Abstract
The General Guidelines, the basic “rule book” of the Memory of the World (MoW) Programme, were fundamentally reviewed and revised over a 2-year period, beginning in October 2015 and concluding in December 2017. I led this process; I recount here the complex progression of events and offer some reflections on them. The formal rationale for the revision was that the current General Guidelines, adopted in 2002, were badly out of date and did not adequately serve the present size, profile and needs of the Programme. An expert Working Group was assembled and an extensive process of public consultation, dialogue, drafting and redrafting followed, which this chapter recounts. However, a logical and diligent enterprise was greatly complicated by the politicised circumstances in which it proceeded, and by a series of abnormalities and failures of due process, which – at the time of writing – have left the outcome of the Review in limbo. In particular, the attempts by certain Japanese interests to disrupt the process and change some basic principles of MoW are discussed in detail. In conclusion, I consider the implications of the outcome for the future integrity of MoW and its congruence with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)‘s guiding principles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
All this was true, too, for the MoW Companion, an updateable user-friendly how-to guide on preparing register nominations, which had been introduced in 2011 to supplement and illustrate the more formal text of the Guidelines.
- 2.
The other members were Joie Springer and Roslyn Russell – both contributors to this book – plus Alissandra Cummins, David Fricker and Jan Bos.
- 3.
MOWCAP is the forum for National MoW Committees in UNESCO’s Asia-Pacific region, which covers 43 countries. I am a former MOWCAP Chair and a current Special Advisor.
- 4.
These came from MoW National and Regional Committees, UNESCO National Commissions Member States, professional organizations and interested individuals. Posted on the website, they could be read by anyone interested.
- 5.
I have retained the successive drafts in electronic form, and they can be provided to the MoW Secretariat should they wish to preserve them. The approved text, finalized according to IAC instructions in December 2017, is, at the time of writing, published on the MoW Paris website. See https://en.unesco.org/programme/mow
- 6.
On 14 September 2015, Heisoo Chin, Director of the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” Supporting and Memorial Projects, sent a letter to UNESCO Deputy Director-General, Getachew Engida, foreshadowing what would prove to be, by far, the largest and most complex nomination in the history of MoW, embracing collections in 14 institutions across Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Indonesia and Timor-Leste. It would include the deferred Chinese nomination, and its preparation would involve reaching an unprecedented consensus among so many institutional participants. The letter was tabled at the October 2015 IAC meeting and is part of the meeting’s papers.
- 7.
The Japanese experience of dealing with accountability for wartime actions is analysed in Buruma (2015).
- 8.
The RSC undertakes preliminary research and assessment of nominations prior to submission to the IAC.
- 9.
In my role as Chair of the Guidelines Review Group I was included in general IAC and other email traffic, which alerted me to meetings taking place in various countries.
- 10.
A record of the meeting which I made was submitted to the IAC Chair and the MoW Secretariat and a copy retained by me.
- 11.
Separately, the Japanese National Commission for UNESCO duly lodged its own public submission during the Review.
- 12.
Three documents, titled, respectively, Memory of the World Programme: Exploring Means for Further Improvement, Issues for Consideration to Improve the Memory of the World Program, and Q & A for the Draft Decision on the Memory of the World. These are not formal documents but simple typescript. I have three examples provided by MoW colleagues in different countries.
- 13.
As mentioned earlier, MoW is an expert-led, not a Member States-led, programme.
- 14.
See footnote 12. These quotes are from the document titled Q & A for the Draft Decision on the Memory of the World.
- 15.
This article puts a more activist interpretation on the resolution.
- 16.
The National Archives of the United Arab Emirates.
- 17.
See also the statements of the Prime Minister, cited above under the section A Case Study: The “Voices of theComfort Women” Nomination (2015–2017).
- 18.
Dated 21 October 2015. The members were David Fricker and Ian Wilson. No minutes of the relevant Bureau meeting have been sighted.
- 19.
The 2002 edition of the General Guidelines ran to 54 pages. When completed, its 2017 replacement ran to 87 pages. The IAC Statutes and Rules of Procedure (which govern the conduct of IAC meetings) totalled to eight pages.
- 20.
The Chair of the Statutes Working Group, David Fricker, was also a member of the Guidelines Working Group.
- 21.
It came to the Guidelines Working Group’s attention only when a puzzled IAC member copied it on.
- 22.
Frank La Rue, Assistant Director-General (ADG), Communications and Information Sector, which included the MoW Secretariat.
- 23.
