Indian Council of World Affairs

ABSTRACT: Over the years, destruction of cultural heritage has emerged as a strategic tool used by extremist groups to spread fear and assert their dominance. This paper argues that, despite continued attacks, the international response has remained largely reactive rather than proactive.

INTRODUCTION

The rise of extremism and asymmetric warfare globally, has increasingly made cultural heritage sites and objects targets of violence worldwide. For example, in April 2026, the jihadist group Ansar al-Sunna also known as ISIS-Mozambique attacked and destroyed the parish of St Louis de Montfort, a historic church in Meza, Mozambique[i]. Cultural heritage encompasses the language, art, architecture, tradition and practices that are passed down through generations. Monuments and artifacts embody a community’s historical continuity, reflect its evolution and often inspire future innovation. They hold values, beliefs and practices that are source of a community’s identity[ii] [iii].

In conflict-prone parts of Africa and West Asia, extremist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Boko Haram in Nigeria, Jama ‘at Nusrat al-Islam Wal-Muslimin (JNIM) in Burkina Faso have attacked, destroyed and looted cultural heritage sites that differ from their own ideology.

Referred to as “cultural cleansing”[iv], it is done with the intent to eradicate cultural diversity from a geographical area and replace it with a single homogenous cultural and religious perspective. Drawing on examples such as Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Burkina Faso, this paper looks into the motivations behind such attacks and analyses the international responses, particularly of the United Nations and allied institutions, to prevent and curb them.

UNDERSTANDING THE DRIVERS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE DESTRUCTION.

Although extremist groups differ in their ideologies, the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage remains a recurring strategy employed across different theatres of conflict, for example, the destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by Taliban (2001), attacks in Palmyra, Nimrud and Hatra by ISIS (2015), and siege of Marawi in Philippines by the Abu Sayyaf Group (2017)[v].

Cultural cleansing serves several objectives, including, inflicting psychological harm on the population; severing people from their civilisational and cultural roots, history, knowledge and identity making it easier to establish ideological dominance and aid recruitment into extremist groups[vi]; The destruction of cultural sites, targeting and killing of Priests and Imams have also led to large-scale displacement of communities, loss of life and livelihood [vii] [viii]; and lastly, the illicit trade of cultural artifacts and antiques has emerged as a key source of revenue generation for weapons purchase and planning of further attacks. For instance, ISIS generates millions of dollars through trafficking of antiques, making it their second highest revenue source after oil [ix].

ROLE AND RESPONSES OF THE UN AND ALLIED INSTITUTIONS

The United Nations (UN) and its institutions such as UNESCO[1], UNITAD[2], and the ICC[3] are the principal actors responsible for translating international concern for the preservation of cultural sites and artifacts into legal, political and operational responses. Consequently, their actions serve as a key indicator of the international community's commitment to heritage protection. The UN regards cultural heritage protection a security and humanitarian imperative. It believes, cultural cleansing not only severs communities from their history and belonging, but directly fuels terrorism, deepens societal destabilisation, undermines the very foundations of post-conflict balance and lasting peace[x].

The UN has adopted multiple resolutions to tackle cultural heritage destruction, as seen in the table below. 

SOURCE: Compiled by the author using information from the following sources [xi] [xii] [xiii] [xiv] [xv] [xvi] [xvii].

Apart from the UN, UNESCO has undertaken multiple measures such as, the conservation of 300,000 (approx.) ancient Malian manuscripts transferred to Bamako (2013) [xviii]. It has launched the #Unite4Heritage campaign (2015) at the University of Baghdad, which was a global social media movement to challenge extremist narratives about identity and values [xix]. Steps have also been taken to coordinate with INTERPOL[4] and UNODC[5] for dismantling antiquities trafficking routes. The UNITAD in 2022, launched a dedicated investigation into ISIS's cultural heritage crimes in Iraq (2017), publishing a landmark report in September 2024 covering systematic destruction of heritage sites in the Nineveh governorate.

