Iran’s Communications Shutdown Raises A Governance Question: Does ICOM’s Ethical Language Bind ICOM, Too?
I’m writing this in grief.
As an Iranian-born museologist and the founder of IMPD (International Museum Professionals Day, established in 2014), I maintain that I should never have been placed in the position of having to write this letter.
Alas here we are.
As we mourn the mass death of tens of thousands of Iranians, we are exhausted by the deafening silence of the cultural institutions of the world, including the museum sector that so readily speaks about ethics, dignity, and care when the stakes are comfortable.
Museums trade in memory.
We catalogue, conserve, interpret—and, when we’re honest, argue about what deserves to be remembered and why. Our field is also deeply in love with documents: charters, protocols, principles, codes. They can feel like a stable floor.
But a code is not a floor. It is a claim. And the moment that claim meets the real world—especially a world on fire—is the moment we learn whether an institution has ethics as literature or ethics as practice.
ICOM, the International Council of Museums, frames its Code of Ethics as a baseline obligation, not inspirational wallpaper. It “sets minimum standards,” and membership is an undertaking to abide by them.
Baselines matter most at the edge—when people are at risk.
Iran, January–February 2026: Crisis Under Blackout Conditions
As this is written, Iran is experiencing nationwide protests and a violent crackdown, alongside severe restrictions on internet and telecommunications that multiple watchdogs describe as a communications blackout.
Human-rights organisations argue these shutdowns are not neutral “security measures,” but tactics that can both enable and conceal abuse. Amnesty International has called blanket shutdowns a serious rights violation and warned that cutting communications can intensify impunity by making violations harder to document.
In a blackout, reliable casualty figures are difficult to verify. Reporting has described contested death tolls and mass arrests, with state-aligned accounts and activist estimates diverging sharply. Some reporting indicated partial easing of restrictions by late January—but not a return to stable, open access.
For museum professionals, this is not a mere inconvenience. Museum work depends on: 1) communication; 2) documentation; 3) networks.
When a society is digitally sealed, museum professionals are not just disrupted. They are isolated.
Why This Lands On ICOM’s Desk
ICOM’s Code is not only about object care.
It explicitly ties museum practice to human dignity and human well-being—including in the handling and exhibition of sensitive materials, and in how museums work with contemporary communities.
That ethical language invites an institutional corollary:
If museum practice must promote human well-being, what is ICOM’s duty when its members are trapped inside a communications shutdown amid credible allegations of lethal repression?
This becomes more pointed because ICOM’s newly elected Executive Board for the 2025–2028 mandate includes a Vice-President from ICOM Iran. Not to mention other ICOM Iran members, as well as other international committees and working groups. If ICOM’s ethics are meant to bind more than nameplates, the minimum duty of care begins with publicly acknowledging risk to museum professionals—especially those within its own leadership ecosystem.
To be clear: we are not claiming ICOM has done nothing privately. We can’t know that. But for a membership body, public-facing action is where accountability lives. And as of 2 February 2026, ICOM’s “Declarations and statements” page shows no dedicated public statement addressing Iran’s internal crackdown and communications shutdown.
ICOM Can Speak. It Has. Which Makes Silence A Choice.
International cultural organisations often default to a procedural shield: “We are not a political actor.” But ICOM’s own record complicates this. ICOM does issue public statements when it chooses—including statements naming Iran in other contexts.
_ 19 June 2025: ICOM published a statement naming Iran and Israel, emphasising that in challenging security situations, the “safety and well-being of museum professionals” should be treated as a “top priority.”
_ November 2025: ICOM’s General Assembly adopted a resolution titled “Protection of Museum Collections and Support to Museum Professionals in Times of Crisis,” recognising that crises can isolate national professionals from international networks and urging measures to sustain engagement and communication.
So the issue is not whether ICOM can speak, or whether it recognises isolation as a crisis harm. The issue is whether ICOM will speak when the subject is politically costly.
