Valérie Niquet

Issues of Memory and History:
UNESCO and the Politicization of World Heritage Site
Nominations
Valérie Niquet
Abstract
Since its adoption in 1972, the Convention concerning the protection of the world culturaland nature heritage has come under increasing pressure. It is no longer enough to choose
sites “of outstanding universal values,” but also to respond to increasingly complex
objectives such as development, diversity, inclusiveness and the fight against climatechange. Choices are also increasingly politicized, and the World Heritage Committee
has become the arena for rivalry between the most influent States parties, who see thenumber of sites nominated as a demonstration of their power and clout. Local economic
and development interests are also related to these choices. In this context, the nominationof industrial sites with complex pasts occupies a specific place, raising several questions,
including that of the use of history for contemporary geopolitical stakes.

T

Introduction
he Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and nature heritage wasadopted in 1972 and came into force in 1975. In 2023, 195 State parties are signatoriesof the Convention and participate to the election of the World Heritage Committee.
It reflected at the time of its adoption a preoccupation for the preservation of past
heritage, for the education of future generations, that dated back to the League of Nations in
1919.1 The World Heritage Center, established in 1992 to act as Secretariat, plays the role ofcoordinator for matter related to the Convention and organizes the annual session of the World
Heritage Committee that decides the sites nomination and the reporting on the conditions of thesites.2 Its 21 members are elected by the State Parties signatories to the Convention. When thefirst World Heritage List was drawn up at the first session held from June 27 to July 1st 1977 by
the then 15-states committee,3 a number of principles were defined with 10 criteria.4 The list was
to be exclusive, so that places chosen with “extreme care” would remain remarkable and balanced
not only geographically but also between cultural and natural sites.5 Concerns have since thenbeen expressed about the impact of Western conceptions, Eurocentric bias and differences inperception between cultures. The global study carried out by ICOMOS (International Council
on Monuments and Sites) from 1987 to 1993 revealed that “Europe, historic towns and religious
1

Jens Boel, “The League of Nations: A Universal Dream that has Stood the Test of Time,” https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/league-nations-universal-dream-has-stood-test-time, 27-01-2020.

2

L ynn Meskell, “States of Conser vation: Protection, Politics and Pacting Within UNESCOʼs World
Heritage Committee,” Current Anthropology, vol 54, n°4, 08-2013.

3

Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, West Germany, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Poland, Senegal,
Tunisia, USA, Yugoslavia

4

Six for cultural sites and four for natural sites. In 2005, the criteria were merged into one list of ten
criteria.

5“Establishment of the World Heritage List,” Decision 1 COM VI. A, whc.unesco.org

39
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Issues of Memory and History: UNESCO and the Politicization of World Heritage Site Nominations

monuments, Christianity, historical periods and ʻelitistʼ architecture were all over-represented
on the World Heritage List; whereas, all living cultures, and especially ʻtraditional cultures,ʼ were
underrepresented.”
However, in 2023, the balance is still not fully respected despite an evolution since the mid2010s, with Europe representing 47.12% of sites, Asia-Pacific 24.10%, Latin America 12.4%, theArab world 8.59% and Africa 7.76%. Cultural sites (35%) far outweigh natural sites (1%). 6 By
country, we find heavyweights such as the Peopleʼs Republic of China (57 sites) and France (52sites). Japan has 25 registered sites and the Republic of Korea 16.

