UIA - International Union of Architects today

Recently, it has happened several times that the UIA found itself in the spotlight more than usual. Under the pressure of practice, various forms of participation or even non-participation of the Czech Chamber of Architects in this international organization have been considered.
In discussions within the professional community, it is increasingly confirmed that there is a lack of current and even basic information about this organization, its structure, content, organizational stratification, procedural principles, and primarily its goals. Knowledge that was once vibrant has faded into obscurity, and most importantly – the organization has fundamentally changed over time, just as the surrounding world has changed. Insights that were previously relevant have now essentially lost their validity.

First, in general. The UIA was founded shortly after World War II, when a significant part of Europe was in ruins. Large groups of people were homeless, moving through unknown environments, suffering from deprivation, hunger, diseases, and the loss of loved ones.
The reconstruction of at least simple homes and dealing with the debris was one of the main tasks of the time. There was a strong belief that only an international organization of architects could significantly confront these largely shared problems. Therefore, on June 21, 1948, an international organization was founded in Lausanne, whose indisputable predecessor was the earlier dynamic, initiative-driven, and creative CIAM – inspired by Le Corbusier, Siegfried Giedion, and Hannes Meyer. The founding of the UIA saw the participation of 27 countries, including Czechoslovakia. Like CIAM, it was close to leftist ideals, albeit this time in an institutionalized form and under the very strong moderation of the Soviet Union, the power that suffered the greatest losses in the war and whose territory, together with Germany, was the most devastated.

The organization was no longer a spontaneous grouping of creative architects but essentially represented states and their institutionalized and etatized representations of architects (or conversely, in the case of some Soviet-oriented local unions). Although official declarations claimed otherwise, it is undeniable that especially in the first decades in states under Soviet influence, it was not de facto about spontaneous and free organizations, but about organizations under the direct and complete influence of the prevailing power. This only partially changed in some countries (e.g., in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s).

It increasingly seems that the "golden era" of the UIA was from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. During that time, many member states joined, which to some extent diluted the dominant influence of the Soviet Union and France and provided partial support to liberalizing professional communities in Soviet power satellites. The character of social processes at the time greatly favored organizations of this type, as international cooperation and synergy were just beginning to emerge and develop, still relying on the actions of organizations. The mobility of individuals and informal relationships had not yet developed. In countries behind the Iron Curtain, they were indeed still stuck in rigid schemes. Most individuals could not travel at all.
In 1967, the UIA congress took place in Prague. Vladimir Machonin was elected president at that time. Undoubtedly, this was also thanks to the euphoria and dazzlement that the processes in Czechoslovakia brought to Western intellectual elites.

Already in the 1950s, as the number of states grew rapidly, the UIA was divided into 5 cooperation regions. The regions were created according to individual continents; however, one of them (region II) was no longer based on the logic and nature of geographical division and certainly not on shared kinship and issues related to architecture, construction, and urbanism (which are, after all, dependent on geography, climate, and the structure of society) but according to the then existing division of spheres of influence.

The establishment of region II was defined precisely and only by the course of the "Iron Curtain" [5], which means according to the outcomes of World War II and the spheres of influence that the Soviet Union was able to enforce at the Yalta Conference. That this division had little to do with architecture (which, despite many globally shared principles, has fundamental determinants given by climate, topography, geological conditions, and the resulting local cultural traditions) is evident. The division of work areas, as it arose at the end of World War II, still persists, and nothing indicates that any change will occur in the near future. The Czech Republic will still be categorized in the post-Soviet region, where, from the perspective of the real problems it faces as a challenge, it can address very few meaningful solutions.

