“ On the ground ” of the international bureaucracy of Ethiopian World Heritage-making

“Ethiopia decided join UNESCO instructions given ambassador London sign constitution sending him instruments acceptance for deposit – Akalework Habtewold, Minister of Education and Fine Arts”.443 This telegram, arriving at UNESCO headquarters in Paris on May 26, 1955, confirmed Ethiopia’s membership in the organisation. The confirmation had been anxiously anticipated and was met with a sigh of relief in the offices of the Director General Luther Evans as well as the department tasked with relationships with member states, as it had been preceded by three years of diplomatic efforts from UNESCO’s side. Ethiopia was among those developing countries which UNESCO secretariat staff began to tour in the 1950s in order to win over the newly independent nations to UNESCO’s mission. Following a visit of an Ethiopian diplomat to UNESCO, the staff of the office of the Director General and the natural science department decided to move forward and “sell Unesco to Ethiopia, meaning to put together a concise overview of those parts of the programme that could be most interesting for Ethiopia and convince them to join UNESCO”.444 There were good reasons why, among the developing countries, recruiting Ethiopia as a member state was a top priority for UNESCO during the 1950s. Ethiopia was considered a key location and state within the emerging UN landscape. As opposed to other developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, Ethiopia was not a newly founded nation undergoing a decolonisation process but one which had managed to stay clear from colonial domination for most of the time. During the period of Italian occupation, which lasted from 1935 to 1941, emperor Haile Selassie I secured Ethiopia’s spot in the international community by appealing to the League of Nations for support. While his speech did little to impede Italian aggression, it earned Ethiopia a certain standing in international organisations, specifically in the UN, of which it eventually became one

of the foundingm embers in 1946.⁴⁴⁵ Cultivatingc ontacts close to the evolving landscape of international organisations, in particulart he UN,h ad been an important aspect of Ethiopian diplomacy and foreign politics. By the time that the international organisations commenced their operations in Africa, Ethiopia was able to look back at ah istory of good personal relationships with manyo ft he agencies, and wast hereforei nasomewhat advantageous position.⁴⁴⁶ Ethiopia unquestionablyplayedaninfluential role in the UN,asdemonstrated by it holding one of the first African Group'ss eats in the UN Security Council from 1967-68 and the candidature of Lij Endalkachew Makonnen for the post of UN secretary general in 1971.⁴⁴⁷ This was paralleled by the government'sp roactive appearance within all the UN'ss pecial agencies. By 1954,E thiopia had alreadyb een am ember of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the FAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the World Bank, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and several other international organisations, and the UNESCO secretariat did not intend to fall short in this regard.⁴⁴⁸ Being aware of its special position within the UN system, Ethiopian delegates to international organisations also understood themselvest ob eu niquelyp ositioned as spokespeople for developing and African countries as awhole. Ethiopia, accordingtotheir own understanding,was predestined to act as avoice representingdeveloping,and especiallyAfrican, countries.⁴⁴⁹ Haile SelassieI'spreexisting and prevalent relationship with the UN as well as the apparent political stability of Ethiopia comparedt oo ther African statesa tt he time made Addis Ababaapreferred location for diplomatic activities. With the inauguration of the Africa Hall compound as the headquarters for the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)inAddis Ababa in 1961, Ethiopia'srelevance to the UN system was givenamaterial expression. Haile SelassieI ' sd onation of the compound and several modern representative buildingsd esigned for over threeh undred UN employees, with offices and ac onferenceh all, Africa Hall, was meant to demonstrate Ethiopia'scapacities as botharegional and an international player. Equallyimportant was Ethiopia'saspiration to take on aleading role in the Pan-African movement and other regional African liberation movements, resulting in the headquarters of the Organisation of African Unity being installed in Addis Ababai n1 963.⁴⁵⁰ The UN and most of the UN special agencies installed liaison offices within the compound, thereby cementingE thiopia'sp osition in diplomatic circles.
To strengthen theirt ies with other UN agencies regardingp roject management and coordination, UNESCO also needed ap ermanentp resencei nA ddis Ababa. The issues contained under the mandate of the UN specialised organisations presented urgent and obviousf ieldso fa ction for the Ethiopian government,such as food and health and development funding and finances.From UN-ESCO'sperspective,these engagementspromised to directlycontributetosolving some of the country'sm ost urgent problems.⁴⁵¹ However,U NESCO struggled to convince the Ethiopian government of their point of view.E thiopia'sr eluctance to accept the proposed aid mayvery well have been due to UNESCO'slow standing in the organisation'searlyy ears.⁴⁵² In the official correspondence, the Ethiopian government'sresponses to the initial approaches for membershipwerevery hesitant,q uestioning the possibleb enefitsi nc omparison with the expected budgetcontribution. In response, UNESCO secretariat staff stressed in numerous attempts,b yl etter and duringapersonal visit,the areas of potential collaboration. Activities related to international conservation efforts werea mong the issues mentioned to the Ethiopian government in these letters and meetings. The protection of cultural goods in the case of armed conflictand the regulations for international archaeological excavations weree xplained, and the special interest Ethiopia might have in these issues was underlined, as well as the opportunity to participate in the drafting of conventions.⁴⁵³ They further emphasised the advantagesf or Ethiopia, which would includen ot onlyc ollaboration on the issues under UNESCO'sm andate, education, science and culture, but also  N.N., "Economic Commission for Africa", Ethiopia Observer 2, no. 9(1958): 317; BalaṭaBalāčaw Yehun, Black Ethiopia:AGlimpse into African Diplomacy,1956 -1991,first edition (Los Angeles, CA: Tsehai Publishers &D istributors,2 014), 102-3.  Theodor C. P. Lilliefelt, "United Nation'sT echnicalA ssistance", Ethiopia Observer 2, no. 9 (1958): 290 -93.  Maurel, Histoired el ' UNESCO,1 79 -80.  Letter from Dr.N aidu,20.5.53,in: UNESCO X0 7. 21 (63), pt i. the possibilityofreceiving assistance with them.⁴⁵⁴ Eventually, Ethiopia decided to join UNESCO whene ducation was declared ap olitical priority and UNESCO seemed likeapromisingchannel to receive international support for the educational sector.⁴⁵⁵ Unfortunately, in theirheavy promotion effortsofthe potential technicaland financial assistance, the secretariat staff was somewhat overselling UNESCO's capacities at the time. Since UNESCO membership had been advertised to the Ethiopiang overnment with af ocus on the possibilityo fr eceiving funding and assistance, immediatelya fter attaining membership the Ethiopian government started applying extensively for assistance.