The proceedings were documented by the duly appointed rapporteur, Anca Claudia Prodan Ph.D., and I was appointed as editor by the MoW Secretariat. At the time of writing, the proceedings are not available on the MoW Paris website. Whether or not copies are held by the MoW Secretariat, meeting participants or the German National Commission for UNESCO, I have retained my own copy.
- 24.
By their full names Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, respectively.
- 25.
For a detailed account of the process leading up to the Recommendation, see Helen Jarvis in this volume.
- 26.
The formal record of the meeting was not available at the time of writing.
- 27.
“MOW” with three capital letters was an accepted acronym, and it was used in parallel with MoW but the IAC has decided to use only “MoW” as the official acronym; see UNESCO. 2011. Final Report of the Tenth Meeting of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, Manchester, United Kingdom, 22–25 May, 2011.
- 28.
The letter should be on file at UNESCO. I have retained a copy. At the time of writing, I understand that the Japanese party has yet to agree to dialogue.
- 29.
Refer, for example, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2017).
References
Ahren, R. (2015, February 4). UNESCO head nixes ‘offensive, unacceptable’ Palestine poster collection The Times of Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/unesco-head-nixes-offensive-unacceptable-palestine-poster-collection/.
Buruma, I. (2015). The wages of guilt: Memories of war in Germany and Japan. New York: New York Review of Books.
Chasmar, J. (2013, July 23). ‘Reprehensible’: UNESCO adds works of Che Guevara to World Register. The Washington Times, p. 7.
Edmondson, R. (2002). Memory of the World: general guidelines to safeguard documentary heritage (Doc. No: CII-95/WS-11rev). Paris: UNESCO.
Erlanger, S., & Sayare, S. (2011, October 31). UNESCO accepts Palestinians as full members. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/world/middleeast/unesco-approves-full-membership-for-palestinians.html.
Government halts funds for UNESCO once again, calling for immediate improvement in the memory of the world review process, while keeping an eye on the ‘comfort women’ issue (2017, May 7). Sankei Shimbun. https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/170507/plt1705070005-n2.html.
Honma, K. (2015, December 16). UNESCO urges nations to discuss ‘Memory’ wishes. The Daily Yomiuru.https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P3-3896293681/unesco-urges-nations-to-discuss-memory-wishes.
Ki-weon, C. (2017, May 8). Japan again withholds annual funding to UNESCO Memory of the World. The Hankyoreh.http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/793834.html.
Many submitted materials on ‘comfort women’ incompatible with UNESCO Guidelines (2017, October 23). Sankei Shimbun. https://japan-forward.com/many-submitted-materials-on-comfort-women-incompatible-with-unesco-guidelines/.
McCurry, J. (2015a, June 10). Former Japanese PM tells Shinzo Abe to confront wartime atrocities in Asia. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/shinzo-abe-risks-disgracing-japans-people-by-glossing-over-war-record.
McCurry, J. (2015b, August 15). Japanese PM Shinzo Abe stops short of new apology in war anniversary speech. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/shinzo-abe-japan-no-new-apology-second-world-war-anniversary-speech.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (1993). Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the result of the study on the issue of “comfort women”, 4 August 1993. (Unofficial translation). https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html. Accessed 4 August 2018.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2015a). New inscriptions on the UNESCO Memory of the World Register (Statement by Foreign Press Secretary Yasuhisa Kawamura), 10 October 2015. https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_000887.html. Accessed 6 August 2018.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2015b). Press conference by Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, 16 October 2015. https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaiken4e_000200.html. Accessed 6 August 2018.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2016). Press conference by Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, 2 June 2016. https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaiken4e_000274.html. Accessed 10 October 2018.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2017). Press conference by Foreign Minister Taro Kono, 27 October 2017. https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaiken4e_000431.html. Accessed 11 October 2018.
NGO that runs ‘comfort women’ museum receives bomb threat (2016, October 31). Japan Times.https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/31/national/crime-legal/group-running-tokyo-comfort-women-museum-reveals-got-bomb-threat/.
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (2015). Statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, 14 August 2015. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201508/0814statement.html. Accessed 6 August 2018.
Ryall, J. (2015, October 19). Japan furious at UNESCO listing Nanjing Massacre documents. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/japan-furious-at-unesco-listing-nanjing-massacre-documents/a-18790477.
Sakurai, Y. (2016a, October 3). Japanese people, enemies of Japan? If things continue as they are, comfort women documents will be registered as a UNESCO Memory of the World (Y. Omura, Trans.) Sankei Shimbun. https://www.sankei.com/premium/news/161003/prm1610030006-n1.html.
Sakurai, Y. (2016b, October 13) Japan must block UNESCO from listing “Comfort Women” on Memory of the World Register. The Weekly Shincho. https://en.yoshiko-sakurai.jp/2016/10/13/7490.