The vast majority of the territory of the countries in region II lies in significantly different climate and geological conditions than the Czech Republic. Completely endless plains or very high mountains. Either it is about extreme continental climates or high mountain seismic areas. The structure, genesis, infrastructure, and administration of cities also differ. In dominant prevalence, the territory is characterized by a pronounced continental character – meaning harsh winters and hot dusty summers with much more pronounced seasonal differences than in the Czech Republic. The remaining 30% of inhabited areas are seismically active [6]. Another part of these territories consists of deserts (primarily cold ones). On the other hand, the most populous countries in region II are overflowing with mineral resources, especially fossil fuels, and issues of conservation have much less impact on them [7] than in Central Europe or not at all. There is nothing comparable to the average conditions prevailing in the Czech Republic and determining architecture and construction here. Therefore, the overlap of the main detailed problems is minimal. There is very little likelihood that the time spent in discussions in this region will be transformed into meaningful contributions to the challenges posed by the problems at home.

The division into regions reflects on the activity (measured primarily from the needs of the Czech Republic and its profession of architecture).

The UIA and its regional groupings work in plenary (assembly of national presidents) and in working groups, which are not many – they are not as productive as their names suggest. A significant characteristic of these meetings and actions is that they are ceremonial, somewhat superficial, and cautious. I will try to characterize why this must be so.

Many states grouped in region II are burdened by quite serious neighboring conflicts or at least tensions. Some of the conflicts even have the nature of a state of war (though fortunately, none is an active military conflict at this moment).

These states and entities have the most serious conflicts among themselves:
Israel - Syria (cold war state)
Israel - Palestine
Armenia - Azerbaijan (not fully resolved state of war)
Cyprus - Turkey
Tajikistan - Uzbekistan
Russia - Georgia (state of war de facto occupation of Georgian territory)

Very serious conflicts (tensions):
Israel - Lebanon
Armenia - Turkey
Ukraine - Russia
Ukraine - Belarus

Less serious, but lasting tensions:
Croatia - Slovenia (dispute over the Gulf of Piran and access to international waters)
Croatia - Serbia
Hungary - Slovakia
Hungary - Romania
Russia - Lithuania
Russia - Latvia
Russia - Estonia (restriction of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, former grievances bordering on genocide against Estonians in the 1930s)
Russia - Poland
Greece - Turkey

Some states are permanently divided and dominated by the atmosphere of a mere tolerated state of fragile territorial stability – without legal grounding, which is the case for several states, part of whose territories are "non-states" in Cyprus, Armenia, Israel and Palestine, Georgia, Kosovo (which is just a potential member of region II)

Some states in region II suffer from extraordinary deficits of democracy or even torture and terrorize their citizens, as is the case in Syria and Belarus.

However, this is carried out by the establishment of these states, and what is the involvement of innocent (?) architects in this. This is partly true but only partly. Are we sure that at least some architects are not participating in the shameful events and processes to a lesser or greater extent? Are we sure that the establishment of these extremely undemocratic states will allow unblemished and independently thinking and acting individuals to get into the leading positions of local professional organizations? Or do these individuals also contribute their unwarranted passivity to the persistence of the outlined problems? This cannot be completely ruled out.
What is essential, however, is that this state is present and reflects on the atmosphere of meetings and operability of the entire UIA region II: Especially and fundamentally.
Therefore, all meetings are somewhat superficial and essentially only polite out of necessity and can never (nor can they) delve beneath the surface and into the essence of the matter, lest there be an imminent risk of aggravating any of the bilateral entanglements [8].

The main problem that constrains us and one of the basic tasks of the ČKA is fair access to public tasks (contracts), handling of public space, and goods in general. This is tied to the fight against corruption, clientelism, manipulation, and fraud. It is well known how the Czech professional community, and not just it, suffers from a deficit of architectural competitions, which is a lawful symptom of the state's corruption. Our previous struggle against this state, however valiant, tireless, and strategically inventive, has thus far met only with insignificant successes.
It runs into an almost impenetrable wall and increasingly sophisticated and cunning defense.

It would therefore be entirely to be expected that we would try to seek allies outside the state and Czech society, which – as is increasingly confirmed – truly does not care about improving the state. The fact that it does not care and it is not just a misunderstanding was shown in the case of architectural competitions.

