Despite the glitz surrounding their announcement, will anyone remember the new seven wonders of the world, asks Nevine El-Aref On 7/7/7, at 7pm, the New Seven Wonders of the World were announced, the culmination of an 18- month international poll during which members of the public could cast an Internet vote for one of the 77 nominated sites. The only criteria governing the nominations being that they were constructed before 2000 and remain standing. The final list was eventually whittled down to 21 nominated sites, out of which Rio de Janeiro's Statue of Christ the Redeemer, the Great Wall of China, Petra in Jordan, the Colosseum in Rome, India's Taj Mahal, Peru's Machu Picchu and Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid emerged the winners. The results of the poll were presented during a show in Portugal that included appearances by American actress Hilary Swank, Indian actress Bipasha Basu and British actor Ben Kingsley, and performances by Jennifer Lopez and Jose Carreras. Machu Picchu's award was picked up by a man in Peruvian national costume, who held the award up to the sky and then bowed to the crowd with his hands clasped, eliciting one of the biggest cheers of the night. The British daily The Independent of 9 July wrote that "many in the 50,000-member audience at a football stadium jeered when the United States' Statue of Liberty was announced as one of the candidates. Portugal was broadly opposed to the US-led invasion of Iraq. Swiss adventurer Bertrand Piccard, pilot of the first hot-air balloon to fly nonstop around the world, announced one of the winners and briefly hijacked proceedings when he made an appeal for people to combat climate change and stand up for human rights before being ushered off the stage." The campaign to select seven new wonders of the world was launched in 2000 by the Swiss- Canadian aviator, explorer, museum curator and film director Bernard Weber, founder of the Seven New Wonders Foundation which aims to promote cultural diversity by supporting, preserving and restoring important monuments. In recent months voting had gathered pace. The organisers conceded there was no foolproof way to prevent people from voting more than once for their favourite. Anyone logging on to the site was able to vote, with the first seven choices free, and subsequent votes costing $2 each. According to the society's website, the new wonders have one great advantage over their predecessors, the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, of which only the Great Pyramids of Giza remain, and that is that they are protected by UNESCO. Even so, with or without the help of UNESCO, events such as the activities of the Taliban, the occupation and invasion of Iraq and the bombardment of Lebanon, not to mention the wanton destruction of unsupervised sites by treasure-hunters and unharnessed tourists, must be curbed if the world is not to be deprived of its valuable architectural treasures. The whole project, though, managed to attract the disapproval of UNESCO, which keeps its own list of World Heritage Sites. It distanced itself from the campaign, distributing an official press release stating that, "UNESCO's World Heritage programme, which aims to protect world heritage, had no link whatsoever to the current campaign concerning the New Seven Wonders of the World". "Although UNESCO was invited to support this project on several occasions it decided not to collaborate with Weber," the release said, adding that UNESCO's "objective and mandate is to assist countries in identifying, protecting and preserving heritage sites. Acknowledging the sentimental or emblematic value of sites and inscribing them on a new list is not enough. Scientific criteria must be defined, the quality of candidates evaluated and legislative and management frameworks set up. The relevant authorities must also demonstrate commitment to these frameworks as well as to permanently monitoring the state of conservation of sites. The task is one of the technical conservation and political persuasion. There is also a clear educational role with respect to sites' inherent value, the threats they face and what must be done to prevent their loss." Christian Manhart, chief of communication, education and partnership at the World Heritage Centre (WHC), criticised the ballot, saying it sent out a "negative message to countries whose sites have not been retained". "All of these wonders obviously deserve a place on the list but what disturbs us is that the list is limited to just seven," he said, pointing out that "seven were adequate in antiquity because the antique world was much smaller than today, comprising only the area surrounding the Mediterranean." Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni told Al-Ahram Weekly that the project was "absurd" and described Weber as a man "concerned primarily with self-promotion". "Every age has its own wonders but it is the Giza Pyramids that stand out as the wonder of all ages," said Hosni. "This contest will not detract from the value of the pyramids, which are the only real wonder of the world," insisted Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities. The competition, he said, had "no value" because "the masses do not write history". Egyptian officials were furious when the Giza Pyramids were initially included in the competition, describing as "ridiculous" the fact that the only surviving wonder of the ancient world be put to a vote. In April, the competition organisers removed the Pyramids of Giza from their list, granting them ex officio membership as an "honorary" wonder. Hawass believes the new wonders will fade in people's memories once the media hype is over. "After several months ask anyone to name the new seven wonders, they won't be able to remember them. But ask any primary school pupil about the seven wonders of the world he will still list the ancient wonders of the world," he predicted.