Why Public Concern Matters Even If ICOM Cannot “Solve” Iran
A statement will not stop bullets. But in a blackout, institutional speech still does real work:
- It reduces isolation. External affirmation is not decorative when communication is constrained; it signals to endangered colleagues that they have not vanished from the international room.
- It clarifies professional norms. If human dignity and human well-being are not just exhibition rhetoric, then the body that enforces the Code must say so when those commitments are under assault.
- It creates a record. In environments where abuses are alleged to be hidden, a public record matters. Silence breeds plausible deniability; speech creates an accountability trail.
The Neutrality Trap
There is a difference between:
- neutrality between political factions (sometimes prudent), and
- neutrality toward human suffering (not neutrality at all—abdication).
ICOM can express concern without endorsing any faction. It already has a template: its June 2025 statement framed safety and heritage protection as non-negotiables. The same factual restraint can be applied inside Iran, grounded in careful attribution and credible human-rights reporting.
What ICOM Should Do Now
Here is a realistic set of actions aligned with ICOM’s own principles—without pretending ICOM has state-like powers.
1) Issue an official public statement on Iran’s crisis conditions affecting museum professionals
- Acknowledge credible reports of lethal violence, mass arrests, and communications restrictions (with attributed sources)
- Express explicit concern for the safety and well-being of museum professionals and cultural workers in Iran
- Call for restoration of reliable internet and telecommunications access as a professional and rights-based necessity
2) Activate a crisis member-support protocol—and publish the pathway
- Provide a clear, low-risk route for members to request urgent support
- Publish guidance on confidentiality, documentation risk, and professional safety under surveillance
3) Provide secure, low-bandwidth contact options
“Support in times of crisis” must work under crisis conditions:
- degraded bandwidth,
- surveillance pressure,
- fear of retaliation.
4) If ICOM chooses silence, make silence accountable
If a public statement is withheld, publish a brief note:
- what was assessed
- what could not be verified
- what support steps are underway
- when the issue will be reviewed again
Membership organisations owe members reasons, not just quiet.
A Credibility Test: ICOM Is Revising The Code
ICOM is in the final phase of a multi-year Code revision and plans to vote on a final draft in June 2026. That makes this moment a test: what is the use of revision if the institution cannot meet the moral intent of the existing Code when members are living through an acute crisis?
Proposed: A “Code of Integrity” For ICOM
If ICOM expects ethics to bind members, it should bind itself, too. A practical institutional complement could include:
- Symmetry of accountability: ICOM holds itself to standards at least as rigorous as those it expects from members.
- Duty of care: credible indicators of risk activate concern for member safety, dignity, and professional well-being.
- No neutrality toward harm: non-alignment with factions does not excuse silence about credible reports of lethal violence, arbitrary detention, or blackout conditions.
- Integrity of voice: where credible evidence indicates large-scale threats, ICOM communicates publicly with factual restraint and ethical clarity.
- Transparency of reasons: when ICOM does not speak, it explains what it assessed, what it cannot verify, what it is doing privately, and when it will reassess.
- Secure member communications: provide secure channels and low-bandwidth guidance for high-risk environments.
- Protection from retaliation: no reprisals for members who raise concerns or request support.
- Annual integrity reporting: publish a yearly summary of crises assessed, statements issued or withheld (with reasons), actions taken, and lessons learned.
ICOM is rightly proud of a Code of Ethics that demands respect for human dignity and the promotion of human well-being. But a code that binds members while leaving the institution free to go quiet in a blackout is not ethics—it is administration. As Iran faces communications shutdown conditions and credible reports of violent repression, ICOM should do what it says museums must do: prioritise the safety and well-being of museum professionals. Speak clearly, act concretely, and adopt an institutional Code of Integrity that makes silence accountable.
Shortly after we published “Where Are You, People?” on MUSEUMVIEWS & on LinkedIn, a group photo with an illegible name of ICOM’s Iranian VP was published on Instagram.