[MSN] DOES THE REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF STOLEN ART OBJECTS CONSTITUTE A DECLARATION OF WAR?

[Museum Security Network Mailing list]

From: kwame opoku [mailto:k.opoku at sil.at] 
Sent: donderdag 24 januari 2008 21:19
Subject: DOES THE REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF STOLEN ART OBJECTS CONSTITUTE A
DECLARATION OF WAR? 

DOES THE REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF STOLEN ART OBJECTS CONSTITUTE A
DECLARATION OF WAR?

 Maybe because I come from a country which has not been noted for warfare
and aggressive actions, and does not see itself as permanently involved in
wars, it is somewhat difficult for me to understand the vocabulary and
metaphors of war which others use as their daily vocabulary for
communication on many matters, including issues related to culture. Thus the
article by Lee Rosenbaum in the Los Angeles Times of January 21, 2008,
entitled, “Make art loans, not war”, presented me some problems of
understanding and appreciation.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rosenbaum21jan21,1,2
374614.story?coll=la-news-comment)
   
   In many countries, a request for the return of stolen or illegally
acquired objects is regarded as a matter for the law and lawyers as well as
other negotiators. Some American museums have recently returned to Italy
stolen cultural artefacts found in their possession and have been applauded
for doing the right thing. Rosenbaum apparently regards this as the
conclusion of a successful war: “To the victor in the cultural-property wars
belong the spoils”. The American museums involved and the Italian government
did not see themselves as engaging in warfare but in doing what was legally
and morally required. (www.afrikanet.info/)

   Continuing with her military metaphors, Lee Rosenbaum declares: 
“Now that source countries have forcefully asserted their claims, the time
has come to make loans, not war. Everyone wins when cultural objects are
internationally disseminated, studied and appreciated. Even objects that
came into the custody of American museums through questionable means should
be allowed to remain here on long-term loan, in recognition of the principle
that art lovers everywhere should have the opportunity to admire the best of
world art. The ownership, but not the venue, of these objects should change,
and laws like Italy's -- which limits international loans to four years --
should be relaxed. The 15 Italy-bound pieces of Hellenistic silver that will
remain at the Met until 2010 are now labelled "Lent by the Republic of
Italy.” Why not allow them to stay where they are?”

   This statement deserves several comments and we shall begin with the last
sentence because it shows how little many Americans and Europeans understand

the nature of the demands for repatriation of cultural objects by the
countries of Africa, Asia and Latin American. Many of the stolen cultural
objects cannot simply be left where they are even if the owners agree
finally to donate or, lend some of them. It is clear that some of the Benin
bronzes which represent records of Benin history cannot be left where they
are. Similarly, those objects which symbolized power and authority of our
rulers and those objects the seizure of which symbolized the end or defeat
of the African ruler or dynasty cannot be left where they are. The golden
sandals of the Asantehene, King Kofi Karikari (Ghana) and the other gold
items cannot be left in the Wallace Collection in London for ever. These are
not just art objects, as Lee Rosenbaum may think. Many embody the unity and
the spirit of the particular African people. These objects have to be
returned even if symbolically so that our peoples see and feel that the long
exile of their gods and kings has ended. There will have to be a ceremony or
several ceremonies where the objects are physically or symbolically handed
over by the British, French, German , Austrian or American representatives
to the Benin or Nigerian or other representative concerned. Some of the
Benin objects in the British Museum may have to travel from Bloomsbury to
the Victoria Embankment, London and return. It should be noted that the
repatriation of cultural artefacts is not simply the return of goods but the
beginning of a healing process for both the victors and the defeated, for
the aggressors and the victims. Unless this healing process which may take
various forms is taken seriously, the relations of the West and the rest of
the world will always continue to be problematic. There is no way of getting
rid overnight of complexes that have grown over centuries of wars,
aggression and oppression. The collective memories of various African
peoples are still alive with recollections of the oppressive colonial and
slave periods. These have to be addressed.
   Lee Rosembaum writes as if restitution of these objects had been accepted
by all and that the majority of the claims for restitution have been
settled:
 “Now that the source countries have forcefully asserted their claims, the
time has come to make loans, not war”. 
   There has not been any where massive restitution. The British Museum, the
Louvre, Musée Guimet, Musée de Quai Branly, the Ethnologisches Museum
Berlin, the Pergamon Museum, and even the Metropolitan Museum have all not
made any massive restitution. So how can anybody say that “the time has come
to make loans, not war?” Besides why should those who have been deprived of
their cultural objects even think, at this stage, of making loans of the
same objects to those who have been keeping them and still even today
largely refuse to consider the issue of restitution? Is Rosenbaum serious?
How can she make this astonishing suggestion? 

“Even objects that came into custody of American museums through
questionable means should be allowed to remain here on long-term loan, in
recognition of the principle that art lovers everywhere should have the
opportunity to admire the best of world art. The ownership, but not the
venue, of these objects should change
” 
Has the commentator abandoned all morality and decency? Does she really
expect the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America to agree to this? I
think she is also mixing “ownership” and “possession”. Those holding stolen
items and illegally acquired objects may be in “possession” of them but they
are surely not the “owners.” When she writes about “art lovers everywhere”,
she is, like Phillipe de Montebello, only thinking of art lovers in London,
Paris and New York. Art lovers in Bamako, Lagos, Accra and Dakar are not
considered. They can travel thousands of miles to New York and London.
(technorati.com/blogs/aachronym.blogspot.com)
   Rosenbaum has not said a word about compensation for those whose cultural
objects have been detained by the rich museums; she writes about loans but
does not indicate whether these are loans with no costs involved. Would
these loans be retroactive or not? What does she offer the countries seeking
restitution? Or does she think having our cultural objects displayed in New
York, London, Paris and Berlin constitute sufficient compensation?  Maybe
she has not reached that point yet as has been suggested. (
http://tom-flynn.blogspot.com/2008/01/post-euphronios-approaches-to-cultural
.html
   Rosenbaum and those who write on the issue of restitution should remember
that their writings will be read by others in many countries who do not
accept without question such suggestions which are obviously made for the
benefit of museums and other institutions in Europe and America. 

   Many persons recognize now that there is a need for fundamental changes
in relations between western countries and the countries of Africa, Asia and
Latin America with regard to the thousands of cultural objects illegally
acquired or stolen. Proposals on this issue should be seen to be fair to all
sides and above all, be seen to make amends for the past injustices or al
least not to continue in the same line. But can western commentators make
the paradigmatic change required? Rosenbaum and others could also make a
useful contribution in this respect. If only they think of the feelings and
interests of others outside Europe and the United States. 

                                                  Kwame Opoku, Vienna, 
 
24 January, 2008.