In June 2012, the Islamic group Ansar Dine (a radical group with alleged links to al-Qaeda) took control of Timbuktu in northern Mali. The threat posed to the city, which contains thousands of ancient manuscripts, as well as religious architectural wonders, immediately raised concern for the international community. Indeed, in the puritanical stream of Islam observed by Ansar Dine, veneration of Sufi Saints counts as idolatry and holy shrines deserve nothing but destruction.⁽²⁾ This is why the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which considers numerous sites in Timbuktu as being part of world heritage, has decided to declare several sites within the city endangered following the June 2012 invasion.⁽³⁾ This step by UNESCO could not, however, prevent Timbuktu’s treasures coming twice under attack, in July 2012 and in late-December 2012.⁽⁴⁾ It is widely reported that radical Islamist rebels in northern Mali have attacked the city’s heritage, “taking pickaxes to the tombs of local saints and smashing down a door in a 15th-century mosque.”⁽⁵⁾

This appalling episode was not a mere side effect of the conflict occurring in Mali; the destruction of shrines was a deliberate move, designed as another war weapon aimed at destroying one of the most defining aspects of the Malian community and history. Additionally, one should not overlook the fact that Ansar Dine proceeded with the destruction of centuries-old mausoleums as a direct response to the UNESCO attempts to protect the invaluable treasures contained in Timbuktu.⁽⁶⁾ Following the intervention of French army forces, Ansar Dine had to leave Timbuktu in January 2013; however, before leaving the city, the extremists did not miss the opportunity to burn a library full of centuries-old manuscripts.⁽⁷⁾ UNESCO has estimated that as many as half of the city’s shrines “have been destroyed in a display of fanaticism.”⁽⁸⁾

This series of attacks has caused a significant amount of indignation worldwide due to the irreversibility of the destruction and the immeasurable damage caused to the integrity of Mali’s collective memory. The condemnation seemed widely shared both in Mali and abroad. However, the seriousness of these attacks is often disputed. This is part of a wider debate: how should cultural destruction be regarded within international human rights law? While some may argue that, as saddening as it may be, one is only dealing with ‘walls of brick and mud’, others take the cases to another level. In this regard, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) new Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, suggested that the destructions should be considered a war crime ⁽⁹⁾ and UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova labelled this “an attack on our humanity.”⁽¹⁰⁾ These views may appear extreme to some whose focus lies in human rights; considering that while holy shrines are destroyed, human beings are killed, tortured and raped.

However, concern for human rights is not an excuse to lessen the gravity of what occurred in Timbuktu. Destroying the shrines was not merely about destroying walls. Ansar Dine put into action a planned process to annihilate a fundamental part of Malian history. It is arguable that, beyond the actual result, it is the intention behind those actions that should be analysed in order to assess how seriously one should take the destruction of shrines in Timbuktu. This CAI paper discusses the damage caused by the destruction of shrines in Mali and derives from this the necessity to recognise the seriousness of cultural genocide as being part and parcel of physical genocide.

Timbuktu: The city of 333 saints

Timbuktu is situated in the West African nation of Mali on the southern edge of the Sahara. The city was founded in the fifth century,⁽¹¹⁾ although some scholars have explained that there is evidence from the excavations that “permanent large-scale urban settlements at Timbuktu may have developed as early as A.D. 200, with initial occupation dating back to the late Stone Age.”⁽¹²⁾

During Europe’s Middle Ages, Timbuktu hosted a rich writing tradition that saw the creation of millions of manuscripts, hundreds of thousands of which have survived to present day. Timbuktu was an important centre for the diffusion of Islamic culture through the University of Sankoré, with 180 Koranic schools and 25,000 students. The three large mosques of Djingareyber, Sankoré and Sidi Yahia, as well as 16 mausoleums and holy public places, still bear witness to this prestigious past.⁽¹³⁾ The area of the city in which the Sankoré mosque is located, known as the Sankoré Quarter, became associated with learning: “The Sankoré quarter attracted many scholars to live, study and teach, thus gaining a reputation for higher learning.”⁽¹⁴⁾ For centuries, Timbuktu was – and remains - a mystical place. In the West, it has become synonymous with mysterious isolation; the farthest one can travel.⁽¹⁵⁾

Three large mosques were constructed at Timbuktu in the Middle Ages and have become some of the most iconic monuments in the city. The study of the Koran formed the foundation of this learning tradition with its scholars composing, copying, and importing works on many subjects; including astronomy, mathematics, law, geography, and history. One estimate suggests that there are 700,000 manuscripts in Timbuktu, from the centuries in which learning in all disciplines flourished in the Muslim world.⁽¹⁶⁾

Timbuktu was also a crossroads and an important market place, where the trading of salt from Teghaza in the north, and cattle and grain from the south, took place.⁽¹⁷⁾ With gold as Timbuktu’s most frequent export, its most important import was books.⁽¹⁸⁾The decline of Timbuktu as a centre for scholars started at the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the city was taken over by musket-wielding soldiers from Morocco. Although further great works were subsequently produced, the city struggled to reconnect with its heyday.

