I remember

Vincent Defourny, Director of UNESCO:

"What if UNESCO did not exist ..."

VD: At UNESCO we know the world heritage list but it is not only the world heritage list there is also the list of intangible heritage. There are therefore two components which themselves form part of a general UNESCO system for the protection of cultural elements and for the promotion of cultural diversity. The Convention of 72, therefore the World Heritage Convention, is a convention which aims to encourage States to protect sites which have exceptional and universal value. It’s a convention that doesn’t just want to focus on beautiful sites or on sites that are more interesting than others, but on sites that have exceptional and universal value. Protection, inscription on the World Heritage List is a process of protection in the name of Humanity, it is not a beauty contest, it is not a contest to find out who is the country that has more sites than others.

It is an approach to protect and transmit to future generations the exceptional and universal character of these sites. This is the convention of 72, the convention of 2003 which is the intangible heritage convention concerns all cultural practices that are developed in a country or by communities. It is an approach which is not the same as for World Heritage but which is the recognition of cultural practices which are important for a community. In both cases there is a submission procedure by the member state. Within the framework of World Heritage there is a very strict evaluation stage and after a World Heritage decision. In the case of intangible heritage there is just a verification that these are important practices for a community, and the inscription on the list of intangible heritage is done almost automatically from the moment a community says that indeed this practice is important for us. These are the two facets of UNESCO’s work to promote and protect the diversity of cultural practices. UNESCO works on cultural issues because culture is an important lever for building peace in the minds of men and women, and it is through culture, education, science and communication that 'we can find the mechanisms, we can find recognition between peoples. It is this idea that is really fundamental for UNESCO, it is: what are the elements, the cultural levers that allow to build peace.

- How can I present my country's practices to UNESCO?

VD: So it depends on what it is. If it is a monument, if it is a place that has a value, a cultural or natural place, there is a process for compiling an application file. The State of Kyrgyzstan must inscribe the place on the indicative list and on the list they wish to present to UNESCO. Then a long file must be formed. There are a lot of criteria to fulfill, it's a very, very long process. In some cases it takes 15 to 20 years. It is really necessary to document the reasons for which has wants to register this place compared to the criteria of the convention of 72. The criteria are very precise therefore it is really necessary to study the file compared to these criteria and according to these criteria have can go up or not the folder. And if the file is complete and corresponds a priori to the criteria of the agreement, it is sent to independent NGOs, depending on the nature of the property that is proposed for registration, who will make an assessment and will confirm whether the site is exceptional or not and for what reasons. This assessment will be presented to the World Heritage Committee, in which there are 28 elected countries which meet once a year at the World Heritage Committee, who will inscribe or not the property proposed on the World Heritage list. So this is a very long, difficult process, which must be very documented.

- You, for example, do you know places that you would like to classify? VD: No, then the process must first start in the country. Each country must identify the places it wants to protect, first nationally. This is one of the criteria, the place must be protected in national laws. Only then can it become international. For natural sites it’s about the same, but the procedures are a little bit different. - A slightly more philosophical question, if UNESCO had not been created in 1945, what would have become of the riches of the world, how do you imagine? VD: If UNESCO did not exist it would have to be invented. It is very difficult to make a scenario of the last 75 years and to say to yourself well if UNESCO had not existed what would have happened? The question of culture is one aspect, but it is not the only aspect of UNESCO. There is all the work on education, on science, on communication ... I can give some examples of important achievements. Here in Geneva we know CERN which is an important institution which is the biggest international scientific cooperation project, it was an initiative of UNESCO. CERN was born at UNESCO. The convention that created CERN has been deposited with UNESCO. CERN is a "baby", so to speak, of UNESCO. So if UNESCO had not been there, would CERN have existed?