In countless discussions with honest people, where inventiveness, eloquence, intelligent, and informed arguments were utilized, the response was only indifference. It was like throwing peas against a wall. The Czech society, for the most part, has no interest in a transparent environment. It only talks about it. Those who mean it honestly and truly (idealists) unfortunately suffer from ignorance of the convoluted practical processes where everything takes place.

It is unmistakable that the International Union of Architects itself should strive as much as possible for architectural competitions, that is to say, for what has proven itself over long decades and centuries and basically belongs genetically to architecture. The balancing of strength in architectural competitions and fair and transparent access to major challenges of public tasks. That it should be a natural reinforcement that could be leaned upon with confidence. After all, it is one of the most important points in the fight against corruption. An offensive campaign of this kind is not carried out by the UIA, nor is it preparing to do so. It is a vain expectation.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we would receive not only understanding and systemic support but it is actually the opposite. Especially in region II, the majority of those countries are in a disproportionately worse situation regarding the aforementioned topic than the Czech Republic. A vast majority of states with which we should consult and collaborate on the problems that concern us most cannot offer any assistance – they would need it themselves. We can have serious doubts about whether representatives from these states or local organizations of architects share our concern regarding the impurity of public space, corruption, clientelism, and the lack of competitions. Whether it distresses them and burdens them as it does us. It is almost certain that it does not.

The following table serves as an illustration of how matters are set up. The Czech Republic is perceived as severely affected by corruption and clientelism, yet it stands quite decently in that grouping at 8th place, just slightly behind the better ranks. The selection of other countries in this profile is unfortunately so low that it is very unlikely that we would find any assistance for our problems on this platform. This issue is simply not "in." It is just as true concerning copyright and its observance.

		corruption index	state ranking
1.	Estonia	6.5	26
2.	Slovenia	6.6	27
3.	Cyprus	6.3	28
4.	Israel	6.1	30
5.	Poland	5.4	41
6.	Lithuania	5.0	46
7.	Hungary	4.7	50
8.	Czech Republic	4.9	52
9.	Slovakia	4.3	55
10.	Turkey	4.4	56
11.	Latvia	4.3	59
12.	Croatia	4.1	62
13.	Georgia	3.8	68
14.	Palestine (Palestinian Authority)
15.	Romania	3.7	69
16.	Montenegro	3.7	69
17.	Bulgaria	3.6	73
18.	Greece	3.5	78
19.	Serbia	3.5	78
20.	Bosnia and Herzegovina	3.2	91
21.	Kazakhstan	2.9	105
22.	Lebanon ***	2.5	127
23.	Syria ***	2.5	127
24.	Belarus ***	2.5	129
25.	Armenia (initiative member)	2.3	123
26.	Ukraine	2.4	134
27.	Azerbaijan	2.4	134
28.	Tajikistan	2.1	154
29.	Russian Federation	2.1	154
30.	Kyrgyzstan	2.0	164
31.	Uzbekistan	1.6	172
32.	Afghanistan	1.4	176

The table is compiled according to the internationally respected Corruption Perception Index developed by the University of Göttingen and Transparency International.

The UIA, as a global corporation, has many characteristics in common with its paternalistic organizations - the UN and UNESCO. Where a very diverse mix of many states must agree within the entire spectrum of their arrangements, and nearly nothing can be agreed upon. From democratic, wealthy, civilized states to perfect dictatorships, unstable regimes, states in turmoil, and states of war. It is obvious – and has been known for a long time – that reaching a consensus in the mentioned forums is very difficult, if not impossible. Only completely superficial topics remain, on which it is possible to agree without conflict.

The question of withdrawing from the UIA (from the standpoint of the ČKA) is not on the agenda – the General Assembly prohibited it. It would indeed be an extravagant step. On the other hand, it is important to know what is really happening in the UIA, and whether it is reasonable to expect any noticeable contributions.

---