⁴⁵⁶ Diplomatic tensions rose when most of these applications could not be approved due to budgetl imitations. Ethiopiand elegates and government representativesw ereq uick to express their disappointment with the amounto fa vailable assistance, which in their eyes appeared low in comparison with the funds available through other international organisations.UNESCO secretariat staff, upon visiting the country,f ound the organisation'sp urpose misunderstood. The approach of the Ethiopian government,t aking UNESCO merelyf or another development-aid agency,was considered a "shocking" misconception by the delegation.⁴⁵⁷ Nonetheless,UNESCO could hardly afford to put further strain on their relationship with Ethiopia. As the organisation was able to provide more substantial development funds through the UNDP from the 1960s onward,Ethiopia was built up as amodel country for development cooperation. The secretariat'slongstanding plans for UNESCO to have ap ermanent physical presencei nA ddis Ababa eventuallybore fruit when ageneral liaison officerpost and aregional social science field office were opened in Addis Ababaatthe beginning of the 1960s. Field offices like the one in Addis Ababawerem eant to balance out global disadvantages by providing "assistance for researchers workinginall regions remote from the main centres of scientific and technical activity,inparticularbyestablishing contacts with colleagues in countries in those regions and providingt hem with the information and documentation they lacked",⁴⁵⁸ reflectingt he view of the  Note from AndrédeBlonaytoCamille Aboussouan, 1.7. 1952, in: UNESCO X0 7. 21 (63)  "On the ground" of the international bureaucracy UNESCO secretariat that the organisation was to strengtheni ts position, outreach and possibilities for cooperation, specificallyi nd eveloping countries.
During the first UN Development Decade UNESCO expanded through operationalisation, as an unprecedentedamount of funds to conduct projects became available through the paradigmatic shift of the UN.⁴⁵⁹ UNESCO had two operational programmes related to development,t he Participation Programme and the Technical Assistancep rogramme. With these twod evelopment programmes in place, UNESCO gained notablyi nr elevancea nd, more importantly, in publicity and visibility.
UNESCO'sP articipation Programme or "Programme of Activities of Member States" was developed as am eanst ogivea ssistance to member states,complementary to the planneda ctivities foreseen in the regular budget. According to the original agreement,a ssistance through the Participation Programme was neither limited to developing countries nor tied to the development paradigm, but to the overarchingo bjectiveso fU NESCO.Overt ime however,the Participation Programme became ad ef acto development aid programme on as mall scale. Within the twenty years after its inception in 1955,the programme gained enormouslyi ns cope and demand. At wofold increase in member states to UNESCO was accompanied by at wenty-fold increase in the total amounto fr equestssubmitted. This is easilyexplainedbythe fact that most of the new member statesweref ormercolonies. In terms of geographic distribution, the highest amount of funding was allocatedt oA frican countries since the highest number of requests also came from them.⁴⁶⁰ Correspondingw ith the technical assistance programme of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), UNESCO started its first explicit development activities in 1950.I nt he following years, numerous expertsa nd consultants were assigned to provide technical assistance to member states upon their request,u suallyf or short-term missions of onlyafew weeks.⁴⁶¹ The main areas for requested assistance werei ne ducation, especiallyl iteracy and science. In 1966,U NESCO was made ad esignated executive agency for the UNDP and was allocated as izeable budgett hrough which it could start largerscale development projects.⁴⁶² Through this association with the UNDP during the first UN developmentdecade as well as through the new emphasis on development in the ParticipationP rogramme, activitiesi nd eveloping countries offered ample opportunities for UNESCO to applyi ts operations and expertise in aterritory much largerthaninthe years up to then. Having onlyrecentlygained their independence, most of these countries were also new members of the UN system. Form anyd eveloping countries,t his meant that during the 1960s and 1970sa ssistance and aid spikedi nt he educational, scientific and cultural sectors.⁴⁶³ Effectively,w ith the developing countries' growingr equests and the funds at UNESCO'sd isposal to respond to them, UNESCO transformed itself broadlys peaking, from an intellectual to an operational organisation.

Ethiopia as av oicef or developing and African countries in UNESCO
In manyw ays, Ethiopia acted as ar ole model for African and, more generally, developing countries on the international stageduringthe development decade. Influential Ethiopian personalitiesp rovided input to UNESCO'sp rogramme in the organisation'sGeneral Assembly. Based on theirexperiencesindevelopment cooperation and Ethiopia'sspecial political status as Africa'sonlynon-colonised nation, they pushed for changes in the general structure of the organisation as well as in individual programme areas of UNESCO while alsom aking valuable contributions to an umber of policiesa nd programmesw ithin UNESCO.N ot long after Ethiopia formallyjoined UNESCO as amemberstate,Akalework Habtewold, formerE thiopian Ambassador to France and then MinisterofE ducation and Fine Arts, and later Ministero fJ ustice in the imperial government,w ould become the first African President of the UNESCO General Assembly from 1960 -1962.⁴⁶⁴ He functioned as head of the Ethiopian National Commission for UNESCO and the Ethiopian delegation to UNESCO,bothroles installed within the governmentbylegal proclamation in 1964,and filled with arank of government officials, mainlyf rom the Ministry of Education.⁴⁶⁵ The day-to-day operations at UNESCO Headquarters duringt he period 1960 -1980 illustrate how the working reality of UNESCO as apredominantlyEuropean institution might have fostered an urgent need for representation by the "On the ground" of the internationalb ureaucracy first African personalities in UNESCO.Despite the strong representation of Ethiopia in the programme activities and meetings, there weren ot many Ethiopians among the staff of UNESCO,and repeated attempts by the Ethiopian Delegation to amend this situation wered eclined by the secretariat on several occasions. The secretariat justified this by claiming alack of competenceonthe candidates' side or the unavailability of suitable positions.⁴⁶⁶ Ethiopiandelegates at the time argued that the cause of the general structural imbalance in the UN system was the inappropriatelym arginal position of African countries in particular.T ot his end the Ethiopian delegation to UNESCO, declaratively speaking on behalf of the group of developing countries,a cted at the forefront in promotingm ore UNESCO regional centres and field offices to be installed so as to enable quicker communication.