I do not know. There is not only CERN there are also the "children" of CERN and among the "children" of CERN there are "clones" of CERN. For example in the Middle East there is a project in Jordan which makes scientists, physicists from 11 different countries work: Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey… All these physicists work together around a scientific instrument roughly analogous to the CERN. You could say, if CERN had not existed, would the Web have existed? The Web was born at CERN, The World Wide Web. Here ! So we can ask ourselves questions: if there hadn't been UNESCO there might not have been CERN, there might not have been a Web, there might not have been not have sesame etc. Similarly, the monuments of Nubia, in the south of Egypt, the Abu Sibel site, were to be flooded, submerged by the construction of Lake Nasser. If Unesco had probably not existed, the campaign which had been launched by archaeologists would not have had the resonance it had and probably that these monuments would have been buried and would have disappeared. Have saved them, rebuilt them above etc. But the same can be said of the Angkor sites in Cambodia, the same can be said of many other sites and places around the world. The concept of sustainable development would have existed if UNESCO had not already, in the 1960s, launched a program called "Man and the Biosphere". At the time, most countries wanted to create national parks. Closed parks where we put fences, where we do not let tourists in or let them in but we make a very clear separation between natural protection and human activities. Already in the 1960s, UNESCO said: "National parks are good, but a balance must be found between man and the biosphere". We have to find a balance between human activity and the preservation of the environment. In the 60s at one point when nobody was talking about these issues. And in this program, "Man and the Biosphere", we laid the foundations for what we now call sustainable development, which is the balance between both environmental development, finally environmental protection, development economic and social development. And who found form in the 17 sustainable development goals. And I can go on like this in many ways. In terms of education for example, would we have reached the levels of education today?

If UNESCO had not really pleaded around the world to say: Education for all is a fundamental human right. The same goes for the protection of journalists. Were there more journalists killed? Or threatened? If each time a journalist is the victim of threats, UNESCO does not systematically denounce and that there is not an action plan for the protection and safeguarding of journalists? It is very difficult to say what would have happened if there had not been UNESCO but in any case what is certain is that UNESCO works in a very thorough and very diligent in all these areas there to bring people together, to build peace in the minds of men. Because that’s the vocation of UNESCO. So all of this is obviously based on human rights. - For example, without culture there is no development. Unfortunately in many countries including the former Soviet Union the government spends more on other spheres than on culture.

VD: But in all the countries of the world the budget allocated to culture is too low, too limited, it is unfortunately a rule and even today, for example, at the Human Rights Council, the special reporter for cultural rights made a very interesting report which widened the concept of human rights defender to all actors in the world of culture who fall within the framework of international law and standards, started with the Declaration of the rights of Man, and who act. Today there is an inclusion of these cultural rights defenders as human rights defenders who must also be protected and who must be listened to. -Is there the enemy of UNESCO? Certain forces which would like to diminish the influence of UNESCO? VD: UNESCO has no enemies, except ignorance and the rejection of the other, the rejection of diversity are the main enemies of UNESCO. But these are characteristics that can be found in a certain number of people, sometimes with certain leaders. But UNESCO has no identified enemies, on the contrary, UNESCO wants to work with everyone and UNESCO is completely inclusive and seeks to ensure that everyone can make this end of the road, from the moment when we agree to work on education, science, culture, within the framework of international solidarity. Again to build peace in the minds of men.

- And UNESCO's mandate still has the same level? VD: UNESCO’s mandate is more current than ever, it is very strong. Now, as for UNESCO as for the United Nations and for many international organizations unfortunately the means which are allotted to these organizations there do not always live up to the mandate which is given to these organizations. So you have to be very creative to try to advance all the subjects with the small means that we have. You know the UNESCO budget is more or less equivalent to the budget of a university in Europe. If we compare with the military budget, it is beyond measure. - Is it still a shame that two countries left? VD: It’s always a shame when countries leave UNESCO. For their own reasons, they chose not to stay in Unesco because they found at one point that they could no longer be part of that organization. So it's about the United States and Israel. It is not the first time that the United States has left UNESCO. The United States already left UNESCO in 1984 and returned in 2002. But there are many other member states which left and returned: South Africa, from the time of l 'Apartheid left UNESCO, it returned when the government became democratic. The door to UNESCO is always open and all member states wishing to join UNESCO are obviously welcome. UNESCO’s goal is to be as universal as possible.

- Speaking of funding, many foundations and NGOs believe that UNESCO can help financially. How do you respond to them? VD: UNESCO does not have the financial means to help or come to support NGO activities etc. in a very particular way. But we are not going to dwell on this. UNESCO’s work is long-term work, which seeks more to create the conditions so that skills can be developed in each country. So we will work on training, we will work on international meetings which will, for example, constitute international standards, reflections or guidelines like today, for example, on artificial intelligence, and what are the ethical principles which must accompany the development of artificial intelligence. UNESCO does not work technologically on artificial intelligence but thoughtful and wants to organize the global reflection around the esthetics in relation to artificial intelligence. - Find solutions… VD: Yes and to give ourselves an international normative framework. But there are many other examples of this nature there. - Do you find that there are bad sides to globalization?