ANALYSIS

Studies suggests that international interventions are generally mobilised only after cultural sites have been destroyed, with insufficient emphasis on deterrence and prevention of attacks [xx]. This pattern is evident in the adoption of UNSC resolution 2100 (2013) following the attacks in Mali, Resolutions 2199 (2015), 2322 (2016) and 2347 (2017) adopted post destruction in Iraq and Syria. The various UN resolutions have been unable to deter attacks such as, the late 2019 attacks on mosques and sacred sites in Burkina Faso by JNIM, and the destruction of a church in the village of Essakane, Sahel region, by the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara’s (ISGS) in 2024.

Since its establishment, the ICC has secured one conviction for the destruction of cultural heritage. In 2016, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi was unanimously found guilty of the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against nine mausoleums and one mosque in Timbuktu, Mali[xxi]. The conviction became a landmark in the history of international criminal justice as cultural heritage destruction was prosecuted as a standalone war crime for the first time. However, the conviction came four years after the attack, and remains the only prosecution of its kind till date. This highlights the limited deterrent effect of international criminal accountability.

Another important limitation is the predominantly state-centric nature of international enforcement frameworks and their heavy reliance on national implementation. The Hague Convention (1954), despite being legally comprehensive, was adopted in response to the destruction of the World War II, therefore focusing specifically on armed conflict of international character. The role of violent non-state actors was included only in 1998 under the Rome Statute. UNSC resolutions “encourage” member states to strengthen their legislations and tighten border controls. The resolutions further push for broader cooperation among member states and with regional institutions for information sharing, protection and restoration efforts. Nonetheless, on-the-ground impact of these international norms remains limited due to lack of international mechanisms for supervision and monitoring of state actions. [xxii]

A recurring concern is that UN responses remain heavily focused on physical monuments and artifacts, while neglecting to include Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)[6]. Initial frameworks adopted by the UN, limited cultural property to mean “movable or immovable property”, and were coupled with lack of ratification. Thereby, failing to capture and protect the immaterial dimensions of cultural heritage. In an effort to bridge this gap, UNESCO, in 2003 adopted the Convention of the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, which has been one of the only efforts towards ICH protection. Larger international response on ICH has been piecemeal and sectoral[xxiii].

CONCLUSION

The analysis suggests that the efforts of the UN and allied institutions have been predominantly reactive rather than preventive, with greater emphasis placed on post conflict reconstruction than on safeguarding cultural heritage before it is targeted. Strengthening early warning mechanisms, enhancing intelligence-sharing, and fostering cooperation between heritage experts and counterterrorism agencies could help shift international efforts towards prevention. Equally important is integrating cultural heritage protection into broader peacebuilding initiatives rather than limiting it to post-conflict reconstruction. Achieving this objective would require meaningful engagement with local communities (including historians, religious leaders and civil society) while expanding preservation efforts to include Intangible Cultural Heritage that are frequently targeted by extremist groups. Furthermore, greater coordination among the UNSC, UNESCO, the ICC, humanitarian organisations and national governments is essential to ensure timely, coherent and effective responses.

While the architecture of international protection exists, what remains is the political will to deploy it before the next cultural site burns. The international community faces a challenge to transform established norms and legal obligations into effective and sustained action.

*****

*Palguni A is a Research Intern at the Indian Council of World Affairs.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal.

Endnotes

[1] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

[2] Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da'esh/ISIL, established by UN Security Council Resolution 2379 (2017). Mandated to document the destruction and looting of cultural heritage sites to support future criminal prosecutions.

[3] International Criminal Court

[4]  International Criminal Police Organization

[5] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) works to combat transnational organised crime, including illicit trafficking in cultural property. Together with UNESCO, it strengthens legal frameworks, law enforcement and capacity-building to prevent and prosecute the illicit trade in stolen cultural artifacts.

[6] Intangible cultural heritage comprises the living traditions, practices, knowledge and skills passed down through generations, including oral traditions, rituals, languages and traditional craftsmanship.

[i] Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), Mozambique Conflict Monitor Update: 6 May 2026, May 6, 2026, https://acleddata.com/update/mozambique-conflict-monitor-update-6-may-2026.

[ii] UNESCO, “Cultural Heritage: 7 Successes of UNESCO's Preservation Work,” https://www.unesco.org/en/cultural-heritage-7-successes-unescos-preservation-work.