The opening of regional offices, and the decentralisation of UNESCO'sa dministration and operations, was expectedtolessen the burden on the UNESCO headquarters in Paris over time, accordingt ot he Ethiopian position. Based on their experiences through the numerous assistance projects,the Ethiopiandelegation had, for several years, advocated ad ecentralisation of UNESCO and an increase in the number of regional offices and centres to balance out the inefficiency of manyofUNESCO'sactions in developing countries that often required "constant and close follow-up" and "quick on the spotaction based on adequate experience and knowledge of the area".⁴⁶⁷ With theirnew field office in Ethiopia, UNESCO had finally gained afoothold on the African continent which was to become of the greatest strategic importance to its operations.

Foreign expertise andf inancial aid forE thiopian statem odernisationa nd diplomacy
After the emperor'sreturn from exile in 1941, foreign expertise remained vital to rebuild the government in Ethiopia. The genesis of the Ethiopiani nstitutional landscape duringt he 1960s and 70sw as characterised by aggravatingp olitical and social conflicts.D uring this time frame, Ethiopia underwent ap rocess of state transformation and centralisation of state power.I nt he end, the government of Emperor Haile Selassie If ailed, along with his attempts to bring all op- There areseveral itemsofcorrespondenceand internal notesregarding the subject matter in: UNESCO X0 7. 21 (63), pt.i i; the justifications for not employingE thiopiann ationals in the UNESCO secretariat appear vaguea nd worthyo ff urther investigation from today'sv iewpoint.  H.E. Mr.S eifu Mahteme Selassie'ss peech to the 16 th Session of the General Conference 1970,n od ate, in: UNESCO X0 7. 21 (63) pt.vi. posing political forces in the country under his leadership,and the imperial government was overturned by as ocialist revolution in 1974.E xisting systems of land tenurea nd administration wereg raduallyb ut forcefullyr eplacedb yabureaucratic state organisation, under both the imperial and the socialist governments, despite obvious differencesbetween both forms of government. Manypolitical and intellectual figures became victims of the purging efforts, the "Red Terror" years after the revolution. Still, ac ontinuity existed in terms of institutions that wereb uilt up, and in terms of al arge-scale restructuringo fp olitical and economic resourcesi nf avour of an ew ruling class that emergedi nA ddis Ababa. Territorial conflicts in the region led to af urther centralisation of power and an aggressively nationalist agenda emergedt om aintain what was nonetheless af rail political unity.⁴⁶⁸ Faced with an extreme skills shortagei n the country,the Ethiopian government had ag rowingn eed of foreign expertise in the face of ongoing processes of transformation. The impetustoexpand institutional bureaucracy was difficult to put in practice, and the few Ethiopian civil servants and politicians who had receiveda dequate training,o rh ad obtained their degrees from European or American universities, weref acing workloads and demands on them for expertise thatw erei ncreasinglyd ifficult to handle.
However,i tw as not just internal rebuilding and modernisation efforts that wered ifficult to carry out.I nt heir bureaucratic analysis of international organisations, Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemoree xplain how the expansion of international organisations led to new demands for creating institutions and implementingn orms and policies. Likei nm anyd eveloping countries,i nE thiopia the knowledge and skills necessary to build up af unctional bureaucratic state infrastructure became more and more dependent on foreign funds and on foreign expertise.⁴⁶⁹ Initially, establishing collaboration with UNESCO on apractical level was difficult for Ethiopian government agencies. The main challengewas to provide appropriatec ounterparts in government functions for actual contact with specific divisions of the UNESCO secretariat and an ational commission for UNESCO,a sr equired by the organisation to effectively implement the assistance projects.The staffassigned to form an advisorycommittee in order to prepare the National Commission expressed regularly how overwhelmed they were  See the mored etailed analysis in ch. 4; works with aparticular focus on the institutional development of the Ethiopian government include: Christopher SClapham, Haile-Selassie'sGovernment (New York: Praeger,1969); Clapham, Transformation and Continuity;P erham, TheG overnment of Ethiopia;B ahru Zewde, AH istory.  Barnett and Finnemore, Rules for the World,8 ,9 ,3 4. "On the ground" of the internationalb ureaucracy with their workload.⁴⁷⁰ After more than ten years, the advisoryc ommittee was eventuallyt ransformed into aN ational Commission for UNESCO in 1967, strengthening the collaboration in ongoing projects as well as advancingt he matter of the visit of UNESCO'sD GR ené Maheu.⁴⁷¹ Specialised knowledge and manpower werel acking in particular in those areas that sawarapid technological modernisation duringt he 1950s and 1960s, such as communication, printing,publishing,orarchiving.Itwas difficult to meet the basic requirements for an international organisation to functione ither because supplies weren ot available or equipment was tooe xpensive.F or example, the Ethiopian National Commission for UNESCO had to request equipment and stationary supplies from UNESCO itself.⁴⁷² Even basic office staff were not always available-in 1967the UNESCO chief of mission had to handwriteall of his correspondence for aperiod of several months, as there was "not asingle stenographer" in the entire Ministry of Education to support him.⁴⁷³ How difficult the lack of materials and equipment made it for the institutions to operate reveals acloser look at the day-to-day project management of the heritageconservation projects:o ften, material and equipment bought for individual projects could not be maintaineda dequatelyo rb er eplaced when outdated. The Centre for Researcha nd Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH), for example, was entrusted with the inventory and documentationofmovable and immovable cultural heritage. As such, it had aphotograph section which served bothasadocumentation centrea nd as as ourceo fi nformation for educational and research activities. This section was supposed to playanimportant role in the promotional activities planned in connection with an international UNESCO campaign to preservet he monuments and sites of Ethiopia. When approaching the planning stageo ft he campaign, the equipment wasd eemed to be too old and thus inadequate to meet the demands for its services.