The 2020 reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has generated intense controversy, rooted in the site's profound historical significance and its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Originally constructed as a Byzantine cathedral in the 6th century, the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and then into a museum in 1934 to symbolize Turkey's secular and multicultural identity.

Critics argue that the 2020 reconversion prioritizes the Islamic past over the site's Christian heritage, undermining its role as a symbol of religious coexistence and diminishing its multicultural legacy, which includes Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Jewish, and Syriac histories .

As a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Hagia Sophia is recognized for its outstanding universal value, and UNESCO has expressed concern that the reconversion threatens the site's preservation, integrity, and historical authenticity, emphasizing that it should remain a monument for all humanity rather than serve a single religious or political agenda .

Religious criticism centers on the move's implications for religious tolerance and freedom.

The Greek Orthodox Church and other Christian communities condemned the decision as "ill-advised," arguing it contradicts Turkey's commitments to religious pluralism and undermines the secular principles established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk .

The reconversion led to the covering of Christian iconography, such as mosaics of Jesus and Mary, which critics see as erasing the site's Christian legacy and signaling a hierarchy that favors the Islamic narrative .

This has raised fears of increased polarization between religious and secular communities within Turkey and heightened concerns for the future of religious minorities .

Analysts suggest the reconversion was intended to reinforce Erdoğan's Islamic credentials, rally nationalist sentiment

The 2020 reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has generated intense controversy, rooted in the site's profound historical significance and its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Originally constructed as a Byzantine cathedral in the 6th century, the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and then into a museum in 1934 to symbolize Turkey's secular and multicultural identity.

Critics argue that the 2020 reconversion prioritizes the Islamic past over the site's Christian heritage, undermining its role as a symbol of religious coexistence and diminishing its multicultural legacy, which includes Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Jewish, and Syriac histories .

Title:

Content: After Hagia Sophia, Turkey converts a second ancient Byzantine church into a mosque

Hundreds of worshippers filled the narrow streets of Istanbul's Fatih district on Friday to hear the sounds of Friday prayers ringing out from the newly inaugurated Kariye Mosque.

Once known as the Chora Church, the site spent the last 79 years as a museum. But it is now the latest structure to be converted back into a mosque by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, following the conversion of Hagia Sophia in 2020. While viewed as a triumph by many Turkish Muslims, the Greek Orthodox Church has decried it as an "ill-advised decision" that "makes a mockery of the Turkish government's commitment to religious tolerance and religious freedom."

Chora's conversion was announced shortly after Hagia Sophia's, but its opening for prayer was delayed by years of restoration work.

The showing for the first Friday prayers at Kariye was relatively quiet compared to Hagia Sophia, which drew hundreds of thousands who filled the streets with prayer rugs for blocks and blocks away from the building. By contrast, the crowd on Friday was relatively average for a mosque in one of Istanbul's more religiously conservative neighborhoods, where Friday worshippers frequently spill out onto the streets.

Both the Chora Church and Hagia Sophia are 4th-century Byzantine constructions. They spent nearly a millennium as Christian holy sites before being converted to mosques by the Ottomans after their conquest of Constantinople in the 15th century. Despite their conversions, they remained revered by Orthodox Christians. After the founding of a secular Turkish Republic in the early 20th century, the decision was made for both to be neither mosque nor church but simply museums.

"Both Hagia Sophia and Chora embodied Byzantine and Ottoman pasts, and they became symbols of co-existence and multi-faith living practices. Their conversion fundamentally implies a hierarchy, prioritizing the Islamic past over all other layers, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Jewish, Syriac, et al," Dr. Özgür Kaymak, a lecturer and researcher on minority rights at Istanbul's MEF University, told Religion News Service in an email.

Rededicating the sites as mosques is more than just a status change. According to Islamic tradition, artwork of human figures are forbidden in places of prayer, while in Orthodox Churches, icons of Christ, saints and other biblical figures are a defining feature.

In Hagia Sophia, the mosaics of Jesus and Mary have been covered with curtains since the conversion. While Erdoğan promised Hagia Sophia would remain fully accessible and free to all visitors, Turkey reneged on that earlier this year, reimposing an entrance fee on tourists and relegating them to the upper level, while the main floor is exclusive to Muslim worshippers.

