Arts & International Affairs: Volume 2, Issue 1 | Page 149

Rebuilding of Ferhadija Mosque, Banja Luka, Bosnia & Herzegovina. Image: Derek
Wiesehahn, Copyright 2016 Vast Productions USA
What struck me most in the book, and would become the backbone of the film,
was the way in which the international community responded to the issue,
or more tellingly, didn’t respond to the issue. The international community
here includes states, international organizations, and transnational civil
society. As a filmmaker, I felt that the ways in which laws and policy moved
in or out of step with the destruction itself was a crucial part of the narrative.
There are few really compelling examples of a response to cultural heritage
crimes. These include the jailing of two senior naval officials for their roles
in the now infamous shelling of Dubrovnik’s old town in December ����,
and the �� September ���� ruling at the International Criminal Court (ICC)
that found Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi guilty of crimes against humanity for the
destruction of the Timbuktu mosques in June-July ����. The latter ruling,
recognising that destruction of cultural heritage is a crime against humanity,
speaks eloquently, even if tragically, to Robert Bevan’s thesis.
My film examines the history and the lack of urgency in humanity’s efforts to
curtail cultural destruction. To understand this, and to forge the possibility
of better protection and response in the future, the film would have to first
look to the slow but gradual efforts internationally to protect our cultural
heritage.
The ���� Lieber Code, commissioned by Abraham Lincoln, is an interesting
early instance of legislation to protect heritage. The Code arose from the
148