⁴⁷⁴ The difficulty of the work of the photographydivision can be illustratedbynoting that no colour film or adequate processing was available in Ethiopia at that time. Through the international conservation projects under UNESCO and UNDP,the necessary means to obtain the material werea vailable in theory.Y et,with the project account onlya llowed to  The establishmento ft he National Commission is easy to trace in the correspondence in UNESCO X07. 21 (63)  In addition to the lack of support staff, equipment and office supplies, for manyE thiopian officials dealing with UNESCO,i tw as impossible to acquirea closer personal experience of large parts of UNESCO'sa ctivities and practical work routine as the Ethiopian government wasn'ta ble to fund them to go on studyt ours to other countries or international organisations.T his held true even for thosew ho weree mployed directlyb yt he EthiopianN ational Commission for UNESCO.T he Ethiopian government regularlys ubmittedr equests to the Participation Programme to enable the governmentagencies to better collaborate with UNESCO and other international organisations. Amongt he aid requestswas an international study grant for the Secretary General of the Ethiopian National Commission for UNESCO "to studyt he experiencesi nt he different Sectors and Divisions of UNESCO on project preparation, monitoringand evaluation"⁴⁷⁶ and agrant for financial support for the building of apubliclibrary and documentation centref or UN-related issues in the offices of the Ethiopian National Commission for UNESCO.⁴⁷⁷ The challenges developing countries such as Ethiopia weref acing in the emerging UN Development and Assistance bureaucracy weref ar from unknown to the UNESCO secretariat.Infact,toestablish the various UNESCO programmes of assistance, UNESCO'sc ivil servants weres upposedt oo ffer guidance and, whereappropriate, "stimulate" requests,i.e.point out programmesand possibilities of interesttoanational delegation, propose arequest and offer support for submission. UNESCO divisionst hen offered help to review the submitted requestss oa st oe nsure theira pproval, and would often hand backarequest with detailedi nstruction about how to rewritet he requesta nd redefine the goal towardst his end.⁴⁷⁸ This was deemed necessary not onlyt om aintain the correct bureaucratic procedurebut alsotoensurethe use of funds provided within the allocated time. "On the ground" of the internationalb ureaucracy That Ethiopia lacked askilled workforce can partlybeexplained by the fact that the country'sf irst university,H aile Selassie IU niversity,r enamed Addis AbabaU niversity in 1974,w as not opened until 1950.T he same period also brought reformst ot he existing system of secular secondary education as a part of Haile Selassie I'sd evelopment plans. Before the educational reform politics of the 1950s,secondary education was mainlyprovided by religious institutions. Forexample, in 1958 there werealtogether not more thantwenty-two secondary schools in Ethiopia, includingt he Britisha nd French Schools, which werem eant to satisfyt he needs of international experts and diplomats as well as the Ethiopian upperc lass.⁴⁷⁹ The introduction and development of higher and secondary education was planned by Western education expertsw ho took their inspiration from Western schools. Classes weregiven exclusively in English. In the beginning,experts in higher education, mainlyf rom Canada,m anaged a staff of largely European and Americanprofessors and lecturers who taught arts and humanities, natural sciences,e ngineering, economics,a nd lawt op rimary cohorts of af ew hundred studentsi nt otal.⁴⁸⁰ In these first years, the number of Ethiopian studentsstudying abroad, as part of the overseas studyprogramme of the imperial government,was still exceeding the number of domesticstudents by more than 60 %. However,by1960,that is after ten years, the number of students at Haile SelassieIUniversity had grown significantly, and by 1968 more than four thousand studentswereenrolled at the university in Addis, as opposed to two thousand studentss tudying abroad.⁴⁸¹ Under these circumstances during the 1950s and 1960s, it seemed untenable to produce the amount of skilled workforce in Ethiopia that wasn eeded to amend the skills shortagei nt he country.The Ethiopian state administrative infrastructure continued to depend on foreign expertsa nd Ethiopian nationals who had receivedo verseas training which remained ap rivilegeo ft he upper classes despite the instituted overseas studies programme. Onlyafew Ethiopians had the financial means to paynot onlyfor theiroffspring'ss tudies at aforeign university but also for secondary level education at one of the European private schools in Addis Ababa. In this context,f oreign expertise wasi ndispensable to the state so as to cover even basic bureaucratic functionality and state responsibilities.⁴⁸² Fore xample,accordingtothe general statistics published by the Ministry of Education for 1951/1953, seventeen hundred and fifty-five Ethiopian employees are listed for the Ministry of Education and two hundred and thirty-three foreign employees. These figures did not,however,include schoolteachers, manyofwhom were foreigners,with some being drafted from the ranks of the Peace Corps.⁴⁸³ To layt he foundation of national expertise across all sectors of the government and bureaucratic infrastructure, foreign advisors werehired to serveininstitutions across all branchesofthe Ethiopian government. To achievetheir goal of capacity building,c ooperation and agreements with international organisations or on ab ilateral basisw eres oughta fter by the Ethiopian governmenti n awide variety of fields. When analysingthe governmentaland political development of Ethiopia duringt he 1960s and 1970s, foreign experts and consultants need to be considered as an important group of actors.⁴⁸⁴ The number of foreign actors involved in knowledge production and distribution steadilyincreased as a resultofpoliticallystrategic efforts. The majority of development investment and assistance was sourced through bilateralcooperation, e. g. through the American Point Four Program or through British and Swedishd evelopment aid to Ethiopia.⁴⁸⁵ In her analysis of the Ethiopiang overnment,written in the 50s, Margery Perham first interpreted this as acontinuation of the politics of Menelik II to use the presenceofforeign advisers to the government as acentral institution and as am eanst os trengthen the monarch'sp ower against the provincial leaders and national political elites through these international ties.⁴⁸⁶ Later researchers of Ethiopiand evelopment politics and diplomacy also came to the samec onclusion, that Ethiopia'ss trongA frican and international standings trengthened Ethiopiani nternal political stability and the central government'sp ower.⁴⁸⁷ Haile Selassie Ihad approached the presenceofforeignersinEthiopia in general as astrategic element in both his nationaland foreign policy scheme, in order to strengthen his internal political position.⁴⁸⁸ Collaborating with foreign expertise and establishingaclose-knit relationship with the community of foreigners was supposedt os ilence development plans proposed by members of the constitutional assemblyi nE thiopia and to demonstrate his status and power.⁴⁸⁹ In asimilar manner, Haile SelassieIused the international organisations to obtain financial and expert assistance for Ethiopia.The effort to transform the Ethiopiane mpire into ac onstitutional monarchyw ith ab ureaucratic apparatus was linked productively with the expansion and increasing operationalisation of international organisations during the 1960sa nd 1970s. International organisations, their expertise, and their assistance programmes werep art and parcel of the expansion of the bureaucratic infrastructure in Ethiopia. In this regard, the option of being am embero fU NESCO became of interest as soon as it was clear thati tw ould promise the Ethiopian governmentf urther access to funds and expertise, in fields of which were considered somewhat foundational for state-building. In all their efforts and statements the Ethiopian delegates stressed that their guiding principle with regard to Ethiopia'sm embership in UNESCO was in "education and science, because these two areas constitute the primary foundationfor development."⁴⁹⁰ Requesting financial and technical assistance to fostereconomic development was an obvious incentive for Ethiopia to join the UN system. External aid had astrategicallyimportant place in Ethiopian state development, and membership in international organisations opened up new possibilities to expand this strategy.⁴⁹¹ The numerous requests which Ethiopia submittedtoUNESCO illustrate how the Ethiopiangovernmentagencies readilys lotted the funding available through UNESCO'sp rogrammesi nto existing or newlycreated vacant places in the administration which domesticresources couldn'ts ufficientlyc over.⁴⁹² The efficient and strategic use of UNESCO experts as ar esource for Ethiopian state-buildingbecomes evident when taking acloser lookatthe high number of requests that the Ethiopiang overnment submitted to UNESCO'sP articipation Programme and other programmes in all sectors in the 1970s: education, science, social sciences,human sciencesand culture, and communication.⁴⁹³ These numbers illustrate the density of foreign aid through UNESCO to Ethiopia during this period: between 1968 and 1970 alone, forty-two UNESCO missions took place in Ethiopia,a mong them four major projects,f inanced by UNDP and executed by UNESCO.B etween 1950 and 1971,1 01 UNESCO fellowships werea warded. The main fields of assistance wereindeededucation and science. Other fieldsincluded heritageconservation and communication.⁴⁹⁴ Statistics show thatthe general amount of technical assistance to Ethiopia rose to over 35 Million USDp er year until 1972.⁴⁹⁵ Technicali nfrastructure, education, economic development,n aturala nd agricultural resources,a nd health weret he key areas of the overall development cooperation and technical assistance. Cultural politics and heritagemaking werealsoestablished in this context.Inall these areas,foreign expertise was key to the institutionalisationa nd establishment of the relevant bureaucracy.
Adiplomatic visit by the Director General René Maheu in 1968, which included several formal and ceremonial meetingsw ith the Emperor Haile Selassie I, further strengthened the ties between Ethiopia and UNESCO.I nt he resulting aide memoire of 1971 UNESCO pledgedfurther assistance to Ethiopia in exchange for Ethiopia promisingt oi mplement an umber of structural reforms laid out in UNESCO'sp rogramme.⁴⁹⁶ Maheu'sv isit to Ethiopia demonstrated how from the beginning the relationship between Ethiopia and UNESCO surpassed the status of aroutine diplomatic effort.Instead, the relationship is exemplary for the com- "On the ground" of the international bureaucracy plexity and degree of entanglement between the work of international civil servants and governmenti nstitutions,p ermeating the UN system from the start.⁴⁹⁷ The common need of both incomingi nternational expertsa nd the emerging Ethiopianb ureaucracy was to increase their operational power.T hese efforts weres imilar to the "self-empowerment" strategies Rosemary O'Leary has observed for US environmental governance. Iargue thather observations on the importance of mid-level career bureaucrats in policy implementation and the "bureaucratic politics behind the legislation"⁴⁹⁸ are just as relevant for international organisations.The workingclimate between UNESCO headquarters,the UNESCO and UNDP regional and field officesa sw ell as the Ethiopiang overnment remainedp roductive and largely uninterrupted throughout the revolutionary decade, primarily because of strongd iplomatic ties, as ort of mutual strategic dependence on operationalw orks to be carried out and the availability of international development funds.

Ethiopian personalities in UNESCO
In the late 1960sand early1970s, Ethiopian-UNESCO relations were fruitfullyextensive.I nt he field of heritage-related activitiesa si no ther areas,t his was not onlyb ecause of the organisational transformations, but also due to influential and proactive individuals.One of them wasA kalework Habtewold, the Minister of Education from 1967-1969, who had alsoacted as the first African President of UNESCO'sG eneral Assemblyfrom 1960 -1962a nd issued the first assistance requestsregarding wildlife conservation. Theotherwas Aklilu Habte, an Ethiopian education scientist who was appointed amemberofthe initial Ethiopian National Commission for UNESCO before being promotedt op resident of Addis Ababa University. He proved to be avery responsive contact in Addis Ababa'sscientific community accordingtothe general correspondence between UNESCO'sr egional office and headquarters.⁴⁹⁹ Aklilu'sa ffinity to UNESCO'sp rogramme and organisational bureaucratic structure alike was complemented by an exceptionally friendlyrelationship with all UNESCO officers. Thisrelationship stands out in the correspondence as ak ey element,r esulting in ap eriod of efficientlyi nitiated UNESCO projects and missions as wella st he adaptation of numerous UNESCO  Hadwen and Kaufmann, United Nations Decision Making,9 ,64.  O'Leary, "The Bureaucratic Politics Paradox",1 .  Memo from Alan Elliott to Director BMS,11.4. 1968, UNESCOX07.21(63)pt. iv;Briefingfor the Director-General, no date,i n: UNESCO X0 7. 21 (63) pt.i v.