Observers have also criticized the Turkish Directorate of Religion's caretaking of the site, noting damage that did not exist when it was under the purview of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

Though Chora is significantly smaller than Hagia Sophia, it is home to some of the best-preserved examples of late-Byzantine art, including mosaics, icons and frescoes, and is considered a UNESCO World Heritage site.

"For us it's a very important place because it remembers our culture and our traditions here," Father Evangelos Markantonis, an Orthodox priest who was leading a group of theology students to Chora on Friday, told Religion News Service.

"Though we cannot venerate as Orthodox Christians, we have to try to find things we can be united on. Only with dialogue and good deeds can we continue our lives," Markantonis, who is also a professor at the University of Athens, said when asked about the controversy.

Erdoğan had long refused calls from his right to convert churches like Hagia Sophia and Chora, telling supporters in 2018 to fill the nearby Sultan Ahmet Mosque (also known in English as the Blue Mosque) before they talked about needing to pray in Hagia Sophia.

Nonetheless, he made an about-turn in 2020.

"My dear nation, the conquest of Istanbul and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a Mosque are among the most glorious chapters in Turkish history," Erdoğan said at the time in a speech inaugurating the Hagia Sophia as a mosque.

"This is the most honorable day that Islam has been looking forward to, Greek Constantinople has become Turkish Istanbul," he added, quoting the Turkish poet Nazim Hikmet.

"The resurrection of Hagia Sophia heralds the liberation of the al-Aqsa Mosque. The resurrection of Hagia Sophia is the footsteps of the will of Muslims across the world to come out of the interregnum," Erdoğan said in his concluding remarks.

Chora's opening as the Kariye Mosque comes just weeks after Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) suffered its largest electoral defeat in two decades during Turkey's nationwide municipal elections.

"The recent conversion of Chora into a mosque may be due to Erdoğan's many problems, including his geopolitical power politics, his appeal to religio-nationalism to revive his electoral popularity after the March elections or his tactic to divert attention from Turkey's economic downturn," Kaymak said.

Many analysts have attributed the loss to AKP bleeding votes to the more Islamist-leaning New Welfare Party, which has pressured Erdogan over his response to the Israel-Hamas war and humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.

Muslim worshippers at the mosque on Friday said they viewed its rededication as an Islamic site to be a national win for Turkey.

"This mosque is one of the symbols of the Conquest. We are proud and happy. There are very beautiful frescoes inside. They were also nicely renovated before they were closed. May it be good for our country and our nation," a bystander, Ahmet Öteyüzoğlu, told Turkish media.

"Thank God for these days. Not everyone has the opportunity in their lifetime," another bystander named Mehmet Çelik told the Turkish news service Anadolu Agency, in reference to having been able to pray at both the rededicated Hagia Sophia and Kariye Mosques.

However, Greece, the U.S. State Department and Orthodox Christian institutions worldwide have all criticized the decision to revert the structure into a mosque.

"I want to publicly express my intense dissatisfaction, interpreting the feelings of all Greek women and men, for the completely unnecessary conversion of a historic Byzantine temple, the Monastery of Chora, into a mosque. It is, I believe, an action that offends the rich history of Istanbul itself as a crossroads of cultures," Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said shortly before leaving for Turkey for a planned meeting with Erdogan.

"We encourage the Turkish government to preserve and ensure access to sites and buildings that have hosted different religious communities in a way that respects their diverse histories," a State Department spokesperson said in response to questions from Greek media.

"The Turkish government's appropriation of both as the property of one faith group not only constitutes yet another sign of that government's contempt for Turkey's rich Orthodox Christian heritage but further imperils the religious freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the remaining Christians of that land," the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate said in a statement.

© Religion News Service

Title:

Content: Contact Us

Erdoğan's visit to Iraq to have meaning for Muslims: Descendant of Iraqi Sufi leader

According to a descendant of an Iraqi Sufi leader from 1,000 years ago, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's upcoming trip to Iraq holds significant importance for both the Muslim community and the mausoleum in Baghdad where Abdul-Qadir Gilani passed away in 1166.

