Letter: Stop the countryside becoming a military casualty
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Your report on the serious increase in damage to archaeological and natural heritage areas of national importance on Salisbury Plain (29 April) shows that there needs to be a fundamental review of the use of important and sensitive areas for military training.
It is now almost two decades since these questions were last officially addressed in any serious way. This was Baroness Sharp's public inquiry into the renewal of the Ministry of Defence's leases over important areas of the Dartmoor National Park. In my evidence to the inquiry I pointed out that commanders of both an invading Warsaw Pact force and the defending British forces would be guilty of war crimes under the Hague Conventions of 1907 and 1954 if either attempted to use heavy weapons over important prehistoric landscapes, such as those in parts of Salisbury Plain or Dartmoor. (Today one can add the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions in further support of this contention.)
How, I asked the Ministry of Defence, could it be permissible for such important archaeological areas to be used for simulated tank and artillery battles 200 or more days a year when the same officers could face imprisonment for war crimes should they carry out the same activities in the same location in wartime? My point was summarised briefly in the Sharp report, but needless to say there was no response to it from the MoD.
Since the Sharp inquiry reported, the UK has ratified the 1972 World Heritage Convention. In the UK the emphasis so far has been on pressing nominations to the World Heritage List (not least, a cynic might argue, because of the value of World Heritage sites to the promotion of tourism). However, an arguably far more important provision of the Convention is the obligation of states to establish legal and practical arrangements aimed at safeguarding all nationally important areas and sites of both historic and natural heritage importance, not just a country's dozen or so World Heritage Sites.
The scale of the now rapidly growing military misuse and destruction of some of the country's most important archaeological and ecological localities raises fundamental questions about this country's commitment to its declared international obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
Yours sincerely,
PATRICK J. BOYLAN
Vice-President
International Council of Museums
Knebworth, Hertfordshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments