The ICC is right to investigate Malian heritage destruction

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken a new approach. An alleged Islamist militant is accused of devastating UNESCO World Heritage in Timbuktu in 2012/2013, when the city in northern Mali was held by rebel forces for several months. Proclaiming themselves to be guardians of the Islamic faith, they desecrated and ruined ancient shrines, mosques and monuments as well as centuries-old manuscripts, arguing that such cultural heritage was not truly Muslim. The rule of the extremists was violent; they committed murder, torture and rape.

Fatou Bensouda, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, wants to try Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, also known as Abu Tourab, for the cultural obliteration. She claims he led the self-appointed “Islamic police” at the time and was involved in the desecration of several shrines. When he appeared before the ICC, however, he did not make any statements concerning the charges. The ICC will decide in January whether the evidence against him is strong enough to go ahead with proceedings.

Human-rights groups in Mali welcome the fact that Faqi is facing the ICC. However, their feelings are mixed. A coalition of several organisations issued a statement that includes the following sentences:

“Destruction of historic and religious sites is a serious affront to humanity, as it impacts our common heritage. However, a focus solely on cultural damage should not overshadow horrific violence against individuals, especially when both types of crimes were perpetrated simultaneously by the same people. (…) In the absence of substantive progress before the Malian justice system, investigation and prosecution of these crimes lies with the ICC.”

This stance makes sense, both in political and moral terms. It is true that violence perpetrated against human beings must not go unpunished.

In a strictly legal sense, however, things may be more complicated. That would be so if it was easier to prove

Faqi guilty of cultural destruction than of violence against humans. In that case, it would be appropriate to convict him for what can be proven. The ICC, after all, does not have unlimited resources, and it is important to achieve results. Focusing on cultural crimes would thus not mean neglecting other crimes, but ensuring that a culprit is taken to account for at least some of his crimes.   

Some people feel that cultural artefacts are only things and that human suffering is much more important. They aren’t totally wrong, but they miss important points. Cultural artefacts shape people’s identities, so they have a deep psychological relevance. Moreover, the vandals who destroyed world heritage in Timbuktu tended to behave extremely violent towards living human beings as well.   

As Katrin Gänsler points out in the German newspaper tageszeitung, the suffering of today’s people must not be forgotten and warns that it would be unacceptable if the international public worried only about cultural heritage. She is right, but her worries seem a bit overblown. The international public is aware of the human suffering caused by Islamist terrorism. And like the Malian human-rights groups, she agrees that, to end impunity, the new ICC approach makes sense, particularly as it will have repercussions far beyond Mali. Just consider the cultural atrocities committed by ISIS militants in Palmyra, the ancient oasis city in the Syrian desert.