BY KWAME OPOKU
As for the ownership status of the works, who does not know that Benin is the true owner despite the semantics and legalese by the international community?
We have had enough of these meetings which only end as academic exercise.’
Prince Edun Agharese, Enogie of Obazuwa . (1)
We received a copy of an article entitled Benin Dialogue Group: Benin Royal Museum-: Three Steps Forward, Six Steps Back by Folarin Shyllon in Art, Antiquity and Law (2). This is an interesting article because Shyllon has participated in all the meetings of the Benin Dialogue Group since its inception and therefore has information which many of us are not privileged to have. I have a lot of respect for Folarin Shyllon’s achievements in this area and can say I have read his contributions that are easily available to the normal reader. He explains in the article some of the activities of the Benin Dialogue Group. My own impressions of this group are contained in several articles that are also easily available on the internet. (3)
Towards the end of the above-mentioned article, under the heading, a MISSTEP and in CONCLUSION Shyllon launches a surprising attack on my person, by name, at least 4 times. I intended to ignore these comments because such attacks and responses might distract from the main objective, that is the restitution of looted African art to which both of us are committed but approach in different styles and ways, depending on our personalities and the opportunities we have to make our contributions. But I was advised that since he is making allegations of fact, in the interest of scholarship, somebody must answer, and I may be the best to do so. Besides, he may have been writing these attacks on behalf of a group of persons who cannot tolerate that an African, on his own, without being employed to do so, comments on the activities of persons selected by the museums and their governments to deal with an issue of common concern.
The relevant parts of Shyllon’s article that may not be easily available to all are reproduced below for the reader’s convenience and also to allow quick reference to what is alleged and the answer thereto. (4) We shall also use his headings to facilitate the reader’s search for what we are commenting on as well as indicate the innuendos, insinuations, and hidden insults therein.
A MISSTEP
After criticising the Benin Dialogue Group (BDG) for rejecting the whole notion of restitution, Shyllon writes ‘
’ wholesale rejection of restitution as a matter of interest to the group should not have been so carelessly jettisoned. The point is being made because it gives fodder to some critics of the Benin Dialogue Group. In a reference to the Cambridge Statement, Kwame Opoku wrote: “We have the so-called Dialogue Group on Benin City proposing a strange scheme whereby some of the looted Benin artefacts would be displayed in Benin City, but ownership of the artefacts would be with Western museums. And they find some Africans to approve of such a ridiculous and insulting proposal (emphasis added). (Emphasis by Shyllon)
Shyllon criticises the BDG of which he has been a member or at least, attending all their meetings from its inception. He is here acting as a party and judge in his own case. He faults them for rejecting restitution not so much because this is a wrong attitude ‘The point is being made because it gives fodder to some critics of the Benin Dialogue Group’ and immediately refers to Kwame Opoku.’ So, the BDG gives fodder to Opoku. My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, Eight Edition, OUP,2010 defines fodder as follows:
1. food for horses and farm animals. 2. (disapprovingly) (often after a noun) people or things that are considered to have only one use: Without education, these children will end up as factory fodder (=only able to work in a factory) This will be fodder for the gossip columnist.
Shyllon is apparently angry that I described the proposal for loan of looted Benin artefacts to Nigerians by the very State that looted them or hold them as ridiculous and insulting proposal. I still believe such a proposal is insulting if you consider the people who lost their lives in the invasion of 1897, the burning of Benin City, the general destruction and violence ensuing from the attack and the fact that the State that looted the artefacts has kept them for more that hundred years and is still not willing even to restitute some of the artefacts. This is matter of evaluation of the historical facts and the proposal in the present world context where we have the impression we are moving towards restitution. Shyllon himself mentions the famous Declaration at Ouagadougou by French President Emmanuel Macron who has declared his intention to make restitution of looted African artefacts in French Museums. Shyllon himself refers to the report by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy who have recommended restitution of looted African artefacts in French museums which were not obtained with the consent of the African owners.[PDF] The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
Since Shyllon himself criticises the BDG for rejecting restitution, why does he say that ‘it is ill-advised for him [Opoku] to dub it ridiculous and insulting? They are wrong but I should not criticise them. Why did we then go to university at all if in the end we cannot even criticize those who are wrong. Why? Because they are Europeans who would expect the usual African deference? Are they entitled to expect the same from those who have had the same or similar education as the Europeans they are dealing with?