programmes and activitiesi nt he early1 970s. Aklilu Habte'sr eputation within the international organisation wasm ost prominentlyc onveyedw hen Director General Amadou-Mahtar M'Bowinvited him to astrategic roundtable about UN-ESCO'sf uture in 1975.⁵⁰⁰ Aklilu Habtealso served as the Chairman of the International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of aGeneral History of Africa and the first meeting of this committee washosted by Ethiopia in 1971.⁵⁰¹ The project for aGeneral History of Africa originated in amotion towards "The Rediscovery of Africa"⁵⁰² in the wake of decolonisation, necessitating "afactual reappraisal of the African Past" as opposed to the dominating colonial narrative of Africa as ap lace without history, one supposedlylacking signs of past civilisations such as political and social institutions of relevance. The project encompassed eight volumes,each dedicated to ad ifferent historical period. Remarkably, this new periodisation defined the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 as adecisive moment in African history,putting it at the beginning of the lastv olume that was dedicated to the period leading up to the time of publicationi n1 993.⁵⁰³ Ethiopia'scommitment to this project wasasign that,despite the relevance of UNESCO as an additional sourcef or technical and financial assistance, there can be no doubt that key figures,such as Aklilu Habte, werethoroughlyinvested in the idea of UNESCO on amoreconceptual and discursive level. Emancipating African heritageand history and the Pan-African idea in order to manifest identity and power in the new globalo rder wereo fs pecific importance,a nd strategicallyemployed by the Ethiopiangovernment to support the historical narrative of Ethiopia as one of Africa'ss trongest and oldest countries.A klilu Habtew as assigned Ministero fC ulturei ne arly1 975.⁵⁰⁴ His personality was the reason whyduringhis tenurethe collaboration between UNESCO and the Ethiopian government would be more fruitfulthan ever before or after.I twas aprolific period for Ethiopian culturalinstitutions in general and for heritage-making in particular. Ethiopia'srelations with UNESCO and the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the preceding conservation programmes need to be understood in the context of the strategic use of foreign resources through the government and in light of the personal relationships that wereexplained above. Several aspects of the relationship between Ethiopia and UNESCO duringt he 1950s,6 0s and 70sa re relevant to the general history of the World Heritage Programme.
Addis Ababa, the new African diplomatic hub for UN-agencies, facilitated a kind of accessibilityb etween Ethiopian government institutions, foreign research experts and UNESCO and UNDP officers that would provec rucial to the intense cooperation between UNESCO and Ethiopia during the 1960s and 1970si ng eneral. The strategic relevance of the Ethiopian-UNESCO relationship and the productive work rate between them functioned to set the general tone for over ad ecade of extensive UNESCO activity in Ethiopia starting with the organisation'soperationalisation phase in 1965, duringwhich the field of heritagemaking would reapextraordinary benefits from the available assistance projects.
An analysis of reports for culturalh eritage-related missions in the database of the UNESCO library and archivesshows the global scale of UNESCO activities in heritage-making that precededt he World Heritage convention. 162c onsultants' reports document shortermissions and largerp rojects in an umber of developing countries until 1980.The activities weres imilar to those undertaken in Ethiopia:m useumsa nd concrete preservation projects,t ouristic exploitation of culturalm onuments for developmentp urposes, suggestions for bureaucratic and legal institutions, proposals for largerp rogrammes and long-term developments. In comparison, the South Americanc ountries of Brazil and Mexico, the Middle Eastern countries Iran and Yemen and the North African countries Tunisia and Moroccow erem ost actively engaged, with al arge number and aw ide rangeo fp rojects.A frican countries south of the Sahara, however,w ereb arely represented in this period. OnlyS enegal and Nigeria receivedt wo missions each, and Sudan one.⁵⁰⁵ Without knowing the circumstances of the cooperation in moredetail it can'tbestated with absolutecertainty, but the situation in Ethiopia seems to stand out among other African countries.The correspondencea nd documentation of the Ethiopian projects certainlyg ives that impression.
 Admittedly, the analysis as wellasthe resultwereonlytentative;inadvanced searchmode on https://unesdoc.unesco.org, Is earched for "words from record:h eritage" and selected "UNESCO" as source and set the datel imit to 1980. Ethiopia,inthe eyes of UNDP and UNESCO representatives, was highlysuitable as at estingground for large-scale development cooperation in the area of heritage-making. In particulart he UNDP staff pushed for Ethiopia as the main base for the establishment of ar egional project,t ogether with the alreadys uccessful UNDP general country programme, as the government promised to be much more receptivet oi nternational cooperationt hano ther African countries.