Anadolu Agency ISLAMIC WORLD
Published April 09,2024
Subscribe

A descendant of an Iraqi Sufi leader who lived nearly a millennium ago said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's upcoming visit to Iraq would have great meaning for local Muslims as well as for the mausoleum in Baghdad of Abdul-Qadir Gilani, who died in 1166 in the Iraqi capital.

Speaking to Anadolu, Sayyid Khalid Abdul Qadir Gilani said that under Erdoğan's leadership, the Turkish development aid agency, the Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), has been caring for pieces of Ottoman legacy at the Gilani Mausoleum in Baghdad.

He added that the renovation of the minbar (imam's pulpit) in the mosque and a clock tower built by the late-era Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II are both nearing completion.

On Erdoğan's expected visit to Iraq, whose date has not yet been set, Gilani said: "We are awaiting this visit and wholeheartedly support those who are preparing for it. President Erdoğan's visit to Iraq will have a dimension for both Muslims and our followers of the Qadiriyya order.

"This visit by Erdoğan will also convey the message that Iraq is a country that is open, safe, and stable for both political engagements and religious visits to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, Imam Hussein (Husayn Ibn Ali), Imam Azam, and Gilani."

Saying that they want Erdoğan to visit the mausoleum, he added: "All Ottoman sultans have left some mark at the mausoleum. His Excellency President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will also leave a trace at the Gilani Mausoleum by inaugurating projects to be completed by TIKA."

Abdul Qadir Gilani was the Islamic philosopher, scholar, preacher, and Sufi leader who gave his name to the Qadiriyya, one of the oldest Sufi orders.

He was born in 1077 or 1078 in the town of Na'if, Rezvanshahr in Gilan, Persia, and died in 1166 in Baghdad.

Title:

Content: Diyanet sanctions imam for refusing to take congregation to Erdoğan rally

Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) has reassigned and temporarily halted any possibility of promotion or pay increase for an imam for refusing to bring his congregation to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s election rally in April of last year, the BirGün newspaper reported on Monday.

Yusuf Kılıç, an imam who was working in the western city of İzmir, underwent an administrative investigation and was the subject of verbal threats after refusing to facilitate the attendance of his congregation at Erdoğan’s İzmir rally during his campaign for re-election as president.

As a result of the investigation, he was reassigned to a post outside İzmir with a temporary interruption in promotions and pay increases, an administrative measure with negative implications for career advancement.

Kılıç had announced that he was contacted by a local bureau of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) ahead of Erdoğan’s İzmir rally on April 29 and was asked to ensure the participation of his congregation.

“If I take part of my community to rallies, I would be violating what my mosque stands for,” he had said.

The Diyanet, Turkey’s government agency for regulating religious affairs, is often criticized for its lack of independence from political influence and for instrumentalizing Friday sermons to advance government narratives.

It is also criticized for excluding religious minorities such as the Alevis, despite being funded by taxpayers from all faiths.

As with all government institutions, the Diyanet underwent major purges of non-loyalist employees following a failed military coup in July 2016.

Benefiting from a bigger budget than most government agencies, it also operates a sizeable network of mosques in Western Europe that has been accused of spying on government critics living among diaspora communities.

Take a second to support Stockholm Center for Freedom on Patreon!

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

What political motivations influenced Erdogan's decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia?

Erdogan's decision was influenced by Turkey's Islamic resurgence.

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

What political motivations influenced Erdogan's decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia?

Erdogan's decision was influenced by Turkey's Islamic resurgence.

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

What political motivations influenced Erdogan's decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia?

Erdogan's decision was influenced by Turkey's Islamic resurgence.

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

As a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Hagia Sophia is recognized for its outstanding universal value, and UNESCO has expressed concern that the reconversion threatens the site's preservation, integrity, and historical authenticity, emphasizing that it should remain a monument for all humanity rather than serve a single religious or political agenda .

Title:

Content: [ditty_news_ticker id="27897"] Video Shows Fragments Falling from the Dome of Hagia Sophia - Orthodox Christian Laity

Video Shows Fragments Falling from the Dome of Hagia Sophia

0

Source: Greek Reporter

A still from a recently released video shows visitors rushing to take cover as fragments fall from the dome of Hagia Sophia. Credit: Daily Motion/BirGün

A video from 2022 that came to light recently shows fragments falling on visitors from the dome of Hagia Sophia, the former epicenter of Christian worship at Constantinople, today’s Istanbul.