The initial objective: Strict principles based on widely recognized criteria
The principle of exclusivity in the selection of sites is one of the major points taken into accountby the first award committee. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention (1977) specifies that, to be considered for inclusion in the World Heritage
List, proposed sites must have “outstanding universal value.”7 Cultural or natural sites must beof universal or at least widespread importance, or of exceptional interest to the peoples of theworld. The text specifies that “only a select list of the most outstanding from a world view point”
will be chosen. The criterion of universality, which refers to an “important or significant” part ofhumanity, far outweighs national interests or interpretations of what constitutes an “outstanding”
site.
As far as cultural sites are concerned, the examples chosen in the Guidelines as representing“ masterpieces of human creativity, ” which have had a lasting influence on ar t and humandevelopment, are particularly representative of a cultural, intellectual, social, artistic but also
technological and industrial development, are associated with par ticularly ancient forms
threatened with extinction or are sites of great historical importance in relation to personalities,
philosophical schools of thought, events or religions meet this then relatively consensual
definition of “world heritage site.” Examples given include Borobudur in Indonesia, Angkor Wat
in Cambodia, the Valley of the Kings in Egypt, the Pantheon in Rome, the Plaza de Puebla in
Mexico, the Château de Vaux le Vicomte in France, the Mayan pyramids, downtown Leningrad,
the walled city of Avila in Spain, the longhouses in Indonesia, the Dogon villages in Mali, theMachu Picchu, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Mecca and the Cape Kennedy site
in the USA. The list of indicative examples is intended to be both relatively diversified andgeographically balanced, choosing only places recognized as exceptional.8
However, the nomination issue has become progressively more complex–and expensive toconstitute a dossier with a sufficient degree of expertise–with the inclusion of proposals thatare less consensual or raise problems of definition and interpretation. There are six criteria for
selection to be included in the World Heritage List but the relative importance of these criteria
seems to have evolved in recent years. In particular criterion six led to questions expressed by
the World Heritage Committee in its definition: “Criterion Ⅵ concerns sites to be directly or
tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic andliterary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion
should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)”9

A more complex selection process since the 2000s and the risk of politicization
Progressively, the conditions for nominating UNESCO heritage sites have become more complex
6

whc.unesco.org

7

https://whc.unesco.org/archive/1977/cc-77-conf001-8reve.pdf

8“Establishment of the World Heritage List,” Decision 1 COM VI. A, whc.unesco.org

9

whc.unesco.org

40Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Valérie Niquet

and less consensual, with an evolution in the concept of “world heritage”: the sites chosen can
no longer simply be the expression of “outstanding universal values,” but must also ser ve a
cause.10 Choices can also serve the more direct economic or political interests of a particularstate or interest group. To some experts, it should be noted that every decision taken by theWorld Heritage Committee is increasingly politicized, and that recommendations made to theCommittee by ICOMOS or IUCN (International Union for Conser vation of Nature) are notsystematically taken into account.11 In 2003 the convergence factor between ICOMOS and
IUCN recommendations and decisions by the Committee was 90 %. It felled to 40 % in 2012. 12
Increasingly, members of the World Heritage Committee, composed now of 21 members,
are not experts such as archaeologists or naturalists but ambassadors or politicians sent torepresent the State parties leading to backstage bargaining to obtain nominations.13 An UNESCO
audit published in 2011 concludes that the approach is increasingly more “political” rather
than “heritage” oriented.14 Some principles reflect the concerns and urgencies defined by theUnited Nations at a more global level. This is for example the case for the goal of sustainable
development 2030. In 2021, the World Heritage Convention and sustainable development
adopted a policy document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into theprocess of the World Heritage Convention.15 Nomination criteria must now also take accountnatural disasters, contribute to poverty reduction and promote a sustainable way of life for ruralcommunities.
Allocation must also take account social inclusion issues and strengthen the influenceof local communities, including young people, women and indigenous peoples. Finally, thenomination of sites must promote peace and security and facilitate cooperation.16 These are major
challenges, which make the nomination of world heritage sites more complex and potentiallymore controversial, and can also pave the way for a “nomination race” designed to legitimize–or
denounce–historical episodes that do not meet with consensus.17
Some consider that UNESCO has strayed from the objectives of the 1972 World Heritage
Convention, which was to protect sites perceived as the common property of mankind, totransform into a political approach to get more sites accepted as a way to bolster prestige andsovereign interests.18 For instance, the Peopleʼs Republic of China (PRC), who ratified theConvention in 1985, proudly proclaims on the website of one of its embassies, that “China ranks
second in the world” in the number of sites.19 China has 57 sites, and Italy, ranking first, 59.
But requests for nominations also have a performative function when sites are chosen for
their symbolic value. In Europe, for example, the aim of the European Heritage Label, different
from World Heritage but with connections to the UNESCO world heritage sites, launched in 2011,10

Simon C. Woodward, Louise Cooke, World Heritage: Concepts, Management and Conservation,
Routledge, 2023.

11

Idem

12

Lynn Meskell, op.cit.

13

Lynn Meskell, op.cit.

14

Lynn Meskell, op.cit.

15“World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development,” Decision 44 COM 5 D, whc.unesco.org

16

Idem

17

Enrico Bertacchini et al, “The Politicization of UNESCO World Heritage Decision Making,” Public
Choice, April 2016.

