If the UK is proud of its tangible cultural heritage, why not so when it comes to intangible heritage?

Does the English-speaking world have a dark secret, a discomfort towards aspects of our cultural heritage? That is a question I never thought I would ask, but the more I reflect on it, the more worried I feel.

I have long supported Britain’s renewed enthusiasm for the 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Even though Britain joined the USA in marching out of UNESCO in the 80s -it returned in 1997 – it honoured the Convention through those years, contributing its dues towards the fund to protect heritage in danger worldwide.

In 1995, I wrote a guide to its World Heritage Sites. Then there were fourteen, now there are thirty-three. These include natural sites such as the Giant’s Causeway, historic buildings like Canterbury Cathedral and recent marvels of the industrial age like the Jodrell Bank Observatory. And there are more, sitting on the UK’s tentative list ready to join them.

But there’s another Convention, a twin so to speak, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, not so widely known.

To date one hundred and eighty nations have signed up to this convention, selecting examples of their own heritage for inscription on the world list as they have for the similar list of World Cultural and Natural Heritage sites. The criteria for inclusion are clear. Submissions must be traditional, contemporary and living at the same time; inclusive; representative; and community based. On the last count, there were 584 elements of heritage, contributed by 131 countries. Many of these are shared with neighbours but all considered worthy of safeguarding with care, each a treasured legacy to be passed on to our successors.

But long before that instrument was opened for signature in 2002, this immense lacuna was fully visible. “When an old man dies in one of our villages a whole library disappears.” It was that observation by an extremely well-educated delegate from Mali to UNESCO that persuaded Richard Hoggart, the British social scientist, to accept the invitation to become an Assistant Director General at UNESCO in Paris. “The old men who carry our history in their heads, in songs, in all kinds of phrases, are very old now: and the young men are moving to the towns and have other interests” the old man had sadly observed.

So why do I worry? Because, in 2023, when the Convention will be celebrating its twentieth anniversary, the UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada remain high profile non-signatories. What links these five nations? Is it that four were all invaded by the fifth, the UK and alone of all its former possessions, the dominant culture of those invaders lives on uncomfortably with that of the marginalised indigenous populations?

Those four nations still betraying strong links with Britain, face issues different in nature and scale to once colonised, now independent. The particular challenge they face was demonstrated by their early suspicion of the thrust of the later, non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This provides for the right of such peoples to ‘maintain, control protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions’. UNDRIP was adopted by the General Assembly by a majority of 143 states in favour with only those same four nations voting against. Later all reversed their decision, but this reversal did not extend to the Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. And there, for them, the matter rests.

But how can we explain the UK’s stance? Partly because since its return to UNESCO in 1997 until 2020, responsibility for UNESCO projects lay with the DFID led initially by Clare Short, overwhelmingly interested in development matters. Those relating to culture or many of UNESCO’s other responsibilities did not fit in with her programmes. In reply to a question in the House of Lords tabled by Lord Black in 2017 on why the UK government had not agreed to the convention, the reply was:

It is necessary to carefully prioritise resources towards those Conventions that will have the most impact on the safeguarding of our heritage, such as the recent final steps taken towards ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. However, the Government fully recognises the contribution that the UK’s oral traditions,

It is true that the government was completing ratification of the 1954 Convention at that time (an initiative that Westminster UNA had been urging since 2004) but now five years have passed, and government continues to sidestep the matter of intangible heritage. Built heritage remains its priority. In March 2022, the DCMS online conference ‘Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital Conference’ did not address intangible heritage at all although it acknowledges regional initiatives such as Museums Galleries Scotland’s project to record and map intangible cultural heritage in Scotland. Other regional initiatives include Cornwall 365, a project commissioned by Cornwall Council and the Wilderness England project to list English activities for those interested. These and other projects, albeit well-researched, are but piecemeal efforts.

As they struggle without any coordination, government remains indifferent. In reply to Westminster’s request for an explanation (January 2023), the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport stated:

The government is fully committed to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in the UK. Whilst we are committed to exploring the government’s position on ratification of this convention, we are mindful it would require significant resources to deliver and meaningfully implement at a time when resources are currently under review.