The footage released by the Turkish newspaper, BirGün, raises serious questions over the safety of the former Orthodox Christian cathedral, now a mosque.

BirGün notably quoted officials as saying that “pieces are falling from the roof, due to the humidity created by the crowd, but no precautions are being taken”.

The president of the Turkish Art History Association, Serif Yasar, argued for restoration of the monument as soon as possible, suggesting that “If Hagia Sophia is not restored, it will collapse with the first earthquake.”

The monument was restored as a mosque three years ago after serving as a museum from 1935-2020 and has since received 21 million visitors, according to Turkey’s tourism and culture minister.

Yasar added that when the church was a museum, the scientific council overseeing it urged that groups of no more than 25 people should be allowed to enter the building at any one time.

This enormous lift in visitation has likely brought to the forefront the need for repairs and it was indeed reported in September that the Turkish government had decided to start long-term maintenance of Hagia Sophia.

Turkey to implement visitor management policy at Hagia Sophia

In early October Turkish historian Ilber Ortayli expressed fears that the large number of visitors to Hagia Sophia could lead to a catastrophic structural failure if not addressed immediately.

Writing in the Hürriyet daily, Ortayli said that the monument, which attracts three million pilgrims annually apart from tourists, has undergone significant damage since its conversion into a mosque.

He asserted that even a modest number of 20-30 thousand people annually, including scientists, historians, archaeologists, representatives of the Muslim religion, politicians, and public officials, could be considered excessive for the endurance of the monument.

In June 2022 a number of tiles of the ancient marble floors in Hagia Sophia were damaged by heavy machines used to clean the site.

In April 2022, The Turkish Association of Art Historians stated that the historic Imperial Gate in Hagia Sophia had been badly damaged.

The group posted a picture clearly depicting the damage to the oak wood of the 15-century-old gate.

Turkey unveiled plans in late October for a visitor management policy at Hagia Sophia, including charging foreign tourists with an entrance fee to be implemented starting Jan. 15.

Minister of Culture and Tourism Mehmet Nuri Ersoy said that extensive restoration work is underway in various sections of Hagia Sophia, now a mosque, with plans to progress to other parts upon their completion.

He emphasized that, based on UNESCO’s recommendations, a visitor management plan would be enforced to enhance the quality and safety of visits while preserving the historical significance of the site.

Related Articles
Officials argue for repairs to Hagia Sophia after footage shows fragments falling from the dome – Neos Kosmos

Share.

Title:

Content: Making Russia answer for destroying cultural heritage in Ukraine

Russian occupiers have destroyed the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God church in Viazivka, Zhytomyr Oblast (built 1862) in shelling on 7 March. It was a monument of national significance. Credit: zhitomir.info

Analysis, Russian Aggression

Russia’s war against Ukraine takes not only human lives: it has already decimated centuries-worth of cultural heritage. When does such destruction constitute a war crime and what can be done to make Russia answer for the irreparable damage?

Human losses are justly viewed as the greatest tragedy of any war, the current war in Ukraine being no exclusion. One may argue, why should we distract our attention to such things as cultural heritage during wartime? Can we even use “culture” and “war” in the same sentence?

History, though, has proven that we cannot afford to ignore the protection of cultural heritage during warfare.

Our cultural heritage is unique and irreplaceable. Tangible items of cultural property are witnesses of the past that show us our true history and preserve our memory of it. Cultural heritage appeals to strong emotions that evoke our identity, awareness, and sense of belonging to a community.

It took a long time for the world to recognize that no matter where cultural property comes from, it belongs to all mankindand its disappearance, according to UNESCO, is “a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world.”

Targeting cultural heritage during warfare is a way “to destroy and overtake a society by erasing its memory.”

Protection of cultural property under international law

The first attempts to legally protect cultural property during war were made in the 19th century. The worst lesson, however, was learned from WWII, Luftwaffe’s bombing of Valetta’s Royal Opera House being just one of the examples.

Luftwaffe’s bombing of Valetta’s Royal Opera House (Malta) in 1942. Credit: NWMA Malta

By definition, any item of cultural property is a civilian object protected by general rules of warfare. However, given the fragility of cultural property in the face of war, the international community, including Russia, adopted the 1954 Hague Convention to protect cultural property during wartime.

