Don’t put national treasures up for auction
‼Global registration is, at the very least, a national treasure
It is true that Article 83 of the Constitution is vague and without a law to implement it, but almost everything is clear on the issue of global registration caravanserais.
#Saeed_Shafia
Doctor of Tourism, University Professor and Researcher at the Center for Parliamentary Research
Dr. Saeed Shafia wrote on his personal page in response to the transfer of two global registration works, the Ahavan and Anushirvan caravanserais, to the private sector:
First, Article 25 of the Civil Code states that no one can own property that is in public use and does not have a specific owner, such as bridges, caravanserais, public water tanks, old schools, and public squares, as well as canals and wells that are in public use.
Secondly, Imam Khomeini, in response to the letter of the then head of the Mostazafan Foundation regarding Pahlavi property, replied that everything that is considered to be artistic, cultural and historical works of the country or whose sale would cause a loss to the country should be kept in a suitable place.
Thirdly, when did the executive body in charge of the World Register universalize a work that belongs to an individual or non-governmental organization? All considerations must be taken into account in the administrative mechanism of the World Register. A work is not supposed to become universal, but its management and protection system is postponed to the future. And that a world work belongs to the general public of the world in terms of morality. So if it has a private owner, it carries the risk of involving heirs and.
Fourthly, until now, when the law implementing Article 83 has not been approved, one thing is certain. Read the interviews and comments of former managers and experts. Of course, there is room for criticism and it is not a standard for action, but the sum of the statements is that only works in the World Register are of national value. Although this talk stems from the lack of a clear and precise standard, it makes sense.
Fifth, according to the Civil Service Management Law, the protection of cultural heritage is a sovereign duty. Protection is not just restoration, and sovereignty is not just an executive body such as the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts.
Sixth, the UNESCO World Heritage List is in line with domestic laws, not determining and imposing the country’s processes. Of course, international conventions have also recognized this point. The country’s honorable ministers also took an oath under the constitution and must defend it. Therefore, the commitment to Article 8 and 3 of the Constitution is higher than any international obligation.
Seventh, what the law on the preservation of national monuments says about the transfer of registered property is different from Article 8 and 3 of the Constitution. Article 8 and 3 of the Constitution makes the transfer of non-national heritage subject to the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.
Eighth, the issue of heritage has been so important that the supervisory body of the parliament has taken executive and specialized action. That is, national treasures should not be decided in the history of the house or in an expert-oriented manner.
Therefore, the aforementioned caravanserais are the treasure of not only the Iranian nation, but also the people of the world. Even if the constitution has not been interpreted and turned into a supplementary law, at least the national treasures of these works do not need to be discussed and debated. If the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts cannot afford to buy, the government is responsible for this action. And protection in this situation is exactly the same as acquisition. An acquisition that should later be made possible through an executive arm such as the Restoration Fund for restoration and exploitation.
@saeedshafia
instagram.com/miras_bashi
@mirasbashi
This post is written by maryamatyabi