18

Anna Somers Cocks, “How the War in Ukraine Reveals the Heightened Politics of UNESCO,” The Art
Newspaper, 09-12-2022.

19

http://no.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zngx_1/whjl/zx/201704/t20170411_3072435.htm

41
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Issues of Memory and History: UNESCO and the Politicization of World Heritage Site Nominations

is to “revive European heritage” and thus promote European integration. The label conveys anideological belief, with emphasis on the values of “peace,” diversity, mobility and inclusion.20
Finally, one of the challenges is the race for numbers, and the fact that commitment toconservation, the original objective of the World Heritage List, has been too often replaced byan acquisitive practice of inscriptions, with pressure exerted on commission members.21 China,
again, is particularly active in this field, with 13 of its 57 sites nominated since 2014, when thecomposition of the 21 committee was changed to become more inclusive of the “Global south.”22

The question of sites associated with memories of recent conflicts and othernegative divisive memories.
In 1979, Auschwitz-Birkenau was designated a world heritage site, but the nomination committee
stressed the exceptional nature of this type of nomination, recommending an “ extremely
selective” approach for the future.23 Auschwitz occupies a symbolic place representing othersimilar sites. However, from the 1980s onwards, and even more so after the end of the Cold
War, we saw the global emergence of a trend in favor of gestures of remembrance, focusing
on the duty to remember mass crimes in order to avoid their repetition.24 This “global cultureof memor y” emphasizes the importance of memorial activities to remember the victims ofrecent conflicts or other negative and divisive memories. This “duty to remember” is supposed
to facilitate reconciliation. However, there are also risks of reviving divisions or exploiting thisduty to remember for contemporary political or geopolitical ends. 25 Faced with an increasing
number of requests for the nomination of controversial sites, in 2018, the World Heritage Center
commissioned a report from a group of experts.26 This group of experts defines the term “conflict”
very broadly, including wars, battles, but also massacres, genocides, torture or massive violationsof human rights. The second point addressed is that of extreme selectivity, so as not to diminish
the exemplary value of the sites, and also to take account of the “political difficulties” potentiallyraised.27 The expert committee points out that certain nominations concerning historical events
could be strongly influenced by nationalism, “in contradiction with the objectives of WHC.”28
The creation of “Sites of Conscience” in 1999, for educational purposes, was intended to take
into account difficult or divisive places of remembrance, but the list of “Sites of Conscience”
does not coincide with the sites designated as World Heritage. Moreover, some of these sites ofconscience, such as the “Womenʼs Active Museum on War and Peace” set up in Tokyo in 2005,20

Alessandra Quar ta, “The European Approach to Culture: the European Heritage Label” in
Forever Young : Celebrating 50 years of the World Heritage Convention, 2023, https://cris.unibo.it/
handle/11585/923051.

21

Lynn Meskell, Claudia Liuzza, “The World is Not Enough: New Diplomacy and Dilemmas for the World
Heritage Convention at 50,” International Journal of Cultural Property, vol29 (2022).

22

Tom Seymour, “Worried about Chinese Influence, the US Agrees to rejoin UNESCO,” The Ar t
Newspaper, 12-06-2023.

23

The worry expressed by ICOMOS was that this would lead to a reduction in the value of the sites. whc.
unesco.org.

24

Olwen Beazley, Christina Cameron, “Study on Sites Associated with Recent Conflicts and Other
Negative and Divisive Memories,” https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2021/whc21-44com-inf8.2-en.pdf,
02-05-2020

25

Idem

26

“Expert Meeting on Sites Associated with Recent Conflicts and Other Negative and Divisive Memories
Report,” whc.unesco.org.

