When US President Donald Trump threatened - at the height of the escalation with Iran in the wake of the death of Qassem Soleimani - that his country might target 52 sites in Iran, including sites important to Iranian culture, and the reactions condemned condemned him as bombing cultural and historical sites "a war crime" according to the Hague Treaty For the year 1954.

The Hague Agreement was a reaction to the devastation caused by the Second World War to human heritage sites, and the war destroyed many cultural treasures by the Allied forces and the axis. The agreement expressed the desire of the international community to spare the world cultural heritage from the scourge of war, and to recognize that the loss of this heritage represents a loss for the target country as well as for humanity.

But that does not mean that armies and military groups have stopped targeting the human heritage. Recently, the world witnessed brutal destruction and plundering of historical heritage in Syria and the former Yugoslavia, eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Mali and many countries rich in historical relics.

In the post-World War decades, the old city council building in Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital - the pinnacle of Austrian-Hungarian architecture for Bosnia inspired by Islamic architecture - was burned down during the Serbian aggression and bombing of Sarajevo between 1992 and 1995. The Bamiyan Buddha statues were also destroyed in Afghanistan in 2001, and the Janjwiper Mosque in Timbuktu in Mali was damaged, and the Great Mosque of Aleppo (the Umayyad of Aleppo) and the Temple of Baal in Palmyra, Syria, suffered great damage in recent years.

These and other cases highlighted how the destruction of cultural heritage could become just one of the tools of warfare to target the memories, history and identity of a people. In fact, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is often used for this purpose completely, that is, the surveying of the traces of the past and its absence to a people so that a new history can be written.

Armies and cultural sites
In a report published by the American "The Conference" website, the writer Peter Stone said that Trump retracted his decision after his advisers told him that this is illegal.

In fact, historical buildings and sites were previously damaged and destroyed during wars and historical artifacts were looted. In addition, armies were sometimes paid to allow them to plunder and loot "spoils" after winning a battle.

The writer added that there are many cultural and civilizational reasons to try to protect heritage during armed conflict, and although these reasons are not related to military armies, "We need to realize that the protection of cultural property will not be effective unless the military forces and their political leaders deal with this issue in a serious way." ".

Nevertheless - the author stated - that the idea of ​​protecting cultural property had a long history with military law, and the English Army's Oldest Discipline Act (Durham Report 1385) was enacted when Richard II invaded Scotland. This report included an article providing for avoiding the destruction of other religious or cultural buildings.

Recently, the United States considered the first country to make the protection of cultural property a part of its military policy through the "Lieber Law" of 1863 that wrote a guide dedicated to federal forces during the civil war at the time, and in a prophetic prophetic hadith, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, ordered fighters to avoid greed and treachery and said "Conquer, do not boil, do not treachery, and do not act."

Military leaders were convicted and imprisoned for deliberately attacking cultural heritage under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In 2016, Ahmed Al-Faqi Al-Mahdi, a member of the Ansar Al-Din Movement in Mali, was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment and that court imposed a huge fine on him for the intentional destruction of the cultural heritage of the historic city of Timbuktu.

Protection or threat?
The writer explained that since Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War" in China in the sixth century BC, some military writers have argued that destroying the enemy's cultural heritage is a bad military practice, as it creates another reason for another war to break out and it is often difficult for the defeated people to do things dullness.

And he considered that we cannot expect armies to provide good protection for cultural property on their own, as it is important for workers in culture and heritage protection to develop a close partnership with the armed forces on the protection of cultural property, and this does not mean that heritage experts need the support of any particular party in No conflict, but they should be willing to work with all parties.

This partnership should be developed over time. In this context, the international organization "Blue Shield" has identified factors that emphasize the need to build this partnership, and that relate to long-term and continuing education, during and after the conflict.

Often, after the fighting is over, the army is the only organization that has the resources to protect cultural heritage, the author explained. This can range from engineering support, building protection, and providing forces to protect sites or museums from looting. As more countries are developing military capabilities to protect cultural property, it is likely that these units will begin to take on the task of protecting heritage during and after the conflict.

Risks
The writer mentioned that cultural heritage is not only threatened by collateral damage, but rather a host of other intentional works. Blue Shield has identified eight risks to cultural heritage, which, if addressed, could significantly reduce the threat to heritage sites.

These risks include lack of planning, lack of military awareness, and collateral damage, not to mention intentional targeting, looting, intentional site reuse, forced neglect and lack of development.

The writer - who also works as vice president of the UNESCO member organization - pointed out that cultural heritage is what makes us human as it contributes to the growing sense of belonging.

Sometimes this heritage is used as a weapon to highlight differences, as is the case when targeting a group of religious minorities and their buildings. Accordingly, cultural heritage should be used to explain and explore the common history of mankind, but we cannot do this if it is destroyed during wars.