December 6, 2013
Once wars are over, shouldn’t the spoils of war be returned as an act of reconciliation?
Following David Cameron’s questioning by the Chinese over disputed artefacts in the British Museum, this article looks at some of the other similar cases & how perhaps the ownership of cultural artefacts needs rethinking.
David Cameron signed up on Weibo – a Chinese Social Network
From:
Khaleej Times (UAE)
Render unto Caesar…
6 December 2013BRITISH PRIME Minister David Cameron’s visit to China has evoked at least one reaction from the Middle Kingdom that is going to find resonance in many parts of the world. It is the demand that Britain return the Chinese national treasures looted by the British Army during the sacking of the Forbidden City following a peasant uprising in the 19th century.
The British Museum alone has 23,000 such trophies lifted after an eight-nation Western troop brutally put down the uprising. Thousands more plundered works of art lie scattered around the world. The British Museum has refused to hand over its ill-gotten gains, claiming they have now become part of world heritage and can be enjoyed by more people if they are in a centrally located place like London. If location is the criterion, then the UAE can lay one of the best claims to housing the looted collection.
China is not the only aggrieved party. During its dark days of colonisation by the British, India’s renowned wealth was pillaged by the East India Company, including the famed Koh-i-Noor diamond, that is now part of the British crown jewels. Cameron, facing a demand for its return when he toured India in February, rejected it, saying he did not believe in “returnism”. The same logic about the British Museum’s centrality has been used to refuse to return the Elgin Marbles, the Greek sculptures that were removed from Athens during the rule of the Ottoman Empire. During times of full-scale war the banditry has been even more fearsome. Napoleon is said to have been a role model for the Third Reich of Hitler that sieged Europe, the Soviet Red Army in its turn wrested away treasures from occupied Germany, Japanese troops ransacked East and Southeast Asia while Africa was despoiled by several armies during several wars.But when wars died and peace was declared, no nation ought to claim monopoly on world treasures, especially when they happen to be looted. As Xie Chensheng, a Chinese cultural heritage preservation expert, pointed out, “Cultural wealth can be shared by the whole world, but not the ownership, just like the property rights on software.” Britain should think of initiating talks with other museums in major world cities to rotate such collections. Or else it should stop crying hoarse over the violation of copyrights and intellectual property rights.
- Should Britain return the Koh-i-noor diamond? : March 6, 2009
- Cameron harangued online via Weibo by Chinese angry about looted artefacts in British Museum : December 5, 2013
- The Koh-i-noor and promoting Britain’s trade ties with India : February 26, 2013
- What David Cameron did not apologise for during his trip to India : February 20, 2013
- Could Koh-i-noor diamond be leased back to India? : February 22, 2013
- The Indian government is not asking for the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond : October 19, 2010
- India’s attempts to reclaim lost treasures : September 27, 2010
- David Cameron, Modern India, Returnism, the Koh-i-Noor & the Parthenon Sculptures : February 22, 2013
christos_mak said,
12.06.13 at 2:12 pm
RT @elginism: Blog post: Once wars are over, shouldn’t the spoils of war be returned as an act of reconciliation? http://t.co/bdMlrwhmYC
Dennis Menos said,
12.06.13 at 11:29 pm
Dennis Menos liked this on Facebook.
clickerama1 said,
12.07.13 at 5:58 am
@elginism yes.
Dr.Kwame Opoku said,
01.09.14 at 10:36 am
You are singing my favourite song. I agree entirely with you that the so-called spoils of war should be returned when the war is over. The only question is whether we will be able to convince those from nations that have in the last hundred years been involved in various wars on all continents and have gathered a considerable amount of the cultural artefacts of other peoples. They may think that if these artefacts are to be returned at the end of the war, then there is no point in gathering them.
This would go against their warring traditions and the enormous advantages they derive from this illegal possession and control over the property of other peoples. Besides in some cases, such as Benin, these artefacts have been deliberately targeted before the war to defray the costs of the envisaged military operations and damage allegedly caused by the defeated people. Thus victorious nations will not easily return these looted objects.
It seems the only way to secure the return of these national treasures is to impress upon the holders the seriousness of the owners of the artefacts by putting the holders in a position where the continued holding of the artefacts is no longer profitable. The message must be conveyed in a most forceful manner with accompanying measures to underline the position. Kwame Opoku.