In addition, the protection of cultural heritage became a key focus of specialized international organizations, UNESCO being the most widely known.

It’s worth saying that cultural heritage comes in all forms and shapes. Depending on the international treaty, the law offers protection to different cultural objects.

The mentioned 1954 Hague Convention covers such items of culture as monuments of architecture, art, or history; archaeological sites; groups of buildings of historical or artistic interest; works of art, manuscripts, books, etc. Protection is also granted to buildings and places where cultural property is housed or sheltered (museums, libraries, archives) and centers containing cultural property in large amounts.

The Russian Army’s destruction of cultural property in Ukraine

“May That Nuclear War Be Cursed!” by Mariya Primachenko. Credit: Wikiart

In the last week of the large-scale war against Ukraine, Putin has already gained fame as “Hitler of the 21st century.” Similar to the Nazi attacks on cultural items, Russian bombs target now not only the lives of Ukrainian militaries and civilians, objects of critical infrastructure, and houses, but also the cultural heritage of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian culture inherited from past generations is being brutally destroyed right now, under the auspices of Putin’s “denazification” plan. During the last week, Ukraine has already suffered irreparable losses.

On 28 February, Russian trhttps://twitter.com/DespoilerofH/status/1501889028911775746oops targeted the Ivankiv Historical and Local History Museum, which stored paintings of Ukrainian artist Mariya Prymachenko, an icon of naive art. While the building of the museum was destroyed in the blaze, the paintings, or at least their portion, were reported to be miraculously saved by the locals. Even though the paintings are now stored in private houses of locals, that, in any case, puts them at risk given the attacks are still ongoing.

With a missile strike, Russian invaders destroyed the Chernihiv Regional Youth Center, a monument of architecture, constructed in 1939.

Chernihiv Regional Youth Center before the missile strike by Russia. Photo from open sources

Chernihiv Regional Youth Center after the missile strike by Russia. Snapshot from video by Suspilne Chernihiv

Also damaged by Russian occupation troops is the Round yard in Trostianets (Sumy Oblast), the oldest public building in the north-eastern part of Ukraine created in the XVIII century.

Chernihiv after Russian airstrikes. Video by Suspilne Chernihiv

Ukrainian Jews were outraged when a missile strike on Kyiv’s TV tower damaged the Holocaust memorial, located on the grounds of Babyn Yar, a location where Nazis murdered roughly 100,000 people, most of them Jews, during the Holocaust.

To the world: what is the point of saying ‘never again’ for 80 years, if the world stays silent when a bomb drops on the same site of Babyn Yar? At least 5 killed. History repeating,” President of Ukraine Zelenskyy tweeted.

A real “denazification” as it is.

Babyn Yar Memorial was damaged after a Russian missile hit the TV tower located on its territory, killing five, on 1 March 2022. Credit: Twitter of MFA of Ukraine

It is no wonder that the Kruty Heroes Memorial was also “noticed” by Russia. The Russian army shelled a symbol of Ukraine’s heroic struggle against Russian Bolsheviks who attacked Kyiv in 1918.

As a result of shelling by Russian troops, the Dormition Cathedral, the oldest orthodox church of Kharkiv constructed in the VIII century, was damaged.

Dormition Cathedral in Kharkiv after being shelled by Russian Troops on 2 March 2022. Source: Kharkiv Eparchy

Dormition Cathedral in Kharkiv after being shelled by Russian Troops on 2 March 2022. Source: Kharkiv Eparchy

We wish this list of damaged cultural heritage objects stops growing. Unfortunately, new risks exist. As reported by the Ukrainian Minister of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine Oleksandr Tkachenko, Kyiv’s Saint Sophia Cathedral, created in the XI century and inscribed on the World Heritage List, is planned to be destroyed.

Any damage to or destruction of the cathedral caused by Russia will be an irreparable loss for all mankind,” he said.

Lviv’s Historic Center is also included in the World Heritage List. To protect it from destruction, Lviv authorities are moving sculptures and other objects to the shelters. Those sculptures that cannot be easily removed are covered with protective materials.

Lviv’s Historic Centre. Photos by UNESCO

The statue of Diana in Lviv. Photo from Travelviv group on Facebook.