27

Idem

28

Idem

42
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Valérie Niquet

whose main objective is to make the Japanese government “accountable for sexual slavery during
the war,” are open to question.29
Among the 18 World Heritage Sites of negative memories, some are not controversial, such
as Gorée Island in Senegal, nominated in 1978, linked to the slave trade, or the other sites related
to slavery, or Auschwitz, in 1979. But the nomination of Hiroshima in 1996 was opposed by boththe Peopleʼs Republic of China (PRC) and the United States, for different reasons. China wasconcerned that some would try to “whitewash” Japan for its role in the Second World War byemphasizing its victim status. The United States criticized the lack of contextualization of theatomic bombings, and demanded that all war sites be excluded from the scope of the Convention,
so as not to see themselves singled out for their actions in Japan, but also in Vietnam or France
during the deadly Allied bombings at the end of the Second World War.30 It should be noted thatthe majority of the sites chosen in that category are related to slavery or the predatory role of theWest on non-Western and indigenous populations.31
However, sites associated to recent conflicts or difficult memories can reveal or awaken very
different historical narratives, so their nomination risks going against UNESCOʼs objectivesof peace and reconciliation, by themselves being sources of reactivated conflicts.32 In 2014, theUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights considered that post-conflict societies produce
parallel interpretations that limit the possibilities of reconciliation and are detrimental to peacefulinternational relations.33 If a State attempts to put a site of this type on the World Heritage List, therisk of tensions may increase. The fear of political recuperation is thus one of the major issue.34
Among the sites listed, some make no mention of human rights abuses that occurred at thesesites, such as forced labor, slavery or confinement. For example, when the German Rammelsberg
and Goslar mining site was nominated in 1992, it referred only to the exceptional industrial pastof this region of Germany, which dates back over a thousand years. However, more recently,
work on forced labor in the Rammelsberg mines during the 1939–1945 second world war, and theorganization of an exhibition, were carried out, in cooperation with the World Heritage List.35 Alsoin Germany, although not a world heritage site, celebrations to mark the fiftieth anniversary of
the first launch of a missile into space at Peenemünde in 1942, which focused solely on the aspectof technological prowess, had to be cancelled due to international protests.36
In view of all these issues, and the potential tensions involved, the world heritage site
committee is not in favor of listing sites linked to a conflict-ridden past or difficult memories.

The case of Japan’s world heritage Sites

Japan ʼ s bid for the Sado mining site, submitted in 2022 and then 2023, which follows theinscription on the World Heritage List of the Meiji era industrial sites in 2015, is one example
29

Olwen Beazley, Christina Cameron, op.cit.

30

Simon C. Woodward, Louise Cooke, op.cit.; “ICOMOS Second Discussion Paper on Sites Associatedwith Memories of Recent Conflicts and the World Heritage Convention,” whc.unesco.org.

31“Appendix E, World Heritage Sites Associated with Recent Conflicts and Other Negative and Divisive
Memories Inscribed under Criteria VI,” whc.unesco.org.

32

Idem

33

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session27/regular-session

34“Expert meeting on Sites Associated with Recent Conflicts and other Negative and Divisive Memories
Report,” op.cit.

35

https://www.rammelsberg.de/en/exhibition/living-and-working-under-duress-forced-laborers-at-therammelsberg-ore-mine-1939-1945

36

Leilei Li, Dietrich Soyez, “Transnationalizing Industrial Heritage Valorizations in Germany and China–
and Addressing Inherent Dark sides”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2016.

43
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Issues of Memory and History: UNESCO and the Politicization of World Heritage Site Nominations

