot look after or manage their own environment. Therefore, Western states and influential organisations perpetuate a harmful paternalistic relationship with Third World countries, undermining local knowledge and control and continuing a legacy of exploitation.

In its submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples regarding Protected Areas in 2022, UNESCO acknowledged the potential drawbacks of heritage listings and stressed the importance of community participation in its policies, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Despite these assertions, cases like the Mixteca Alta UNESCO Global Geopark reveal how conservation efforts can overshadow the needs of indigenous communities in southwestern Mexico, reinforcing discrimination and marginalisation.

The ‘Unescoisation’ process often imposes Western preservation concepts on sites, neglecting indigenous interests. Many countries use UNESCO’s World Heritage list for prestige and political gain, but developing countries lack the resources and expertise. Preserving listed sites requires costly management plans and government funding, which the Third World struggles with. In some cases, local populations might oppose UNESCO designation due to their focus on basic needs and other urgent priorities, creating a conflict between cultural preservation and local priorities.

While calls for reform within the UN, UNESCO and similar international organisations often focus on changing structures and personnel, this article suggests a deeper transformation: addressing the ‘tainted lenses’ through which they view the world. The critique goes beyond individual actors to highlight the persistent influence of colonial-era perspectives embedded within these institutions. These organisations can begin to foster genuine collaboration and equity. This requires a re-evaluation of existing frameworks and a commitment to amplifying marginalised voices in their work.