At the Council Meeting of the Kyoto International Peacebuilding Center, Mr. Tadamichi Yamamoto, former UNESCO Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and a member of the Center’s Council, shared his insights on the protection of cultural heritage and the concept of “transnational knowledge.”
Mr. Yamamoto began by expressing his full agreement with Ambassador Kamiyo’s remarks and emphasized the importance of protecting cultural properties. In this context, he introduced an initiative organized this February in cooperation with the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, through which he invited a Taliban delegation to Japan, including the Director of the National Museum of Afghanistan. During their visit, the delegation participated in demonstrations of cultural heritage preservation in collaboration with the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties and various museums. Yamamoto explained that these activities deepened the delegation’s understanding of how the preservation of cultural assets is essential to national and ethnic identity.
He further mentioned the late Professor Ikuo Hirayama’s efforts to repurchase Afghan cultural artifacts that had been dispersed on the market and to return and donate them to Afghanistan at his own expense. When Yamamoto and his delegation visited the National Museum of Afghanistan, those artifacts—including the national treasure “Foot of Zeus”—were on display. This, Yamamoto noted, demonstrated that although the Taliban had once destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, their understanding of cultural heritage as a symbol of national history and identity had since evolved. According to Yamamoto, the Taliban now seek technical and intellectual cooperation from Japan, and he affirmed that the “appropriate cooperation according to circumstances” proposed by Ambassador Kamiyo is indeed achievable.
Yamamoto then referred to the “Ten Thousand Cube Art” project, suggesting that if the theme were “Peace and Culture,” collaboration with UNESCO could be considered. With UNESCO’s advocacy of the “Culture of Peace” philosophy, he noted that obtaining international sponsorship could significantly enhance the scale and impact of the event. He added that UNESCO is currently preparing to appoint a new Director-General, and in such a context, positioning this project within an international framework would be highly desirable.
In his remarks on “transnational knowledge,” Yamamoto also sounded a warning about the current state of global knowledge exchange. He pointed out that the United States is moving toward a more selective acceptance of people, while China links its knowledge systems closely with national policy—both of which, he argued, deviate from the ideal of pure “transnational knowledge.” Furthermore, he noted that Europe’s Erasmus program aims less at intellectual outcomes and more at fostering “understanding of others and experience of diversity.” In this light, Yamamoto argued that future discussions on international education and study abroad should consider not only intellectual advancement but also the importance of deepening diversity and intercultural understanding.
Finally, Yamamoto raised a critical question regarding the direction of “knowledge” sought by the industrial sector—whether it should aim for a balance between competition and cooperation, or a future focused solely on cooperation. He concluded by calling for a “realistic and ethical reconsideration of knowledge formation in the international community.”
For other speakers’ statements and further details of the meeting, please click here.
(Reported by Koki IMON)
【Original English Translation of the Remarks】
Statement 1:
First, I would like to touch upon Ambassador Shinyo’s remarks. I completely agree with his observations. The protection of cultural heritage worldwide has recently been highlighted in the media. In February of this year, in cooperation with the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, we invited members of the Taliban to Japan. During their stay, we engaged in various discussions, including those concerning the protection of cultural properties and cultural heritage. With the cooperation of the Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, we explained actual restoration and conservation work, and visited museums to show the processes in action. The Taliban participants came to understand Japan’s efforts to protect Afghan cultural heritage. We also explained, with testimony from the family of the late Professor Ikuo Hirayama, his initiatives to repurchase Afghan artifacts that had circulated on the market and to return them to Afghanistan. Among the Taliban invitees was the Director of the National Museum, who praised Professor Hirayama’s work.
Prior to this visit, we ourselves had visited Afghanistan and the National Museum. Given the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, we had concerns about the handling of the repatriated artifacts, but upon visiting, we found that the “Foot of Zeus,” a national treasure-class sculpture returned by Professor Hirayama, was displayed in a central position in the museum. This demonstrated a deepened understanding that cultural heritage is vital to a nation’s history and identity, and to the preservation of its people. The Taliban delegation expressed a desire for Japan’s continued cooperation, including technical and academic exchanges. Therefore, I fully agree with Ambassador Shinyo’s direction, and believe that possibilities for appropriate cooperation remain open depending on the circumstances.
Next, regarding the “10,000 Cube Art” project, although the theme has not yet been decided, if the focus were to be on “Peace and Culture” with artistic and craft elements, collaboration with UNESCO could be a meaningful option. When I served at the Japanese Delegation to UNESCO, the organization actively welcomed such exhibitions. With appropriate coordination, obtaining UNESCO’s sponsorship could greatly expand the event’s scale and impact. UNESCO, as a principal promoter of a “Culture of Peace,” is now being re-evaluated after years of lesser visibility. Therefore, I strongly encourage building ties with UNESCO and positioning this initiative within an international framework.
Statement 2:
For example, looking at the current situation in the United States, one can see that it is becoming increasingly selective in deciding whom to accept into the country. This can hardly be called pure “transcending knowledge.” As for China, it appears to have a system that strongly links national policy and transnational knowledge.
Second, regarding Europe: in some European countries, students are required to study abroad. Yet this is not necessarily in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. In theory, if domestic education were sufficient, studying abroad would be unnecessary, and information exchange through networks would suffice. The true essence of the Erasmus Programme lies not in an inability to educate domestically, but in learning about and from others—deepening mutual understanding and directly experiencing diversity. The loss of this aspect is a concern.
Thirdly, we must consider what industry and business seek from “knowledge.” Are we striving to build an international system of knowledge for the future? Should we aim for a purely cooperative, competition-free world? Or is it more realistic to pursue both cooperation and competition simultaneously? These are questions that warrant discussion.
These are the three points on which I would like to hear others’ views.
