Mosul’s residents overwhelmingly support heritage restoration, seeing it as a path to peace and reconciliation. However, international efforts must balance historical authenticity with modern functionality and prioritise local leadership, reports the Australian Institute of International Affairs.
Ten years ago, in February 2015, the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) released a chilling video documenting militants using sledgehammers to destroy statues and artifacts inside the Mosul Museum. This act was just one of many in their aggressive campaign to obliterate Mosul’s cultural heritage, including the ancient archaeological site of Nimrud and the 12th-century Great Mosque of al-Nuri. Hundreds of historic mosques, churches, shrines, libraries, and markets were similarly damaged or destroyed.
The international response to the destruction wrought by the IS has been significant. For instance, in 2018, the Smithsonian and the Musée du Louvre initiated a five-year project to rehabilitate the Mosul Museum. The Smithsonian has also received funding from the US State Department and other donors to launch the “Nimrud Rescue Project” to help protect and preserve the ancient archaeological site. And UNESCO’s flagship “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” project has secured over US$100 million from the EU, the United Nations Development Programme, the UAE, Japan, Germany, and Belgium, to name a few. This project has focused on the restoration of several heritage sites across the city, including the Grand Mosque of al-Nuri and its leaning minaret.
While these efforts aim to foster social cohesion and peace, they often assume universal local support for heritage reconstruction and overlook the complexities of post-conflict recovery. So, to better understand local perspectives, we conducted a survey of 1,600 Mosul residents in collaboration with scholars from the Arab Barometer. The results provide a nuanced view of how people value heritage, its reconstruction, and its role in fostering peace.
Is heritage a priority?
Given the pressing needs in Mosul following years of conflict, we asked residents to rank their top three priorities for Iraq’s future from a list of ten options. Not surprisingly, “safety and security” ranked highest, with 62 percent listing it as a priority, followed by “unemployment and poverty” (54 percent), “education and schools” (52 percent), and “hospitals, health, and sanitation” (49 percent). Only 16 percent included “heritage protection and reconstruction” among their top three priorities.
Despite heritage being a lower priority, there was overwhelming support for reconstruction efforts. When asked if heritage sites damaged during recent conflicts should be restored, 99 percent of respondents agreed, with 83 percent strongly agreeing. This suggests that while heritage may not top the list of immediate needs, there is widespread acknowledgment of its importance.
The survey also explored whether heritage reconstruction could contribute to community healing and peacebuilding. An overwhelming 95 percent of respondents agreed that restoring heritage sites can foster positive relationships and promote peace, underscoring the potential of such efforts to aid reconciliation in a deeply divided society.
Respondents also had clear preferences regarding the form reconstruction should take. When asked about the desired approach to reconstruction, 96 percent wanted sites restored in some form, with 48 percent preferring “modern and more useful” structures over historically accurate restorations. This preference reveals a tension between preserving authenticity and meeting community needs for functionality.
Finally, the survey examined local opinion on who they would most like to see leading the reconstruction of Mosul’s heritage in the future. The largest number of respondents named the Iraqi government (48 percent) and ordinary Iraqis also ranked highly (14 percent). However, foreign governments and organisations received minimal support: international non-governmental organisations (such as the Smithsonian) were supported by 16 percent of people, followed by global agencies such as UNESCO (eight percent), only six percent supported the involvement of Gulf States (such as the UAE), and just two percent wanted Western governments (such as the US or Europe) to lead restoration or reconstruction projects across Mosul. Together, this data reflects a strong desire for domestic control and grassroots involvement in heritage restoration.
Implications for international efforts
These findings hold important implications for foreign-led initiatives to reconstruct heritage, not only in Mosul but also in other post-conflict environments such as Gaza, Ukraine, Syria, and elsewhere. First, international actors must integrate heritage reconstruction with broader efforts to improve security, infrastructure, and public services. Heritage, while significant, cannot overshadow the urgent needs of a community recovering from years of violence and poverty. And while heritage may not be the most urgent priority, locals may believe it can play an important role in restoring peace.
Second, reconstruction projects should balance historical authenticity with modern functionality. The preference for practical and modernised restorations reflects the need for heritage sites to serve as active, meaningful spaces in people’s lives rather than mere symbols of the past. This balance is especially crucial in places like Gaza, Syria, and Ukraine, where heritage restoration must also serve broader reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.
Finally, international actors must foster local ownership of reconstruction efforts. This involves moving beyond token partnerships with local entities to genuinely empower affected communities and institutions. By prioritising grassroots processes and local leadership, foreign initiatives can gain legitimacy and ensure sustainability. These principles should guide heritage reconstruction in post-conflict regions where political and social complexities require nuanced, locally driven approaches.
Conclusion
The destruction of Mosul’s heritage by IS was a devastating loss, but the city’s recovery offers an opportunity to rebuild not only monuments but also the social fabric. International efforts must remain attuned to the lived realities and aspirations of Mosul’s people, as well as those in other post-conflict regions facing similar challenges. By integrating local perspectives and addressing broader needs, heritage reconstruction can play a meaningful role in healing the scars of conflict and fostering a more hopeful future.
Benjamin Isakhan is Professor of Politics and Policy Studies at Deakin University and Adjunct Senior Research Associate at the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Lynn Meskell is Richard D. Green Professor of Anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, Professor in the Department of Historic Preservation, and curator in the Middle East and Asia sections at the Penn Museum.
.jpg)
0 Comments