Yet the holy shrines remain testaments to the golden age of a civilisation, and the precious manuscripts, dating back to the thirteenth century, are evidence of ancient African and Islamist written scholarship, at odds with the idea of an exclusively oral tradition on the continent. This is an outstanding reference for African identity. Indeed, the testimonies contained in Timbuktu’s manuscripts demonstrate the intellectual ebullience that reigned on the continent centuries ago. This constitutes partly the identity of Malian people, as well as that of other African peoples. Moreover, these are treasures to be shared with humankind as a whole – a common heritage, making the irreversible loss of the shrines and their contents a difficult fact with which to come to terms. 

Cultural genocide: A difficult concept

Raphael Lemkin was a Polish-born lawyer, living in the United States (US), and the creator of the term genocide in a study of German atrocities after the Second World War. Lemkin, a central contributor to the 1948 Convention on Genocide,⁽¹⁹⁾ derived this neologism from genos, Greek for ‘race’ or ‘nation’, and caedere, the Latin verb ‘to kill.’ In his seminal book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin defined genocide as a “coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”⁽²⁰⁾ It is interesting to note that, in the same book, Lemkin proposed a comprehensive notion of genocide, one that should include a cultural aspect.⁽²¹⁾ Other scholars, such as John Docker, Professor in History at the University of Sydney,⁽²²⁾ have also substantiated the analysis of cultural genocide. Docker notably claims that, in cases of cultural genocide, “fundamental aspects of a group’s unique cultural existence are attacked with the aim of destroying the group, thereby rendering the group itself (apart from its members) an equal object and victim of the attack.”⁽²³⁾

However, the notion of cultural genocide has attracted much debate to date. From the days of the Convention on Genocide, the concept was already controversial, and there was substantial opposition to its inclusion in the Convention. While the Convention’s preparatory works suggest that cultural genocide was expected to appear, the concept never made it to the final draft. Indeed, when in 1946 the UN General Assembly first discussed genocide, it was noted that among its components are “great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions.”⁽²⁴⁾ The secretary-general’s commentary on the draft proposed that an article prohibit cultural genocide, “including the systematic destruction of monuments or other historical, artistic, or religious objects.”⁽²⁵⁾

However, scholars and activists have argued over how genocide should be defined, and ultimately, the legal definition of genocide that was finally admitted is a very narrow one. Indeed, the physical component of genocide was the one that could be universally accepted; the only workable definition able to create a legally binding response. The exclusion of cultural destruction from the concept of genocide is accountable to the fact that physical genocide represented (and still represents) the highest level of political unity among nation states on this issue.⁽²⁶⁾

At least two reasons are put forth by authors and legal practitioners to reject the concept of cultural genocide. Firstly, the contours of the notion have been considered so vague that its enactment would deplete the idea of genocide itself.⁽²⁷⁾ The second viewpoint advocates more directly the narrow concept of genocide, and considers that cultural genocide is an undue extension of the struggle against genocide.⁽²⁸⁾ According to this view, genocide is only designed to protect the physical integrity of groups. This approach was probably the most convenient intellectual reasoning, as the right to physical integrity is universally accepted. This definition makes cultural genocide a mere adjunct to the so-called ‘real’ concept of genocide - almost a side effect that does not seem to effectuate any tangible impact upon the integrity of a community and its members. Yet, it was also argued during preparatory works for the Convention on Genocide that the cultural bond is one of the most important uniting factors among national groups, to the extent that it is “possible to wipe out a human group, as such, by destroying its cultural heritage, while allowing the individual members of the group to survive.”⁽²⁹⁾

The rationale for taking cultural genocide seriously

The defiance to the notion of cultural genocide may seem, at first, perfectly sound. Indeed, how can anyone place this on the same scale as mass killings? Physical genocide is tangible; the intent behind it is absolutely clear and unambiguous. On the other hand, cultural genocide seems more abstract and transient. When a group destroys culture, they attack the soul of a community. In this sense, one may better grasp the real nature of cultural genocide by comparing the notion with the concept of ethnocide. Unlike cultural genocide, ethnocide is not necessarily tied to killing.⁽³⁰⁾ Alex Alvarez, Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Northern Arizona University, calls ethnocide “the assassination of a culture and of identity. It is the murder of the ties that bind a group of people together and make them unique.”⁽³¹⁾ Yet, one cannot escape the concern that many of the arguments rejecting the importance of cultural genocide appear to overlook a crucial point - that the intent behind cultural genocide might just be the same that underlies physical genocide. Perhaps, then, the argument should not be a rejection of cultural destruction as a form of genocide. Rather, it must be recognised that “the deliberate destruction and desecration of icons, libraries, monuments, and coercive religious conversion” should be prohibited when “undertaken in conjunction with acts of physical genocide. In such cases there is little doubt that there is an intent to both physically exterminate the group and eliminate all remnants of its existence.”⁽³²⁾

The extreme seriousness of cultural genocide may therefore stem from the fact that this type of genocide cannot be effectively separated from the will to physically destroy a group. Rather, physical and cultural decimation are actually part of the same process. As such, it should be regretted that Lemkin’s attempts to incorporate a cultural dimension to genocide into the Convention on Genocide, remain unrealised.