Foraproposed safeguardingc ampaign for East African heritage, similar to the Nubian Monuments Campaign, an East African Conservation centre for training local expertsw as supposed to be set up in the course of the ongoing UNDP conservation project at major Ethiopian heritagesites.⁵⁰⁶ Ethiopia was supposed to serveasamodel country for preservation of culturalheritage, and foreseen to have akey role as aregional centreofconservation expertise in Africa, much like Indonesia in South East Asia.⁵⁰⁷ It would seem that after more thant en years of consultation and conservation efforts through UNESCO'se xpertsi nE thiopia, the conditions for heritagemaking had matured enough by 1974 to take the next stept owardss haping the Ethiopian national heritagei na ccordancew ith the universal standards of heritage. Yetd espite several preparatory missions, the Ethiopian authorities weres till not prepared to launch the safeguardingc ampaign thatt hey had requested and envisagedm anyy ears ago. As another preparatory step, the seven-year project entitled Presentation and preservation of selected sites was launched in 1975,f undeda nd organised by UNDP and administered by UNESCO.⁵⁰⁸ This project was deemed necessary to build up in the first instance the national capacities for receiving and putting to use international donations for safeguardingt hat would be made available once the campaign would be launched.⁵⁰⁹ The project,listed as UNDP project ETH/74/014, can easilybeconsidered the most important contribution towards the institutionalisationofculturaland natural heritageinEthiopia.I temployed twoexpertsasarchitect restorers for aperiod of five and three years, and work was carried out at selected monuments in Gondar,L alibela, Lake Tana, Axum, Harar and Yeha. The project was termeda  UNDP Country Programme for Ethiopia1 978, in: UNESCO 069:72 (63) UNDP,pt. viii; Plenderleith and Rollet-Andriane, "Regional Centref or Conservation of Cultural Property".  Letter from H. Daifukut oE .A merding,1 7. 6.1974 in UNESCO 069:72 (63) UNDP,p t. i.  UNDP/ETH/74/014,Terminal Report,1 .  The campaign was acknowledgedbyUNESCO'sG eneral Conferencein1 976(resolution 19 C/4.126), but not implemented until 1988;I nternational campaign to safeguardt he principal monuments and sites of Ethiopia-campaign strategya nd action plan 1988 -1997, May1 988, in: ARCCH, 14 -1, UNESCO,F older 1.
"On the ground" of the international bureaucracy "one-of-a-kind development program" ⁵¹⁰ because it waslaunched in the form of cooperation between the Ethiopian governmentand UNDP.I ts erved as am odel project for UNDP,which deemed the strategy of supporting the institutionalisation and shaping the bureaucratic infrastructurea st he most viable element of their overall developmentm andate. The eager receptiveness of the pre-and post-revolutionary Ethiopian governments was supposedt ol ead to as uccessful outcome which would convince other developing countries to agree to similar long-term projects with UNDP,c oncerning the establishment or reorganisation of governmenti nstitutions.
The immediate objective of this seven-year heritageproject was not so much the actual conservation of monuments, but rather to enhance the capabilities of the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sportsinthe administration of antiquities. The associated report stressedh ow embryonic the existing bureaucratic and institutional structure in Ethiopia still was up until the very beginning of the project, and how much UNESCO was involved in building up the moderng overnment structures from the ground. The earlya ctivities were largely concerned with the establishment and operation of the newly founded CRCCH as ac apable organisation: As econdaryo bjective of the project was to promotea ni nfrastructure within which the various activities of surveying sites and monuments could be organised, and furthermore to continue and develop the programmes for the conservation and development of sites and monuments along the "Historic Route" for touristic purposes. The activities included at raining component,i ncluding fellowships for some Ethiopians, and onsite courses in architectural conservation, ar esearch component investigating and dealing with the revival of local lime mortar production and, for the largest part, "restoration of monuments and expanding the Ministry of Culture'sc apability to administer and preserve the national heritage".⁵¹² In manyc ases restoration work had to be conducted from scratch, starting with an inventory,atopographic survey, microbiologicals tudies, mappinga nd aphotogrammetric surveyofthe site. The project alsoincluded vast administrative activities such as building up an ational inventory of antiquities, drafting a more effective legislation and establishingamore effective and frequent communication pattern with relevant international organisations.T he Polish legal expert E. Gasiorowski, commissioned as ac onsultant within the framework of ETH/74/014,presented fullyworded draft legislation as well as acomprehensive to-dolist of recommendations. This list wasalmostall-encompassinginterms of the necessities of heritage-making.First,Gasiorowski suggested arevision of the existing legislation to better address ownership issues of antiquities. Second, in his eyes, he called for more research as necessary precondition for heritage-making in Ethiopia. This would include drawingupaclassified register of historical objects, monuments and art objects. Third, by updating existing export control regulations, he wanted to strengthen the position of the national Museum, so that it would constituteabulwark against the illicit trade and illegal export of antiquities. Fourth, and lastly, he encouraged the training of local specialists in both the preservation and presentation of culturalh eritage.⁵¹³ Despite the political and societalturbulence caused by the regime changein 1974,t he promotion of national heritage, especiallyc ulturalh eritage, fit very well within the political paradigms of botht he old empire as well as the new government in place aftert he revolution. Heritage-making and related international projects were affected by the uncertain situation after 1974,but most representativesofinternational organisations had stayedinthe country throughout the revolution.⁵¹⁴ Overall, the institutionalactivities in conservation werenot disturbed,b ut actuallyr eceivedc ontinuous support: of the cultural heritageofthe Ethiopian people." To ensure this the government insisted on having tighter control over foreign research and conservation activities related to heritage, demanding more elaborate reports on all restoration work, including "an initial photographic record before anyw ork commenced and also af inal photographic report when the work wasc ompleted",⁵¹⁶ ap ractice which had not been followed until then.
Apart from highsecurity risk areas whereworkcould not be undertaken, the grounds for delays of the conservation-projects with UNESCO'sinvolvement were similar to the problems which had occurred before 1974,such as the delayedrelease of government contributions, critical shortageo ft rained local personnel and difficulties in identificationo fc andidates for fellowships.⁵¹⁷ Amajor aim of UNESCO'sdivision of cultural heritagewas to createaninfrastructure for international conservation principles in order to gather knowledge and establish workflowsf or future projects in the field of universal heritage. When UNESCO tried to engagec ountries in conservation, it wasc ommonlyi nhibited by the simple fact thatstate agencies in the countries lacked the capacity to deal with conservation.⁵¹⁸ As as tudyc onducted by UNESCO in 1955 had shown, few developing countries had government institutions responsible for conservation and the standards and methods of institutionalisation varied drasticallyb etween individual countries.⁵¹⁹ It is not surprising then thatinthe text of the World Heritage Convention of 1972, the provision of technicala ssistance was mentioned as an integrala pproach, to help not onlyw ith actual conservation efforts but also with building the necessary infrastructure. In 1972 the World Heritage Conventionwas presented to and adopted by the general conference of UNESCO.René Maheu, the Director General of UNESCO,s tressed the achievement of "harmonizing" naturea nd culture, highlightingt he competing claims for ad efinition of "universal" heritageb yt he various expert circles.⁵²⁰ The conceptual coreo fh eritage-making that was installed as part of UNESCO'ss cope of responsibilities at this convention was scientific knowledge,g uarded by the scientific advisory bodies. These organisations served as gatekeepers and ensured UNESCO'sd efining authority for universal heritage. Initiating this foundation of international expert organisa-tions concerned with naturaland culturalheritageconservation (IUCN,ICCROM and ICOMOS) had resulted in an etwork of international heritagee xperts or a "familyc oncernedw ith heritage"⁵²¹-architects, conservators and environmentalists from the West with an internationalist agenda. ICCROM experts werea ctive in numerous countries.