that lies at the crossroads of these social and geopolitical issues, opening the way to obstruction
strategies developed by other countries, but also to a necessar y reflection on this type ofcandidacy and the way it must be dealt with in a mature, model democracy. As at the global level,
there has been an evolution in the sites nominated in Japan, from cultural sites that bear witness
to a very ancient and culturally rich history (Kyoto 1994, Nara 1998, Nikko 1999), to more recent
sites linked in particular to the industrialization and development of the country under Edo andinsertion into the world system under Meiji (Iwami Ginzan silver mine 2007, Tomioka Silk mill in
2014, Meiji industrial sites in 2015). There is also a desire to cover the whole geographical scopeof Japan, from Hokkaido (Shiretoko 2005) to Okinawa (2000 and 2021) to the archipelago of the
Ogasawara Islands (2011).37 The world heritage site of the Hidden Christians in the Nagasaki
Region, nominated in 2018, refers to a painful memory, shared with the West, however, there areno sites or references to sites that share that kind of memories with neighbors with whom Japan
has more complex relations, such as the Peopleʼs Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic ofKorea.
As early as 2010, Japan included the Sado mining complex on its tentative list of places
that could be nominated to the World Heritage List, acting upon a proposal coming from theprefectural level of Niigata dating back to 2006. In its presentation, it is the dimension of industrial
history and innovation in the Edo period (1603–1868) of the mines presented as “an outstanding
example of Asian mining heritage,” as well as the role of gold extracted from the Sado mines
in world trade, that is put forward to justify a possible nomination. The Sado Gold Mine has along and rich history of gold and silver mining dating back to the 17th century. The site played acrucial role in Japanʼs economic and cultural development during the Edo period. These sites arealso considered to have outstanding cultural value, representing the technological advancements
in mining, smelting, and refining during the Edo period. The preservation of traditional mining
techniques and infrastructure contributes to the cultural heritage of the region. The Sado Gold
Mine also features a distinctive and well-preserved mining landscape, including tunnels, water
channels, and processing facilities. The nomination also emphasizes the importance of the
Sado Gold Mine in enhancing the global understanding of mining history, technology, and theeconomic significance of precious metal extraction lending the site its universal value criteria.
The nomination also emphasizes the cultural and social significance of the Sado Gold Mine for
local communities. And of course, the economic benefits from tourism for the island and theregion are also taken into account. The contemporar y period is mentioned only in reference
to the nationalization of the gold mines under Meiji, then their sale to the Mitsubishi Limited
Partnership Company at the beginning of the 20th century.38 The Sado mines site, presented in
2022 for nomination by Japan, with additional documents presented in 2023, focusing on gold
mine history under Edo, like the Meiji era industrial sites, nominated in 2015, is thus not related
to a conflict or a difficult memory under the criteria defined by the World Heritage Committee.39
However, these sites, and particularly the sites of the gold mines in Sado can also be rememberedin relation with the harshness of the working condition, for Japanese as well as foreign contracted
laborers. In Ancient times, under the Shogunate, Sado island was also known as a place ofrelegation. This dimension is also part of the history of Sado island, the main theme of the greatmovie by Mizoguchi Kenji, Sansho dayū (1954). In 2022, in relation with the Sado Gold Mines
proposal, the Republic of Koreaʼs Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focusing on the situation of Korean
workers in Japan under the colonial rule, protested, demanding that Japan mentions “the full
37

Japan has 25 World heritage sites. whc.unesco.org

38

Idem

39

Importantly, in 2022–2023, Japan will be part of the 21-member World Heritage Committee. In 2014–2015, the Republic of Korea was a member of the committee.

44
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Valérie Niquet

history which contains the painful history of people who were forced to work during wartime.”40
Like all industrial sites in Japan until 1945, working conditions in the mines were particularly
difficult, both for the Japanese and the Korean people employed there and the issue of “forcedlabor” versus “contract labor” is controversial.41 The fate of Korean workers, from a countr ycolonized by the Japanese Empire, can indeed be examined and considered from a historical andscientific point of view.42 However, beyond these legitimate historical questions, South Koreaʼscontestation also–or mostly–answers to domestic Korean political issues and prevents thisnecessary neutral historical analysis.
For Tokyo, the choice of these sites also corresponds to Japanʼs legitimate desire to retakethe control of its own Histor y, prior to the Second World War, by highlighting periods, suchas the Meiji era, during which Japan opened up to the world and joined the concert of nations
by laying the foundations of a liberal international order of which it was an important part. In
2018, in a speech to the Diet, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe declared: “Countless human resourceswere fostered in the new Meiji era for the modernization of Japan.”43 2018 marked the 150th
anniversary of the founding of the Meiji era, during which, “Japan amazed the world as the first
non-western country to ride the wave of an industrial revolution, to transform into a modern
state without becoming a colony.”44 In that context, world heritage sites are indeed important soft
power sources in public diplomacy strategies, provided they do not generate controversy andopposition that can be counterproductive.45
However, in 2017, following Japanʼs challenge of Chinaʼs application for inclusion of socalled “Nanjing Massacre” documents in the international memor y of the world register in
2015, UNESCO rejected this inscription and adopted a principle that excludes any recognition
or inscription by one countr y if another countr y challenges it. This position has been tacitly
extended to the nomination of world heritage sites, which is decided by consensus.
This is further proof of the risks involved in politicizing these issues, far removed from theinitial principles established in 1972. Another example of the more or less open politicizationof these issues is the debate concerning the inclusion of the Loire Valley (France) as a world
heritage site in 2000. It was initially rejected and required a secret ballot because of the site
proximity to a nuclear power station. In that case, one wonders whether only the landscape issue
was at stake, or whether we were faced with a principled opposition to nuclear energy, which
France, for its part, firmly defends.46
In the case of the Sado Gold Mine, the opposition of the Republic of Korea could also lead to a
non-decision.47 In Japan, some made it a matter of national honor, with the desire to claim Japanʼs
40“National Assembly Adopts Resolution Urging Japan to Withdraw UNESCO Bid for Sado Mine,” Korea
JoongAng Daily, 28-2-2023.