Shyllon declares that ‘It is possible that Dr. Opoku is unfamiliar with resolution of South Korea French impasse with regard to the Oe-KyuJangGak royal archives’. So Shyllon is accusing me here of ignorance. There may be some restitution cases that I am not familiar with but anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with my hundreds of articles on restitution would be surprised that despite all my activities, I am unfamiliar with the most elementary case that is discussed in French-speaking circles whenever the issue of restitution comes up. I checked the author Shyllon’s sources of information and realized that he consulted and refers to several articles in Elginism. But this is precisely the place where I published a long note on the French-Korean dispute regarding the Korean royal manuscripts which I reproduced below in annex II. (4) Could I be unfamiliar with a case when I wrote a note on the same case nine years ago at the same place Shyllon was looking for information? Did he see my note or did he not?
Besides, Shyllon has discussed the South Korean-French impasse in a contribution he made to Peju Layiwola’s book Benin 1897.com Art and the Restitution Question, pp.61-90. Immediately following Shyllon’s contribution is my own contribution, at pp.91-107, entitled ‘One Counter-Agenda from Africa: Would Western Museums Return Looted Objects if Nigeria and Other African States Were Ruled by Angels? (5) Did Shyllon presume that I would not read his contribution in a book where I also have a contribution?
We presume that Shyllon has seen the notice on the Atelier juridique in Document 3 of the Sarr-Savoy report which he cites in his article. That notice clearly indicates that among the subjects to be discussed on 26 June 2018 at the College de France within the Atelier juridique, Legal Workshop, in the First Session was a paper by Kwame Opoku on the German Guidelines for handling of collections acquired in colonial contexts and in the Second Session a paper on the return of the Korean archives, returned by France to South Korea presented by Stephane Duroy, to be followed by discussions. He would also have noticed that in the Fourth Session in the afternoon, there was to be a reflection on the various models of return with discussants including Kwame Opoku. How can Shyllon then presume that it is possible that Dr. Opoku is unfamiliar with the French-South Korean impasse which was discussed by top French specialists on the issue? (6) A very strange presumption by someone who has read the Sarr-Savoy report.
Professor Shyllon does not refer to the offer of loan of looted Ethiopian artefacts made to the Ethiopians by the Victoria and Albert Museum. (7) We cannot presume that the author Shyllon was not aware of a case that was widely discussed in several papers. If he mentioned the Ethiopian case, he would have had to add that the proud Ethiopians roundly objected to an offer of a loan that was seen as an affront to their history and dignity. (8)
Shyllon states that there is a precedent for what is being proposed to Nigerians regarding the Benin artefacts and it is therefore not a ‘strange scheme’ as Opoku suggested. And it is ill-advised for him to dub it ‘ridiculous and insulting.’ Shyllon is here pleading for the proposed loan. He mentions one precedent. But he must know that one precedent is not enough to establish a case when there are dozens of other precedents that go in a different direction. The attempt to present the offer of loan from the Europeans to Nigeria as something normal is clearly contradicted by all the various cases of restitution that we know. (9)
When Italians, Peruvians, Turks and others asked for the restitution of their looted artefacts, the artefacts were either returned as requested or were denied and nobody ever proposed to them loans of their own looted artefacts.
The British Museum has proposed to the Greeks a loan of the Parthenon Marbles if they would recognize first the legal ownership of the British Museum. The proud Greeks have rejected the ridiculous offer.
When Germans asked the Russians to return German artworks looted by the Red Army towards the end of the last world war, nobody spoke about loans. They were denied. Would they accept a loan of looted German works from the Russians? Yet Germans turn around and propose a loan of looted Benin artefacts to Nigerians. Has anybody ever proposed a loan of looted Chinese artefacts to China? Europeans have too much respect for the Chinese to make such a ridiculous proposal. But for Africans?
As I write this article, I have received information that Italy is returning 800 artefacts to China Did they not think about loans?