Concluding remarks

The tombs destroyed by Ansar Dine were centuries-old shrines to Muslim saints and part of UNESCO world heritage. As a spokesman for the extremist group asserted: “there is no world heritage, it doesn't exist. The infidels must not get involved in our business.”⁽³³⁾ This phrase completely denies the existence of the “intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind” - a notion that is central to the UNESCO Constitution and its activities.⁽³⁴⁾ Culture has universal meaning and is not temporally-restricted. In this respect, attacking symbols of history, tradition and culture, is a loss to everyone.

The destruction of several centuries of intellectual ebullience is an outrage that must not be tolerated. Indeed, UNESCO’s Director-General Bokova has suggested that cultural heritage should be seen as an international security issue.⁽³⁵⁾ Propositions for the creation of a new international crime, “the crime against human diversity,” have been made in an effort to capture the nature of cultural destruction.⁽³⁶⁾ Such demands represent an interesting and very welcome development, recognising the universal value of culture, the gravity of intentional cultural destruction, and the necessity of recognition of such attacks as attacks on humanity as a whole.

Written by Mariam Diarra ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Contact Mariam Diarra through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Rights in Focus Unit ( rights.focus@consultancyafrica.com). This CAI discussion paper was developed with the assistance of Laura Clarke and was edited by Kate Morgan.
(2) Tharoor, J., ‘Timbuktu’s destruction: Why Islamists are wrecking Mali’s cultural heritage’, World Time, 2 July 2012, http://world.time.com.
(3) ‘UNESCO lists Timbuktu as endangered amid Mali unrest’, Agence France-Presse, 28 June 2012, http://www.google.com.
(4) ‘Militants seek to destroy Mali shrines’, The New York Times, 30 June 2012, http://www.nytimes.com.
(5) York, G., ‘The secret race to save Timbuktu’s manuscripts’, The Globe and Mail, 27 December 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com.
(6) ‘Mali separatists ready to act over destruction of tombs’, CNN, 2 July 2012, http://edition.cnn.com.
(7) ‘Timbuktu’s treasure trove of African history’, BBC News, 29 January 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
(8) Tharoor, J., ‘Timbuktu’s destruction: Why Islamists are wrecking Mali’s cultural heritage’, World Time, 2 July 2012, http://world.time.com.
(9) Daniel, S., ‘Timbuktu shrine destruction a “war crime”: ICC’, Agence France-Presse, 1 July 2012, http://www.google.com.
(10) ‘Opinion: Timbuktu tombs attack is an attack on our humanity’, CNN, 4 July 2012, http://edition.cnn.com.
(11) United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website, http://whc.unesco.org.
(12) Park, D., ‘Timbuktu and its hinderland’, Academia.edu Research, 2009, http://www.academia.edu.
(13) United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website, http://whc.unesco.org.
(14) Hunwick, J. and Boye, A.J., 2008. The hidden treasures of Timbuktu. Thames and Hudson: United Kingdom.
(15) Geoghegan, T., ‘Who, what, why: Why do we know Timbuktu?’, BBC News, 2 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
(16) ‘When terrorists destroy books’, The Globe and Mail, 30 December 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com.
(17) United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website, http://whc.unesco.org.
(18) Ibid.
(19) ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’, 9 December 1948, United Nations: New York, http://www.icrc.org.
(20) Lemkin, R., 1994. Axis rule in occupied Europe. The Lawbook Exchange Limited: United Kingdom.
(21) Ibid.
(22) Docker J., 2008. The origins of violence. Pluto Press: United Kingdom.
(23) Nersessian, D., ‘Rethinking cultural genocide under international law’, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 22 April 2005, http://www.carnegiecouncil.org.
(24) ‘Ad hoc committee draft: Second draft convention on genocide’, 1948, Ad Hoc Committee of the Economic and Social Council, United Nations: New York, http://www.preventgenocide.org.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Sautman, B., 2003. Cultural genocide and Tibet. Texas International Law Journal, 38(2), pp. 173-248.
(27) Ibid.
(28) Ibid.
(29) Abtahi, H. and Webb, P., 2008. The genocide convention: The travaux préparatoires. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: United Kingdom.
(30) Palmer, A., 1992. “Ethnocide”, in Dobkowski, M. and Wallimann, I. (eds.). Genocide in our time: An annotated bibliography with analytical introduction. Pierian Press: Michigan.
(31) Alvarez, A., 2001. Governments, citizens and genocide: A comparative and interdisciplinary approach. Indiana University Press: Bloomington.
(32) Lippman, M.R., 1994. The 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide: Forty-five years later. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 8, pp. 1-84.
(33) ‘Ansar Dine destroy more shrines in Mali’, Aljazeera, 10 July 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com.
(34) ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) constitution’, 16 November 1945, United Nations: New York, http://portal.unesco.org.
(35) Bokova, I., ‘Culture in the cross hairs’, The New York Times, 2 December 2012, http://www.nytimes.com.
(36) Germann, C., ‘Second biennial war crimes conference: Justice? Whose justice? Punishment, mediation or reconciliation’, University of London, 2 March 2011, http://www.culturalgenocideresearch.blogspot.fr.