41

Nikolai Johnsen, “The Sado Gold Mine and Japanʼs ʻHistory warʼ Versus the Memory of Korean Forced
Laborers,” The Asia Pacific Journal,vol 20, issue 5, N°1, 04-03-2022.

42“Japan Refiles Request to List Divisive Gold Mine on Unesco,” The Associated Press, 21-01-2023.

43th“Policy Speech by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the 196 Session of the Diet,” 22-01-2018. See also:
Ryoko Nakano, “Mobilizing Meiji Nostalgia and Intentional Forgetting in Japanʼs World Heritage
Promotion,” International Journal of Asian Studies, 2020 1-18, 12_07_2020.

44th“Policy Speech by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the 196 Session of the Diet,” op.cit.

45“In this respect, Japan could have responded more enthusiastically to the condition placed by Germany,
which acted as mediator between Tokyo and Seoul, on the listing of Meiji-era industrial sites in 2015 by
explaining the issues related to the conditions of Korean workers from the colonies during the Second
World War” in Leilei Li, Dietrich Soyez, op. cit.

46

https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Controversial+at+inscription

47

Idem

45
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023

Issues of Memory and History: UNESCO and the Politicization of World Heritage Site Nominations

right to its own history, which must not remain forever a hostage to a past instrumentalized byhostile parties. This position is legitimate. Others however, perhaps more aware of the rules ofcomplex international diplomatic game, and the reputational risks attached to the politicization of
the World Heritage List nomination process, tend to show greater caution.48 This debate reflects
the difficulties and the risks of a paralysis or of deviation of its principles the World Heritage
Convention is increasingly facing by taking into account more criteria that question the conceptof “outstanding universal value” as defined by the initiator of the Convention.

Conclusion
The debates and diplomatic games surrounding the work of the World Heritage Committee andthe selection of sites for inscription on the World Heritage List reveal growing difficulties. Thesedifficulties concern the definition of criteria: what does “universal value” mean, for whom, in
whose name? In the case of industrial sites that represent an important development in humanhistory, such as the Sado or Rammelsberg mines in Germany, where does industrial history end
and social history begin? Should places where work under duress happened for nationals andforeigners alike be only remembered as places of industrial interest, or of a “darker” history ?
Increasingly, the nomination or inscription of sites on the list of world heritage in danger such as
the Old City of Jerusalem and its walls presented by Jordan, becomes hostage to contemporary
tensions from which it is difficult to escape.49 For some countries, such as the Peopleʼs Republicof China (PRC), history is mainly a weapon that can be used to achieve geopolitical gains andJapan has often been the target of political campaigns that tend to deny the legitimacy of acountry considered as an adversary, by constantly using the past. In this context, the tentative
list of sites proposed for nomination should, as far as possible, avoid the risks of controversies
that are difficult to combat. Faced with the majority principle and the diplomatic games played
within the World Heritage Committee and the United Nations, it is difficult for States to distancethemselves from decisions, however unfair they may be perceived. To do so is to risk evenharsher criticism and the ostracism of the responsible nations. In this respect, the Committeeʼsrecommendations on nominations and the list of endangered sites cannot be lightly dismissed,
including recommendations concerning the explanations related to sites. And therein lies thedifficulty: satisfying vested interests that see in certain nominations the possibility of serving
local political, tourist or economic interests, while at the same time meeting the requirementsof the World Heritage Committee and its critics. Many States have had to make these choices,which also reflect the difficulties that the World Heritage Convention is increasingly facing in
its very principles. Today, geopolitics often prevails over conservation, and number over quality,
further undermining the original principles. States are trying to impose their supremacy at alllevels of the UN, including within the World Heritage Committee, which cannot escape thesepower strategies, at the risk of rendering the original objectives unrealistic. And it is the most
responsible States parties that have the charge to preserve these original principles as best they
can by freeing themselves from harmful power strategies, and focusing on the more elevatedoriginal principles of preserving the past for the benefit of the future.

48“Japan Should Proudly Push for Sado Gold Mineʼs UNESCO Listing,” Sankei Shimbun, 31-01-2022.
According to Sanae Takaichi: “If the recommendation had been differed it would have lent credibility toSouth Korea unjustified claims.”

49

https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5284/

46
Japan Review Vol.6 No.2 2023