If Shyllon does not find the idea of those who looted Nigerian artefacts loaning them to Nigeria ‘insulting,’ I cannot do much about that. Perhaps we should remind ourselves what Professor Tunde Babawale, Director, Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilisation (CBAAC) wrote:
‘There is no question about the fact that Africa (Nigeria inclusive) has had her artefacts mindlessly looted by her colonial masters and in the Nigerian instance, the British. This is why the Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilisation (CBAAC)has remained resolutely committed to the struggle for the return of artefacts looted from every part of the African continent. This has met with responses (especially from the British Museum) that appear not only insulting to our collective sensibility, but which fail to recognise the imperative of moving with time, away from the stereotype of flaunting expertise in being custodians of the wealth of others without consent.’ (10)
Venus of Cyrene looted by Italians in 1915 and restituted to Libya in 2008.
It is ironical that in the article we are discussing, as well as in his previous article published in the same book as Prof. Babawale’s article, Shyllon makes a statement to the effect that: ‘The appropriation of a nations art treasures has always been regarded as a trophy of war which adds to the glory of the victor and the humiliation of the vanquished. The practice has often been condemned in the past. In 1812, Sir Alexander Croke had a collection of prints and paintings returned to the Philadelphia Academy of Arts on the grounds that the arts and sciences are recognised by all civilised countries as forming an exception to the strict laws of war. They are considered as not being owned by a particular nation but as the property of the entire human race. Even when belonging to the State, cultural property must be treated as privately owned, that is, as fully protected against seizure, destruction or defacement. To return them would therefore be in conformity with the law of nations, as practised by all civilised countries.’ (11)
CONCLUSION.
Folarin Shyllon writes in his conclusion as follows.
Is it by refusing to take part in the activities of the Dialogue Group that the antiquities will return? The author Opoku, referred to above, has over the years published many strident articles calling for the return of African artefacts. Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa. Therefore the reproach to ‘some Africans’ engaging in a dialogue with Western museums is misguided. Is half a loaf not better than none at all? An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere. Be that as it may, the dissembling on the issue of restitution in the Leiden Statement is unfortunate. It is a backward step that is quite unnecessary. The Dialogue Group started unambiguously with the twin objectives of restitution and lease. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is quite unhelpful to abandon restitution in the Leiden Statement. Still, the criticism of the Dialogue Group by Kwame Opoku leaves much to be desired. If the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin were today to declare that they would release 100 pieces each of the Benin antiquities in their possession, is there a museum in Lagos, Abuja or Benin City that can adequately house them and ensure their safety and proper handling?’
We will try to disentangle this bag of attacks as far as possible.
a). Is it by refusing to take part in the activities of the Dialogue Group that the antiquities will return?
Nobody has asked me whether they should take part in the activities of the BDG or not but if I should be asked for advice, I would answer as follows: Talk to them by all means but if they declare clearly that the question of restitution is not part of the agenda, you must decide whether it is worth your while to attend such a meeting. Prince Edun Agharese Akenzua, Enogie of Obazuwa, representative of the Oba at the meeting which discussed the so-called Benin Plan of Action in 2013, is reported to have declared that’ there is nothing in the Plan of Action that really addresses restitution ‘.
It is difficult not to agree with the opinion of the prince who is well versed in the issue of restitution of the Benin artefacts, having represented the Oba at various places where the matter was discussed. (12)
b). Then follows a statement by Shyllon which really surprised me. ‘The author Opoku, referred to above, has over the years published many strident articles calling for the return of African artefacts. Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa’
My Oxford Dictionary defines ‘strident’ as follows:
Having a loud, rough and unpleasant sound: a strident voice, strident music
Aggressive and determined: He is a strident advocate of nuclear power, strident criticism.
It is somewhat ironical that calling for justice in a case where a city has been burnt, many people killed as a result of foreign military invasion, one is described as aggressive. More aggressive than the guns and bullets that extinguished many individuals in 1897? But can Syhllon truly declare that
c). Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa?
