Tracing the development of the link between cultural heritage and foreign policy objectives (often euphemized as "national security") is really important, but why do these discussions always have to treat that link as a positive? https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/state-of-the-art-how-cultural-property-became-a-national-security-priority">https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/sta...

As with human rights, the developing link between cultural heritage & "national security" over the past 20 years has meant that, more and more, cultural heritage is used cynically to justify bombings, invasion, and occupation. https://hyperallergic.com/415471/how-antiquities-have-been-weaponized-in-the-struggle-to-preserve-culture/">https://hyperallergic.com/415471/ho...

On September 22, 2014, the Met& #39;s lavish opening ceremony for its Assyria to Iberia exhibition included a speech by then-Secretary of State John Kerry obsessed w/ISIS & its destruction of heritage.

Hours later, the US started its bombing campaign in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXlql5cKtNw">https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Even as description of how this link has developed has its problems, as discussed here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/410281482394332/permalink/3106449416110845/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/41...