The statue of Diana, like many other statues in the city, is wrapped it in firefighting material by city residents trying to protect the statue / Photo by Juliya Khomchyn, t.me/reporter_ua

In all that context, the Russian attack on Ukrainian cultural heritage is an attack on, and gross disrespect of, the world’s common heritage. It also constitutes a blatant violation of Russian international obligations and, undoubtedly, amounts to a war crime.

Do Russian attacks on Ukrainian cultural property constitute war crimes?

International law prohibits attacks made without due regard to their potential targets. Considering the great importance of cultural heritage for all the peoples of the world, cultural property bears protected status not only under the 1954 Hague Convention but also the 1949 Geneva Conventions (codification of international humanitarian law) as a civilian object.

It is of no surprise that the armed conflict always entails risks that civilian objects, including cultural property, might end up damaged or even destroyed. If the cultural property is harmed unintentionally and incidentally, this would not be in and of itself be punishable.

The situation is, however, completely different if the cultural property is damaged on purpose.

Such actions constitute war crimes. Not only the direct perpetrators of those crimes but also their commanders and even high state officials shall bear personal criminal responsibility before the national courts and international tribunals. One of such tribunals authorized to investigate and try for international crimes is the International Criminal Court (ICC) established under the Rome Statute. The Statute defines the following types of war crimes in relation to cultural property:

  • Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art purposes, historic monuments, provided they are not military objectives (Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Statute);
  • Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives (Article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Statute);
  • Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated (Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Statute);
  • Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly (Article 8(2)(a)(iv) of the Statute).

That said, for determining whether the destruction of cultural property constitutes a war crime, it is important to understand three main concepts – military objective, military necessity, and military advantage:

  • Military objective. A specific object becomes military objective if it makes an effective contribution to the military action and its destruction offers a definite military advantage. As a general rule, the following objects constitute legitimate military objectives: military fortifications, camps, units, aircraft, warships, repair facilities, etc. However, civilian object may also become a military objective if it is used for military purposes contributing to military action. For instance, cultural property may lose its protected status if it is used as a sniper’s nest.
  • Military necessity. Military necessity implies that the measures are required to secure the ends of war – weakening the military capacity of the opponent.
  • Military advantage. This implies certain gain that the party to the conflict anticipates getting through the attack. Such advantage shall be of tactical nature – relatively close and substantial; long-term goals – such as winning the war in general – should be disregarded.

To date, there have been several recorded instances of Russia’s attacks against Ukrainian cultural property.

The question arises here – were all these losses justified in terms of military necessity and military advantage gained? Did the mentioned cultural property become a legitimate military objective?

Based on the circumstances surrounding the attack, the mentioned cultural property could not constitute a military objective (it was not used by the Ukrainian army), its destruction was not urged by military necessity (it remains unclear how their destruction would help Russia to weaken the military capacity of the Ukrainian Armed Forces), the destruction did not pose any military advantage (it is unclear how their destruction could help Russian forces to facilitate specific military operations).

That said, there are substantial grounds to believe that Russia’s actions in respect to Ukrainian cultural property constitute war crimes within the meaning of the Rome Statute:

  • either directing attacks against the cultural property (Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Statute) or
  • launching an attack with knowledge that such property would be excessively damaged (Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Statute).

Even if the attack was not targeted against the cultural property directly, it is still prohibited to shoot the vicinity if this may inflict unjustified damage.

In the past, people that destroyed cultural heritage were charged with committing war crimes.

For instance, Milan Martić, leader of so-called ‘Martić’s police’ in the former Yugoslavia, was found guilty of destruction by a tank of the Assumption of the Virgin church in the center of Škabrnja, Croatia, conducted by its inferiors. He was found guilty of 18 counts overall and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment.

Currently, the ICC prosecutor initiated an investigation of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine. Hopefully, all the facts of Russian outrages in Ukraine, including with respect to cultural heritage, will be documented and investigated, while all the responsible, including the higher Russian officials, will face charges.

This, however, will take time. But should the international community wait until the cultural heritage of Ukrainians and the whole world is being erased by missiles and bombs?

Something has to be done before it`s too late.

What can the international community do to stop Russia from further destruction of Ukrainian and world heritage?