Regarding Benin bronzes, we recall that one Dr. Mark Walker of Britain returned some Benin artefacts his grandfather had left him to Benin and was received with joy and gratitude. The Nigerian papers were all full of this joyful news and many articles on the issue were published. Shyllon’s views were reported on the handling of the return process by National Commission on Museums and Monuments. (13)
What about the objects the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, returned to Nigeria? What about all the artefacts that were returned to Egypt when Zahi Hawass was in charge of the Antiquities Department there or does Shyllon adopt a Hegelian view that Egypt is not part of Africa? (14) What about all the objects the Nigerian National Commission of Museums and Monuments celebrated as the return of Nigerian treasures? Nigeria Celebrates Return of Lost Treasures: The Lost Nigerian Nigerian Treasures Are Not Yet Back...
These were of course not as a result of restitution in our understanding, but they were objects returned to Nigeria even if they were not treasures as the NCMM would have us believe. What about the Axum obelisk that was restituted by Italy to Ethiopia? What about the Venus of Cyrene that was restituted by Italy to Libya? What about the return of the Makonde mask from Barbier Muller, Switzerland to Tanzania? Shyllon wrote an article on this subject entitled, ‘Return of Makonde Mask from Switzerland to Tanzania: A Righteous Conclusion? (Art, Antiquity and Law Vol 16, Issue1 2011). What about his article entitled ‘Repatriation of Antiquities to Sub-Saharan Africa: The Agony and the Ecstasy? (July 2014 issue of Art, Antiquity and Law)
It is clear, even from his own writings that the assertion that no artefact was returned to Africa in the period that, i.e.2007-2019, cannot be sustained. The evidence against that assertion is simply overwhelming. Since Shyllon was also writing during this period, should both of us stop writing?
Syhllon’s statement that no article was returned in the period is also remarkable from another point of view. Did anybody ever believe that, the looted artefacts would be restituted as a result of an article or articles? We are not so naïve as to overestimate the power of our writing. My writing is not aimed directly at bringing home the looted artefacts for more is required than that. My aim has been to keep the restitution question, especially as regard the Benin treasures, on the agenda of all and in that respect, some suggest that I have achieved a measure of success. My other aim has been to inform our African public about the issues in this field and to equip our youth with sufficient arguments for discussing them.
Most of our governments and their institutions have not considered the importance of public education and in many cases mislead the public. When the question of a loan of the Benin bronzes is discussed, the differences between returning an object on loan and restitution are obscured so that when people hear that Benin bronzes are coming home, they believe they are returning forever and are not informed that the items are on loan for a limited period. Nobody informs us about the length of period of the loan, who pays for the transportation and the cost of the loan and the insurance premium. Nobody tells us about the numbers involved and which museums are sending which objects. The immunity from legal process that was sought for the looted objects to be returned to Nigeria is no longer openly mentioned. Indeed, the holders of the looted artefacts have till today, with a few exceptions, not told us the total number of Benin objects they are holding. We have from time to time established a list of holders of the Benin bronzes and their numbers. Nobody has corrected our numbers. They prefer the public to remain uninformed and yet this will be the minimum we could expect from the holders of the Benin artefacts. We are left in the dark.
Aggressive and determined: He is a strident advocate of nuclear power, strident criticism.
It is somewhat ironical that calling for justice in a case where a city has been burnt, many people killed as a result of foreign military invasion, one is described as aggressive. More aggressive than the guns and bullets that extinguished many individuals in 1897? But can Syhllon truly declare that
c). Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa?
Regarding Benin bronzes, we recall that one Dr. Mark Walker of Britain returned some Benin artefacts his grandfather had left him to Benin and was received with joy and gratitude. The Nigerian papers were all full of this joyful news and many articles on the issue were published. Shyllon’s views were reported on the handling of the return process by National Commission on Museums and Monuments. (13)
What about the objects the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, returned to Nigeria? What about all the artefacts that were returned to Egypt when Zahi Hawass was in charge of the Antiquities Department there or does Shyllon adopt a Hegelian view that Egypt is not part of Africa? (14) What about all the objects the Nigerian National Commission of Museums and Monuments celebrated as the return of Nigerian treasures? Nigeria Celebrates Return of Lost Treasures: The Lost Nigerian Nigerian Treasures Are Not Yet Back...