Surely the problem is not really one of resources, more one of commitment. It is time for the UK to bring this exceptionalism to an end, joining the large family of nations who have set about listing their unique and often shared traditions with enthusiasm. However, some might claim that this reluctance to engage with this UN convention is post-colonial overhang, tacit support for those other four nations. If this is the case, it is misplaced. It is for them to reconcile with their indigenous peoples, and not our business.  

2023 marks the twentieth anniversary of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Let us mark that by announcing our intention to ratify it and showcase to the world those traditions which remain contemporary and living, inclusive and community based. Let it not be that when our old men die, a whole library disappears.

David Wardrop

A Concise Guide to the Ceremony of the Coronation

by Sir Peter Marshall KCMG, Joint Vice-President, Westminster United Nations Association

The Coronation of King Charles III will be watched avidly worldwide, particularly by viewers living in Commonwealth nations. While the ceremony relates primarily to the responsibilities entrusted to His Majesty as Sovereign of the United Kingdom and as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, central themes such as service, justice, rule of law and protection of the vulnerable apply more broadly within the wider personal responsibilities and commitment of King Charles III as Head of the Commonwealth.

His Majesty succeeded Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth in accordance with the agreement reached by Commonwealth Heads of Government and communicated in their Leaders’ Statement issued following the Retreat at Windsor Castle on the final day of the CHOGM 2018. In doing so collectively, on behalf of all member nations of the Commonwealth, Heads of Government stated that: ‘…we put on record our continuing gratitude for the duty and commitment Her Majesty has shown to all members of the Commonwealth over those decades. We recognise the role of The Queen in championing the Commonwealth and its peoples.’

In doing so, she had carried forward a record of service and dedication begun by her father King George VI to whom the role of Head of the Commonwealth had first been entrusted in 1949, with the London Declaration by the then Heads of Government of Commonwealth nations recognising ‘…acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.’ The future King Charles III was at that time less than six months of age.

In the year before his birth, his mother then a young princess laid great emphasis on the ideal of service when in her 21^st birthday broadcast from Cape Town in 1947 she said: “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”

Seventy-five years later, on the occasion of the 70^th anniversary of her accession to the throne she signed her message to the Commonwealth “your servant Elizabeth”. King Charles has made it crystal clear in the speeches that he has made recently that he sees his high calling as being to serve. Indeed, through his many years as Prince of Wales in preparation for becoming King, his motto was ‘Ich Dien’ – ‘I serve’.

The notion of service of course is very wide ranging, but its implicit logic is that it is relevant internationally, nationally, regionally and within communities. There is in fact no difference between the rendering of service one to another, from the highest to the most modest member of society. What counts is the notion itself.

There is no more dazzling array of symbols than those used in the Coronation service. These have accumulated over the ages in relation to the monarch and his or her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, yet from these inheritances there are aspects of deep significance in modern terms for the Commonwealth as a whole.

After the rituals of the Recognition, the Oath and the Anointing comes the Investing. At the Investing, the Gold Spurs symbolise courage and honour; the Sword of State justice; the Golden Bracelets sincerity and wisdom; the Orb surmounted by a Cross a righteous world order; the Ring a commitment to the people; the Sceptre with Dove, which is the Rod of Equity and Mercy; and the Sceptre with Cross, which symbolises good governance.

The Investing is followed by the Crowning, which symbolises righteousness, trust and commitment and good works; and is in turn followed by the Enthronement, symbolising vision and purpose.

That King Charles begins his reign with vision and purpose is clear and has been well expressed in four recent speeches. In June 2022, when he deputised for the Queen at the Commonwealth Summit in Kigali in Rwanda; in his address to the Commonwealth on the Queen’s death; in the traditional broadcast at Christmas; and then his Commonwealth Day message.

These four texts repay close study as expressions by King Charles on behalf of those whom he represents of collective commitment to cooperation and coordinated action for the common good. In them, he conveys with persuasive clarity his confidence in the part the Commonwealth can play in mobilising and delivering such service globally to one another.

Notably, his 2023 Commonwealth Day Message delivered from the pulpit in Westminster Abbey concludes with the rallying call to “Let ours be a Commonwealth that not only stands together, but strives together, in restless and practical pursuit of the global common good”. There could be no more encouraging or uplifting prospect on which to fix our eyes and to guide our progress as we celebrate this coronation and a new reign. ‘God save The King!’