On 27 February 2022, responding to the threat of destroying Kyiv’s Saint Sophia Cathedral, Mr. Tkachenko asked UNESCO to deprive Russia of the status of UNESCO member as well as to change the host country of the 45th session of the World Heritage Committee.

On 3 March 2022, only after the UNGA Resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion, UNESCO demanded Russia refrain from “inflicting damage to cultural property” and condemned “all attacks and damage to cultural heritage in all its forms in Ukraine.”

UNESCO also expressed deep concerns related to damages incurred by the cities of Kharkiv, Chernihiv, as well as damages to the paintings of Mariya Primachenko, with whose anniversary UNESCO was associated in 2009.

As a measure of preventing attacks, UNESCO is working to mark all significant objects of cultural heritage with the emblem of the Hague Convention and monitor the damages incurred by Ukrainian cities.

On 15 March 2022, the UNESCO Executive Board will hold a Special Session “to examine the impact and consequences of the current situation in Ukraine in all aspects of UNESCO’s mandate.” Russia’s invasion into Ukraine and its horrible impact on the Ukrainian cultural heritage also caused public condemnation by the International Council of Museums, the World’s Monument Fund, the European Voice of Civil Society committed to Cultural Heritage.

Solidarity with Ukraine was also declared by the global NGOs and art institutions. Getty Trust, the world’s biggest philanthropic foundation, stated:

“What is taking place in Ukraine is a tragedy of monumental proportions”

However, today Ukraine needs more than voicing concerns by the international community.

While some measures are already on the way, there are still available means to stop, or at least narrow the scale of, Russian attacks towards Ukrainian cultural heritage:

  • imposing sanctions on Russia by States parties to the Hague Convention (Article 28 of the Hague Convention);
  • conducting the conciliation procedure by the Protecting Powers responsible for the execution of the Hague Convention (Article 22 of the Hague Convention);
  • calling UNESCO for assistance in the protection of cultural heritage (Article 23 of the Hague Convention);
  • excluding Russia from international organizations, including UNESCO, the International Council of Museums, the European Voice of Civil Society committed to Cultural Heritage;
  • reporting evidence of attacks on Ukrainian cultural property to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan QC via: [email protected];
  • requesting MPs and governmental bodies to shelter the Ukrainian sky, to provide anti-aircraft warfare to stop Russian bombings.

Mr. Oleksandr Tkachenko together with hundreds of organizations and thousands of cultural activists have already asked the international cultural community to impose sanctions on Russia, including:

  • canceling all projects that involve Russia (including ones funded by Russia);
  • banning representatives of Russia from participating in international competitions (e.g., the Eurovision ban), exhibitions, forums, music and film festivals, and other cultural events;
  • removing Russian citizens from the supervisory boards and cultural partnerships, canceling sponsorships, and withdrawing organizational support;
  • eliminating coverage of Russian culture in the media.

Stopping further destruction of Ukrainian cultural property depends only on Putin’s choice. Still, this choice may be influenced by mentioned above mechanisms.

World leaders must remember – preservation of Ukrainian cultural property at these trying times is a responsibility of the whole international community as

any damage to cultural property, irrespective of the people it belongs to, is a damage to the cultural heritage of all humanity.”’– Preamble of the Hague Convention.

Related:

Hanna Yareha is a legal counsel at SoftServe and a moot court participant with a solid background in public international law

Kateryna Ilieva works in the dispute resolution practice of AEQUO law firm and participated in moot courts, such as Jessup and FDI Moot.

Nataliia Savula is an international arbitration associate at Asters Law Firm with strong public international law and international investment law background.

Ukraine needs independent journalism. And we need you. Join our community on Patreon and help us better connect Ukraine to the world. We’ll use your contribution to attract new authors, upgrade our website, and optimize its SEO. For as little as the cost of one cup of coffee a month, you can help build bridges between Ukraine and the rest of the world, plus become a co-creator and vote for topics we should cover next. Become a patron or see other ways to support. Become a Patron!

Tags: , ,

Title:

Content: Callander’s new lighthouse one step closer to lighting up

Callander’s Ryan Farquhar has plans to build a lighthouse on East Morrison Island, and council has moved that dream one step closer to materializing.