These were of course not as a result of restitution in our understanding, but they were objects returned to Nigeria even if they were not treasures as the NCMM would have us believe. What about the Axum obelisk that was restituted by Italy to Ethiopia? What about the Venus of Cyrene that was restituted by Italy to Libya? What about the return of the Makonde mask from Barbier Muller, Switzerland to Tanzania? Shyllon wrote an article on this subject entitled, ‘Return of Makonde Mask from Switzerland to Tanzania: A Righteous Conclusion? (Art, Antiquity and Law Vol 16, Issue1 2011). What about his article entitled ‘Repatriation of Antiquities to Sub-Saharan Africa: The Agony and the Ecstasy? (July 2014 issue of Art, Antiquity and Law)
It is clear, even from his own writings that the assertion that no artefact was returned to Africa in the period that, i.e.2007-2019, cannot be sustained. The evidence against that assertion is simply overwhelming. Since Shyllon was also writing during this period, should both of us stop writing?
Syhllon’s statement that no article was returned in the period is also remarkable from another point of view. Did anybody ever believe that, the looted artefacts would be restituted as a result of an article or articles? We are not so naïve as to overestimate the power of our writing. My writing is not aimed directly at bringing home the looted artefacts for more is required than that. My aim has been to keep the restitution question, especially as regard the Benin treasures, on the agenda of all and in that respect, some suggest that I have achieved a measure of success. My other aim has been to inform our African public about the issues in this field and to equip our youth with sufficient arguments for discussing them.
Most of our governments and their institutions have not considered the importance of public education and in many cases mislead the public. When the question of a loan of the Benin bronzes is discussed, the differences between returning an object on loan and restitution are obscured so that when people hear that Benin bronzes are coming home, they believe they are returning forever and are not informed that the items are on loan for a limited period. Nobody informs us about the length of period of the loan, who pays for the transportation and the cost of the loan and the insurance premium. Nobody tells us about the numbers involved and which museums are sending which objects. The immunity from legal process that was sought for the looted objects to be returned to Nigeria is no longer openly mentioned. Indeed, the holders of the looted artefacts have till today, with a few exceptions, not told us the total number of Benin objects they are holding. We have from time to time established a list of holders of the Benin bronzes and their numbers. Nobody has corrected our numbers. They prefer the public to remain uninformed and yet this will be the minimum we could expect from the holders of the Benin artefacts. We are left in the dark.
d). Therefore, the reproach to ‘some Africans’ engaging in a dialogue with Western museums is misguided.
We have no objections to engaging in discussions with Western museums. After all, they are still holding our looted treasures. But if they declare they do not want to talk about what we consider a priority, i.e. the restitution of Benin and other treasures, the question arises whether there is any point in talking to them. Talk to them about building museums which should be none of their business.? Nigeria can surely build her museums without submitting her plans to the imperialist holders of the Benin bronzes. Nigerians are not beggars.
We ourselves have engaged in talks with holders of Benin bronzes and other African artefacts when they have explicitly stated that they are interested in restitution. Shyllon should read carefully again the Sarr-Savoy report. Any insinuation that one is somehow against the Western museums or their governments is of course, ridiculous. The criticisms that I make have been made by others, perhaps not with the same consistency and passion. Shyllon himself has also criticised Western museums without anybody thinking that he does not want to talk to them. (15)
e). Is half a loaf not better than none at all? An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere.
To Shyllon’s question whether half-a loaf is not better than none at all, my answer will be that it depends on what loaf you are talking about and what half is proposed. To stay with the loaf example. If I know that I am entitled to a full loaf as all the others, but when my turn comes, I am offered half-a loaf, I will refuse it and complain that I have been cheated. Especially, if I know my brother and other members of my family or town will present themselves for their entitlements, I would definitely not accept half a loaf for fear of prejudicing the chances of the others. Shyllon does not tell us in terms of artefacts, what will be half a loaf. We hope he is not thinking of relief plaque of a Benin dignitary, with one half, the upper part in Berlin and the lower part, in Hamburg. A real mutilation of a relief. In this case it is surely preferable that we forsake our half loaf and let one museum have the whole relief. This obviously is not part of the thinking of Western museums otherwise the mutilated dignitary would, in the past hundred years, have been put together. Similarly, one knows that the British Museum is not impressed by the argument that the Parthenon Marbles should be re-united in Athens. Indeed, MacGregor and the British Museum seem to believe this is a perfect distribution. (16)
Does Shyllon have here information which we are not aware of? Have the Germans perhaps stated that they would share the bulk of 508 to 580 Benin artefacts they have in Berlin? If half a loaf here refers to half of the 508 pieces, I would gladly accept the 254 pieces. Thus sometimes, half a loaf would be acceptable but not always as Shyllon seems to assume. If we know that Ethiopia would be the next to ask for her artefacts or has already asked for them, half a loaf would be prejudicial to their claims after Nigeria has accepted half-a loaf of what is available. Could the Ghanaians probably, pragmatically, accept half of the looted Golden Mask in the Wallace Collection and thus destroy forever the sculpture said to be the finest specimen of Asante skill in gold works? I can tell Shyllon that if Nigeria goes through with a loan of her looted artefacts, Ethiopia, Ghana and all other African States would be told in future that they will have to accept loans as Nigeria has done and that it would be unfair to Nigeria to give them a better deal. Let us all mark this.