VD: When globalization means standardization: standardization of cultural practices, standardization of languages, standardization of ways of being around the world, it is clear that the world is losing its richness. Because the richness of the world is its diversity and cultural diversity. It is clearly written in the Declaration on Cultural Diversity that cultural diversity is for the world as important as biodiversity is for nature. So cultural diversity is essential, this is absolutely fundamental. And this cultural diversity should not be folded in on itself. We must cultivate diversity, we must recognize diversity but above all create all the bridges and all the bridges so that in diversity we can also build a common thought, a collective thought.

- During the USSR there was the Iron Curtain, after the opening many things happened to us and it was said that our mentalities had changed because of the Westerners. But I see that here too it is said that bad things come from the United States or others. What do you think ?

VD: In itself there are no bad things. That’s why we have to promote culture. If you want, what is very important is to recognize what is important in each culture and it can be in a Swiss valley or in a city anywhere in the world that has a specific cultural practice… Let’s take it example of the transhumance of cows in the pastures and who come back down to spend the winter months in the valley. It is an ancestral practice which is in Switzerland, which is very particular, which will undoubtedly be included in the list of intangible heritage and we must keep this practice there, young people must understand that it is important that their identity c is built on it. It is an individual and collective identity and it is necessary both to preserve it to be for its children but also to make it known to others. So it is always this dialectic between consolidating what is constitutive of the dignity of each but also the opening and the bridge that must be made for the understanding of the culture of the other.

- Which continents have given the most to the World Heritage list?

VD: It’s clear that the World Heritage List was born at a time when we thought a lot about Western criteria. We have registered a lot of baroque or Gothic churches and cathedrals in Europe: in France, in Spain, in Italy… Exceptional places of this nature there. But it is precisely because countries or continents with an important oral tradition are expressed. They said it was the heritage list we are not against at all but there are other forms of culture, there are other forms of heritage. This is why we created the intangible heritage convention which opens up to practices that can be cultural habits: parties, songs, ways of cooking, sports, activities ... The intangible heritage is very varied. . But these are practices that are important for communities. For example: the construction of stone walls in the countryside to cultivate, to make houses etc. There are about a dozen countries that have said: these are practices that we do at home and it is important. Even if there are differences we can see the similarities between the techniques, in Greece or Switzerland or in Spain or in other countries of the world. The same also applies to the practice of falconry which has been declared important in around twenty countries. It is inscribed in the intangible heritage but as a practice of various countries. There is no exclusivity. There is never an exclusivity on the contrary. The Silk Road for example, Kyrgyzstan is on this Silk Road and was a place of passage and exchange between practices from the Far East and the West and which met on this Road silk and which have been transformed because at each stage we have to transform things. But that’s what’s beautiful in the world.

- Another question about language. There are many languages that are disappearing. What are the measures taken by UNESCO. ?

VD: Yes, UNESCO has a program. We follow very precisely the evolution of languages, dialects. We publish an atlas of endangered languages. It is an atlas that we find online where we can see that in different regions of the world, finally everywhere in the world we are losing this linguistic diversity. So language is obviously very important because with each language there is a whole way of thinking, a whole way of thinking, a whole way of interacting with others and language is a culture. Linguistic diversity is part of cultural diversity.

- In the world there are many problems like global warming problems etc. How dangerous is it?

VD: This is a very broad question, I would say that wherever human dignity is flouted, there is cause for concern. Wherever people are not recognized in their dignity there is a problem and it can take a thousand different aspects. It can be linked to hate speech on the internet in social networks, it can be terrorism and violent actions that are carried out by groups around the world. It can go from the relationship between two people, two children at school who insult each other and who do not respect each other but it can also go when countries or regions of the world oppose, turn their backs and refuse to dialogue. These are problems and these are problems for UNESCO, these are problems that must be tackled.

- Last question, there is an international organization which makes statistics every year on who is the happiest in the world. What do you think ?

VD: I don't give credit to these statistics.

- Why ?

VD: What is the methodology? What is the criteria? What is the principle of happiness? Happiness can be defined in many different ways. UNESCO does not give credit to its values.

- Unfortunately many people believe in this statistic.

VD: Unfortunately, there are people who believe that the world is flat.