East Morrison Island is a stone’s throw from Callander’s municipal dock at the lakeside of Lansdowne Street. The small rocky island was home to another lighthouse, which stood for about 25 years before a storm blew it down in July 2006.

That lighthouse was never operational, more a hangout for card playing and drinking—according to local lore—rather than lighting a traveller’s way.

Farquhar now owns the island, and his vision is to construct a fully functioning lighthouse compliant with all government and coast guard regulations.

According to the Government of Canada’s website, our country is home to “more than 750 lighthouses,” although “close to 100” of those have been transferred to individuals, community groups and municipalities who conserve “these important heritage sites.”

Canada’s oldest surviving lighthouse was built in 1759 and stands on Sambro Island, at the entrance to the Halifax Harbour.

The first lighthouse in Canada was built in Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia in 1734. The structure was damaged in fires, “rebuilt several times,” and the lighthouse standing in that spot now was built in 1923.

Currently, the federal government operates 51 staffed lighthouses—one in New Brunswick, 27 in British Columbia, and 23 in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If Farquhar’s lighthouse plans reach fruition, it will not require staff to run it. Like most lighthouses, the operation will be fully automated.

Prior to December 21, the island was designated an environmental protection zone. After Callander’s last council meeting, the land is now zoned for open space use.

Specifically, the island is “open space exception two (OS-2) zone,” council laid out in their by-law motion.

This means “no persons shall within an open space two” zone “use any land, or erect, alter or use any building or structure except for a Lighthouse.”

So, lighthouses only on East Morrison Island. And there are provisions.

The lighthouse can cover a maximum of 25 per cent of the island, the maximum height is 12.5 metres (41 feet), and the light within the lighthouse “shall have a maximum luminosity” of 20 candelas which “shall shine a total of no more than 112 degrees out towards the Callander Bay entrance on Lake Nipissing.”

No additions can be made to the lighthouse once complete, and no “accessory uses and/or structures are permitted” on the island.

“The structure is not to be used for human habitation,” the municipality made clear.

During the December 21 council meeting, councillor Jordy Carr expressed concerns about insurance liability, and whether the municipality would be on the hook for any accidents or issues involving the beacon.

“My understanding,” explained Ashley Bilodeau, the senior municipal director, “is that would fall solely on Mr. Farquhar” as the owner of the lighthouse.

“The onus is on the owner,” she continued, “and that lighthouse will be registered by the owner with the coast guard.”

“The liability is fully on the owner,” confirmed Taylor Craig, Callander’s planning administrator, and “there is a full maintenance schedule” lighthouse owners must follow as outlined by the coast guard.

With the island rezoned, what’s next? Currently, Farquhar is working to have the island renamed to Farquhar Lighthouse Island.

The application for the name change is through the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry, and the ministry is seeking input from residents “to determine what names are in local usage” for the island, “and if there is support for this name proposal.”

There is a link to that survey posted on Callander’s website. The deadline for responses is December 31, 2021.

An environmental study is also underway to determine the effects of construction on the island.

Indeed, the plans for the lighthouse are in the preliminary stages, but with council’s decision to re-zone the island, the town might eventually see the revival of a popular landmark appear on the horizon.

More from The Star & Partners

More News

Top Stories

Religious criticism centers on the move's implications for religious tolerance and freedom.

The Greek Orthodox Church and other Christian communities condemned the decision as "ill-advised," arguing it contradicts Turkey's commitments to religious pluralism and undermines the secular principles established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk .

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

The reconversion led to the covering of Christian iconography, such as mosaics of Jesus and Mary, which critics see as erasing the site's Christian legacy and signaling a hierarchy that favors the Islamic narrative .

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

What political motivations influenced Erdogan's decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia?

Erdogan's decision was influenced by Turkey's Islamic resurgence.

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

How did Muslims and Orthodox Christians react to the reconversion?

What political motivations influenced Erdogan's decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia?

Erdogan's decision was influenced by Turkey's Islamic resurgence.

Who was angered by the reconversion of Hagia Sophia in July 2020?

This has raised fears of increased polarization between religious and secular communities within Turkey and heightened concerns for the future of religious minorities .

Analysts suggest the reconversion was intended to reinforce Erdoğan's Islamic credentials, rally nationalist sentiment