We should have no illusions. Loan of an artefact is not half way or pre-step to restitution. The two concepts are different and any idea that Nigeria/Benin could get a loan now which may in future be converted to restitution is a grave mistake. There is no ground to believe, with all due respect, that those who are not willing to consider restitution now will somehow change their minds in due course and accept restitution. This can only be entertained on the basis of misunderstanding or underestimating the determination not to part with artefacts the Europeans and other Westerners have detained for more than a hundred years. There has never been a better time for restitution than now. Besides, there is no doubt as to which is preferable. Whilst the one puts Nigeria in a position of dependant, the other would make Nigeria owner of the objects. Whereas restitution signifies the beginning of a new era, a loan guarantees the continuation of the old relationship of power and weakness, with all the possibilities of disputes not so much about the initial looting but about the implementation of the loan agreement. The terms of the loan agreement must be strictly observed and any pretence to ownership will surely be corrected.
When the pressure on the European powers and museums is reduced, as it will be, whether we agree to loans or secure restitutions, there will be less interest for them to contemplate restitution; they would have overcome the bad conscience they all seem to have. The ability to mobilize support amongst the African peoples who have not been told the difference between restitution and loans, would be considerably reduced if not non-existent.
Shyllon seems to deliver his ultimate heavy blow in this statement:
e) If the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin were today to declare that they would release 100 pieces each of the Benin antiquities in their possession, is there a museum in Lagos, Abuja or Benin City that can adequately house them and ensure their safety and proper handling?
This question is properly addressed to those officials who are paid to preserve and protect Nigeria’s cultural heritage and have been provided the means to perform their functions. Whether the means are adequate or not, they have to settle that with the Nigerian parliament and authorities. But since the question has apparently been posed to me as a critic, I will try to answer as best as I can.
This question is what I call idle hypothesis. It is like the question, what would you do if you were alone on an island in the Pacific.? We know very well you will never be alone on an island in the Pacific, but it is entertaining to discuss what you would do.
Shyllon knows very well that the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin that have been refusing for ages to return even a single Benin artefact, are not likely to send soon 100 pieces each to Nigeria. If it were not so, why have there been so much discussion on the issue of restitution of Benin artefacts? He knows that in the matter of artefacts, museums do not suddenly make such a declaration. It takes ages to get even the smallest concession from a museum about artefacts. In 2007, during the symposium organized in connection with the exhibition Benin: Kings and Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria, May 9- 3 September 2007, when the Benin delegation said it would be satisfied if each of the Western museums present at the symposium would return one Benin artefact, the then director of the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, now World Museum, Vienna, quickly answered that this was impossible. We challenged the assertions of the director. At least two persons in the present BDG were there who could testify. Indeed, one of them was the curator of the excellent exhibition and edited the magnificent exhibition catalogue. (17)
The hypothesis of the two Western museums declaring their willingness to send 100 Benin pieces each to Nigeria, is idle speculation unless Shyllon as a member of the group has information that is not available to us. Should British Museum and Ethnology Museum seriously make such a declaration, we know that between the declaration and the date of implementation, there would be a period long enough to organize the reception of those pieces in Lagos, Abuja and Benin City. We should not forget that the Benin pieces were looted from the palace of Oba Ovonramwen in 1897. Is the present palace of the Oba not big enough to receive the pieces? We see in this angst about where to put 200 pieces a certain danger of internalization, at least partially, of the Western allegations about the incapacity of Nigerians and Africans to organize properly their affairs or to protect their cultural artefacts. And this comes from those who looted Benin artefacts with military force in 1897. If Shyllon believes or expects that the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, are in the mood to return such large numbers of Benin artefacts to Nigeria, could he kindly ask them to increase the number to 200 pieces each? We would help to find a place for the returned Benin treasures. We should remember though that however Nigeria organizes its museums and other places for the looted artefacts, we would never be able to guarantee their security if superior force be used to loot them. And this is not idle speculation.