Forexample, Harold Plenderleith, inaugural director of ICCROM from 1959 -1971,had until then built acareer as an archaeologist,workingwith HowardCarter and Leonard Woolley,and aconservator,including aten-year appointment as the keeper of the British Museum Research Laboratory.⁵²² During and after World WarI Ih ew as involved in activities of the League of Nations' International Museums Office. He also wrote TheC onservation of Antiquitiesa nd Workso fA rt, dubbed "the bible of every conservator"⁵²³ by his colleagueatICCROM, Jukka Jokilehto. ForU NESCO,P lenderleith undertook numerous missions evaluating either individual conservation projects or issuing recommendations concerning national strategies of conservation in ah ost of countries (the United Arab Republic, Albania, Morocco, Malta, India and Pakistan). On other missions he explored the establishment of training programmes and centres in the Asia-Pacific region and East Africa. He developed courses to train conservators at ICCROM, in Rome, and in their home countries and institutions.⁵²⁴ Another like-minded spirit was Sandro Angelini, afounding member of ICO-MOS in 1965and laterthe director of the Italian national commission of ICOMOS. Like Plenderleith, Angelini could look back on abright career in his home country,I taly, whereh ew orked as an architect specialising in the reconstruction of historic towns and buildings,i naddition to being ap rolific painter in his spare time. Between 1967a nd 1979 aU NESCO mandate took him to Ethiopia, Easter Island and Guatemala, Oman, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador,C osta Rica and Java, whereh eu ndertook extensive conservation and restoration works.⁵²⁵ Allt hese efforts targeted sites,c ountries and regions wherealack of  This list of countries serves to indicatethe geographical concentration of conservation missions in developingcountries,but is based onlyonmission reports kept in the UNESCO archives; am oree xhaustive searchi nt he archivesofICCROMwould surelyy ield amorecomprehensive, much longer list.  Bruno, "Ir estauri";s ee also the informationo nt he anonymous website:h ttp://san droangelini.eu/.
"On the ground" of the international bureaucracy funds for conservation prevailed, and conceptualised buildingh eritagei nstitutions from the scratch, not just caring for individual sites and monuments.
To summarise, the 1970swereadecade of consolidation and "manifestation of doctrine"⁵²⁶ for universal heritage. Experts became important as institutionalised gatekeepers of knowledge which was the legitimising base for all of UNES-CO'sa ctions and programmes. Experts in cultural and natural heritage, each in their sphere, collaborated in demonstratingtheir expert knowledge and status in their field wasuniversallyapplicable, thereby feeding the policymakingp rocess behindt he World HeritageC onvention.
Yet, in contrastt ot he universal approach and the international scope, the circle of people involved in the creation of international organisations for the conservation of monuments was small and close-knit,composed almost entirely of experts with ahighacademic reputation such as renowned professors or chief state conservators from countries such as the two official founders of ICOMOS, Pierro Gazzola from Italya nd Raymond M. Lemairef rom Belgium. They aimed for the creation of an etwork thatw ould promotea nd empower their cause and, more importantly, their agency.⁵²⁷ Their class, education and national background was, in the 1950s,relativelyhomogenous, and provided the coreofactors that would set up the principles, ideas and institutional foundations of the international organisations that would be involved in shapingt he global conservation policiesi nt he 60s and 70s.⁵²⁸ They could communicatew ith little effort due to their spatial proximity and shared ideological and academich ome bases, af act which greatlyf ostered the connection, collaboration and rise of the international heritagen etwork. Manye xamples in the correspondence between the culturalh eritaged ivisiono fU NESCO and ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN are written not onlyi na no stentatiouslyf amiliar or friendlyt one, but also include references to personal connections.This collegial atmosphere,c reated by these more informal parts of the overall communication, certainlyi m- Bruno, 42.  PierreGazzola, the first directorofICOMOS,was promoted intohis position by Prof. G. Angelis d. Ossat,one of the main organisers of the Venice charter conference in 1964 and first Directoroft he ICCROM. Gazzola had previouslyw orked with GeorgesH enri Rivière, the founding Director of ICOM, and entertained close collaboration with UNESCO'sHiroshi Daifuku, whowas his successor as programme specialist of the Museums and Monumentsd ivision of UNESCO. Bruno, 8 -10;C ameron and Rössler, "Voices of the Pioneers",186.  Deese, "The New Ecologyo fP ower",2 08;W öbse, "Globales Gemeingut",1 49;R ehling, "Kosmopolitische Geschichtsschreibung",3 92 -93;S imone Schleper'si nsightful description of the environmentalists' network: Schleper, "Life on Earth",3 1-49. proved the workflow and helped to nudge projects in their intended directions.⁵²⁹ These personal connections anchored universal heritagei nthe Western cultural hemisphere, and demonstrate that the universal heritagediscourse was largely a domaino fw hite, male academics from Europe.
 One of manye xamples that occur in the files is the letter from Eduard Sekler to Hiroshi Daifuku, 22.11.1978,ont he occasion of Eduard Sekler coming to Paris for an ICOMOS symposium, in which Sekler wonders whether they will find time for an informal talk related to the Kath-manduV alley and Sukothai, in: UNESCO 069:72 A0 1I COMOS 06.
"On the ground" of the international bureaucracy