National Culture Fund, “Importance of Cultural Heritage and Its Conservation,” Ministry of Culture, Government of India, June 8, 2022, https://ncf.nic.in/blog/cultural_heritage

[iv] Nicole Winchester, “Targeting Culture: The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Conflict,” House of Lords Library, December 14, 2022, https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/targeting-culture-the-destruction-of-cultural-heritage-in-conflict/

[v] Amnesty International, “Philippines: ‘Battle of Marawi’ Leaves Trail of Death and Destruction,” November 17, 2017, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/philippines-battle-of-marawi-leaves-trail-of-death-and-destruction-2/.

[vi] Sabine von Schorlemer, “Terrorist Attacks on World Heritage: Strengthening Global Cultural Heritage Governance,” in The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, ed. Francesco Francioni and Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 446–464.  

[vii] U.S. Department of State, Office of International Religious Freedom, 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Burkina Faso (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 2024), https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/burkina-faso/

[viii] Ngala Killian Chimtom, “Burkina Faso Has Become a ‘Church on the Move,’ Says Catholic Priest,” Crux, December 17, 2025, https://cruxnow.com/church-in-africa/2025/12/burkina-faso-has-become-a-church-on-the-move-says-catholic-priest.

[ix] Johan Brosché, Mattias Legnér, Joakim Kreutz, and Akram Ijla, “Heritage under Attack: Motives for Targeting Cultural Property during Armed Conflict,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 23, no. 3 (2017): 248–260, https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1261918

[x] UNESCO, “Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflicts,” https://www.unesco.org/en/heritage-armed-conflicts/about?hub=180145.

[xi] UNESCO, Texts of UNESCO Standard-Setting Instruments: Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Its Two (1954 and 1999) Protocols, The Hague, 14 May 1954 (CLT-2024/WS/3.1) (Paris: UNESCO, 2025), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000397005

[xii] International Criminal Court, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (March 2024 consolidated version) (The Hague: International Criminal Court, 2024), https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf

[xiii] International Criminal Court, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, https://www.icc-cpi.int/publications/core-legal-texts/rome-statute-international-criminal-court

[xiv] UNESCO, “Making the Convention More Operational: 1999 Second Protocol,” February 4, 2026, https://www.unesco.org/en/heritage-armed-conflicts/second-protocol?hub=180145

[xv] United Nations Security Council, Resolution 2100 (2013), S/RES/2100 (April 25, 2013), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/748429

[xvi] United Nations Security Council, Resolution 2199 (2015), S/RES/2199 (February 12, 2015), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/787858

[xvii] United Nations Security Council, Resolution 2347 (2017), S/RES/2347 (March 24, 2017), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/851384

[xviii] UNESCO, “Re-building Cultural Heritage in Mali,” July 1, 2014, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/re-building-cultural-heritage-mali

[xix] UNESCO, “Join UNESCO’s #Unite4Heritage Campaign,” April 15, 2015, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/join-unescos-unite4heritage-campaign

[xx] Craig Larkin and Inna Rudolf, “Memory, Violence and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Rebuilding and Reimagining Mosul,” Peacebuilding 12, no. 3 (2024): 281–298, https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2023.2247722.

[xxi] Olawale Ismaila Ba, “Contested Meanings: Timbuktu and the Prosecution of Destruction of Cultural Heritage as War Crimes,” African Studies Review 63, no. 4 (2020): 743–762, https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2020.16

[xxii] Irina Bokova, UNESCO's Response to the Rise of Violent Extremism: A Decade of Building International Momentum in the Struggle to Protect Cultural Heritage, J. Paul Getty Trust Occasional Papers in Cultural Heritage Policy, no. 5 (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2021), https://www.getty.edu/publications/occasional-papers-5/

[xxiii] Victoria Arnal, “Destructive Trends in Contemporary Armed Conflicts and the Overlooked Aspect of Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Critical Comparison of the Protection of Cultural Heritage under IHL and the Islamic Law of Armed Conflict,” International Review of the Red Cross 103, no. 914 (2021): 811–844, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383122000381.