But if Nigerian authorities are not ready to receive 200 pieces, the question arises as to what theyhave been doing in the last sixty years during which the restitution of those treasures has been a concern. Since Independence in 1960, every Nigerian Parliament or government has asked for the restitution of Nigeria’s looted artefacts. What have the responsible authorities been doing, making no preparations for those artefacts they are supposed to bring back?
Shyllon could usefully ask such a question rather than throw the question at a critic who is not responsible for preserving and protecting Nigerian artefacts. This is a wrong addressee.
What Shyllon calls my strident articles seem to have impressed some people including the authors of the Sarr-Savoy report who state at page 23 of their report:
‘On the informational website modernghana, a former functionary of the United Nations and a miltant citizen, Kwame Opoku published over 150 articles beginning in 2008 carefully and beautifully documenting a favourable case for the restitution of items of African heritage to Africa’.
Opoku is mentioned at least 9 times in the report. In the meanwhile, my articles have reached 236 at modernghana. Some of my articles will be found at museumsecurity network, pambazuka, africavenir, elginism. Opinions on my articles can also be found in Annex V below listing some writers who have found them useful. (18) One commentator, Paul Barford declared:
‘The Benin campaign of course owes much to the tireless activity and forceful arguments of one academic Kwame Opoku. The relative prominence of African art issues stem from colonial history and the size of the continent. (19)
A Legal Adviser of the National Commission on Museums and Monuments has written in his book Legal and Other Issues in Repatriating Nigeria’s Looted Artefacts (2009)
‘The cerebral pride of Africa, former lecturer in law at the University of Lagos, contemporary of some of our best minds and fervent lover of Nigeria and her heritage, Professor Kwame Opoku in various writings has revealed the locations of these items, he dreams of the day these things will be returned to their rightful owner. By his investigations, almost every European and American museum has some Benin objects. He listed some of the places where Benin bronzes are found and their numbers.’ (20)
Opoku is mentioned at least seven times in the book by Adebiyi who also attends the meetings of the BDG.
We note also that some of Shyllon’s PhD candidates mentioned my strident articles in their thesis and still obtained their doctorates. One of them wrote,’’ There exist researches on the protection of cultural property and also the return and restitution of cultural property which provide important insights into the development of this thesis’. (21).
f). An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere.
We do not know where Shyllon got this idea that I follow what he calls all or nothing approach. He is falling into the same line as Philippe Montebello and others adopted, alleging that we want the West to return all African artefacts. (21) We have consistently argued that a substantial proportion of looted African artefacts would have to be returned from the West and that what is to remain would have to be settled by the African and the Western parties. We have had to explain that ‘some’ does not mean’ all’. We have argued that the Germans must share with Nigeria the 508-580 Benin artefacts that they are keeping in the Ethnology Museum. Is this an all or nothing approach? Does Shyllon read my articles that he is ready and willing to condemn?
g). Be that as it may, the dissembling on the issue of restitution in the Leiden Statement is unfortunate. It is a backward step that is quite unnecessary. The Dialogue Group started unambiguously with the twin objectives of restitution and lease. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is quite unhelpful to abandon restitution in the Leiden Statement.
Shyllon thus states that the BDG was wrong in removing restitution from its agenda but argues that Still, the criticism of the Dialogue Group by Kwame Opoku leaves much to be desired.
