CULTURE

There are few international institutions whose mission appears as universally uncontroversial as UNESCO. Charged with safeguarding humanity’s shared cultural heritage, promoting education and encouraging scientific cooperation, it was established after the Second World War on the premise that lasting peace begins with mutual understanding.

Yet, increasingly, UNESCO finds itself drawn into precisely the political disputes it was created to transcend.

Israel’s latest condemnation of UNESCO, issued ahead of the World Heritage Committee meeting in Busan, South Korea, is only the most recent manifestation of a problem that has steadily grown over the past decade.

Jerusalem accused the organisation of “politicising cultural heritage” while failing to acknowledge Hezbollah’s military exploitation of historic sites such as Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon, which dates back to the time of the Crusaders.

According to Israel, UNESCO has focused disproportionate attention on Israeli military actions while remaining comparatively silent regarding the systematic conversion of heritage sites into military infrastructure by armed groups.

Whether one accepts every aspect of Israel’s argument is almost secondary. The more important question is whether UNESCO continues to enjoy the confidence necessary for an organisation whose authority depends almost entirely upon perceptions of impartiality.

That confidence has undoubtedly eroded.

The controversy surrounding UNESCO did not begin with the current conflict. For years, critics have argued that resolutions concerning Jerusalem, Hebron and other contested sites have too often reflected geopolitical alignments rather than archaeological or historical consensus. Israel ultimately withdrew from UNESCO in 2019 after years of disputes over resolutions it believed diminished or ignored Jewish historical connections to some of Judaism’s holiest sites.

Nor is criticism confined to Israel alone. Independent observers have previously warned that political bargaining increasingly influences World Heritage Committee decisions. External reviews have noted that diplomatic considerations have gradually displaced technical expertise in committee deliberations, weakening confidence in what ought to be evidence-based conservation decisions.

This matters because cultural heritage should occupy a unique space in international relations.

Ancient monuments, archaeological sites and religious landmarks belong not simply to modern nation states but to humanity’s collective inheritance. They deserve protection regardless of contemporary political disputes. Once international organisations appear to apply different standards according to political circumstance, their moral authority begins to evaporate.

The case highlighted by Israel illustrates precisely this dilemma.

If an internationally recognised heritage site has genuinely been transformed into a military stronghold by Hezbollah—as Israeli officials contend—then that fact deserves explicit recognition by UNESCO irrespective of wider disagreements over Israeli military operations. International humanitarian law places obligations upon all parties to armed conflict not to militarise protected cultural sites. Applying those standards selectively weakens the credibility of the entire legal framework.

Consistency, rather than political preference, is what ultimately gives international institutions legitimacy.

This broader problem extends well beyond UNESCO.

Across Brussels, many European policymakers continue to speak passionately about defending the international rules-based order. Yet those same institutions frequently appear willing to overlook uncomfortable inconsistencies when political expediency intervenes.

The European Commission’s continuing financial support for the Palestinian Authority provides one notable example.

Brussels argues that its funding promotes institutional stability, governance reform and economic resilience in the Palestinian territories. Those objectives are understandable. No serious observer wishes to see economic collapse or humanitarian catastrophe.

Nevertheless, critics increasingly question whether European taxpayers are receiving sufficient assurance that public funds are insulated from political narratives, educational materials or administrative practices that may undermine the very peace the European Union claims to support. Calls for stricter conditionality and more rigorous oversight have grown louder across several member states. Simply asserting that safeguards exist is no substitute for transparent verification.

The issue is not humanitarian assistance itself. It is accountability.

Europe cannot convincingly insist upon rules-based governance abroad while appearing reluctant to apply equally rigorous standards to the recipients of its own financial support.

That same principle applies equally to UNESCO.

If the organisation condemns damage to heritage sites, it should also unequivocally condemn their military exploitation by whichever actor is responsible. If it recognises historical claims, it should do so comprehensively rather than selectively. History is rarely convenient, but international institutions exist precisely to rise above political convenience.

None of this diminishes the immense suffering experienced throughout the region or the complexity of the wider conflict. Cultural heritage across Israel, Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere has suffered grievously. Ancient monuments have been damaged, museums threatened and archaeological sites endangered. UNESCO has an indispensable role in documenting and protecting these irreplaceable assets.

Yet fulfilling that role requires more than technical expertise. It requires trust.

Once international organisations acquire a reputation—fairly or unfairly—for political selectivity, every subsequent decision becomes viewed through a geopolitical rather than professional lens. Restoring credibility then becomes exponentially more difficult.

For Europe, this should be a warning as much as an opportunity.

The European Union rightly presents itself as a champion of multilateralism. But multilateral institutions remain effective only when they demonstrate impartiality, transparency and consistency. Those values cannot be selectively applied according to diplomatic fashion.

UNESCO’s founders understood that culture could unite peoples divided by politics. Their vision remains profoundly relevant. Yet that vision can survive only if cultural heritage is treated as shared human inheritance rather than another instrument of international diplomacy.

When institutions created to preserve history instead become participants in contemporary political contests, everyone loses—including history itself.