Schaefer, B. D. (2013, August 12). UNESCO decision to honor Che Guevara proves it doesn’t deserve US support. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/unesco-decision-to-honor-che-guevara-proves-it-doesnt-deserve-us-support.
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Facts. (2015). Protest to UNESCO. SDHF Newsletter, 102, 21 October 2015. http://www.sdh-fact.com/mail-magazine/593.
UNESCO. (2015a). Scales of assessments and currency of Member States contributions for 2016–2017, 38th session of the General Conference, 26 August 2015, Paris, (38 C/37).
UNESCO. (2015b). Report of the 12th meeting of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, 4–6 October 2015, Abu Dhabi (CI/MOW-IAC/2015/4).
UNESCO. (2016). Memory of the World Programme: exploring means for further improvement. In Decisions adopted by the Executive Board at its 199th session, 4–15 April 2016, Paris, (Item 199 EX/SR. 6).
UNESCO. (2017a). Report of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) on the review process of the Memory of the World Programme. In Summary Records of the Executive Board, 201st session, 19 April – 5 May 2017, Paris, (201 EX/SR.1–11), (Item 5. I. H.).
UNESCO. (2017b). Report of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) on the review process of the Memory of the World Programme. In Follow up to Decisions and Resolutions adopted by the Executive Board, 201st session, 19 April – 5 May 2017, Paris, (Item 201 EX/5 Part 1 H).
UNESCO. (2017c). Final Report of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) on the review process of the Memory of the World Programme. In Outcomes of the Tenth Intersessional Meeting, 21–22 September 2017, Paris, (10 INX/2 Rev.).
UNESCO. (2017d). Final Report of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) on the review process of the Memory of the World Programme. In Decisions adopted by the Executive Board, 202nd session of the Executive Board, 4–18 October 2017, Paris, (Item 202 EX/15) & (202 EX/50).
UNESCO. (2017e). Final Report of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) on the review process of the Memory of the World Programme. In Programme and External Relations Commission, 202nd session of the Executive Board, 4–18 October 2017, Paris, (Item 202 EX/PX/DR.15.8).
UNESCO. (2017f). Summary Records of the Executive Board, 202nd session, 4 October – 18 October 2017, Paris, (202 EX/SR. 1–12).
UNESCO. (2017g). Report of the 13th meeting of the International Advisory Committee of the “Memory of the World” Programme, 24–27 October 2017, Paris (CI/MOW-IAC/2017/4).
UNESCO. (2017h, 21 December). Reforming UNESCO’s action on Memory of the World. UNESCO News. https://en.unesco.org/news/reforming-unesco-s-action-memory-world. Accessed 20 October 2018.
UNESCO. (2018a, 16 March). The International Advisory Committee (IAC) meets to chart way forward for the Memory of the World Programme. UNESCO News. https://en.unesco.org/news/international-advisory-committee-iac-meets-chart-way-forward-memory-world-programme. Accessed 20 October 2018.
UNESCO. (2018b). Draft action plan for a comprehensive review of the Memory of the World Programme. In Decisions adopted by the Executive Board, 204th session of the Executive Board, 4–17 April 2018, Paris, (Item 204 EX/8).
UNESCO. (2018c). Updated action plan for a comprehensive review of the Memory of the World Programme. Provisional agenda Item 205 EX/8 205th session of the Executive Board, 3–17 October 2018, Paris.
UNESCO board calls for revising documentary registration guidelines (2016, April 15). The Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/15/national/unesco-board-calls-revising-documentary-registration-guidelines/. Accessed 26 January 2019.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. (1996). Report on the mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery in wartime, 52nd session of the Commission on Human Rights, 4 January 1996 (E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1).
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2017). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on his mission to Japan, 35th session of the Human Rights Council, 29 May 2017, (A/HRC/35/22/Add.1).
Wang, X. (2015, October 15). UNESCO decision ‘beyond criticism’. China Daily Asia.https://www.chinadailyhk.com/nation/2015-10/15/content_15329865.html.
@IAmTheAntidote. (2017, October 12). UNESCO’s anti-Palestinian, pro-Israeli occupation Director General Irina Bokova. @IAmTheAntidote. https://ipnotglobal.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/unescos-anti-palestinian-pro-israeli-occupation-director-general-irina-bokova. Accessed 13 October 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Edmondson, R. (2020). Reviewing the MoW General Guidelines: Reflections on the Experience of 2015–2017. In: Edmondson, R., Jordan, L., Prodan, A.C. (eds) The UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. Heritage Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18441-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18441-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18440-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18441-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)