What does Shyllon really mean? If the group was wrong in doing what they did, then it must be right to criticise them as he has done. But Opoku too should not be allowed to criticise them? What disqualifies Opoku from saying what Shyllon is allowed to say? Freedom of speech for one and ban on speaking for the other? A strange view from a law professor. Indeed, one could make a serious argument by saying that Kwame Opoku who is an independent critic may say what he likes but Shyllon, being a member or participant in the BDG surely should not publicly attack the group in writing
g) Shyllon ends his article as follows: It is suggested that restitution as a matter of interest to the Group should be reinstated when it convenes in Benin City in 2019. Restitution should at least remain as a vision of the Group, if not, for now, part of its mission.
If Shyllon feels that restitution should remain part of the agenda of the Benin Dialogue Group, what then is his real ground for launching an attack on Kwame Opoku, for criticizing the group’s removal of restitution from its agenda? Is he writing on behalf of some persons who think an African should not feel free to criticize them when they are wrong? An independent-minded African critic irritates those with racist ideas. Shyllon’s comments will now make it difficult for the group to re-insert restitution on their agenda if they do not want to lose all credibility. Without Shyllon’s comments and the consequential response, the group could have declared that their initial removal of restitution from their agenda for that session had been misunderstood by critics and re-insert the topic.
It is my turn to say that Shyllon should not have written the article as he did. He was there when the decision was taken to remove restitution from its agenda. He could have told them during the discussions that it was wrong so to decide. Not having done so, after the meeting, he could have informed the members about his opinion. Now he has publicly shown they were wrong and offered even more grounds than Opoku did to show why they were wrong.
If the Benin Dialogue Group does not want to discuss the restitution of Benin artefacts, who then will do that? Who will discuss restitution of Nok, Igbo Ukwu, Ife, Tsoede, Owo, Esie, Calabar and the others looted Nigerian artefacts in Western museums? And how long will they need to discuss Nigerian artefacts before they come to Ethiopian, Cameroonian, Ghanaian and other African artefacts looted in the colonial period?
We take note of the Shyllon’s statement that Oba Ewuare II ‘delegated his uncle, Prince Gregory Akenzua, `a Professor of paediatrics to represent him’ and that ‘the Kings of Benin clearly know how to pursue claims for the return of their antiquities’.
Let us make no mistake. The decision to remove restitution of Benin artefacts from the agenda of the BDG is a great victory for the West and its museums, sweeping aside with a stroke decades of debates for the restitution of the Benin artefacts. If this succeeds, no other African peoples can ever hope for restitution of their looted artefacts. African scholars must be aware of these implications and decide which side they support. They cannot be neutral. They cannot be for both sides in this debate.
I must put on record my great disappointment at reading Shyllon’s attacks whether he did this on his own accord or on behalf of others who do not feel like doing so openly, does not matter. If they do not want criticism of their group, they should do the right thing. Furthermore, Shyllon cannot play party and judge in his own case. He has taken part in the decisions of the Benin Dialogue Group from the beginning to date. He should convey his views to them but not try to attack others and present himself as an impartial judge, praising others and critizising others. He has offered strong grounds for criticising the decision of the BDG to remove restitution from its agenda.
When I started writing on these issues some years ago, an African friend, at the highest levels of legal and judicial services of international organizations, drew my attention to the writings of a Nigerian scholar and ever since then I have read with interest and profit, all contributions by Folarin Shyllon that are easily available. I have quoted him in several articles although the first time he has referred to my contributions has been to criticise me. This latest article is one I would like to forget and ignore among his otherwise excellent contributions.
We may never know the truth about these unprecedented attacks, but it is disheartening that one of Nigeria’s leading authorities on these questions should write such a piece. He was definitely ill-advised, ill-inspired and his article was ill-conceived.
‘The authors of the Sarr and Savoy report fear that talking about circulation is mainly a way of not talking about the restitution issue…
Yes, and it's true. There is ownership, which must be clear. The issue of conservation capacities should be separated from the legitimate right of ownership. From this point of view, the objects should be considered as on deposit, on loan for a more or less long period, in the museums of the former colonial powers. The rationale of proposing long-term deposits in countries of origin as a solution must be reversed! This means that countries of origin, regaining ownership, will have rights to the images, which are important for different uses, and a say in the circulation of works of which they have regained ownership. Alain Godonou (22)
Kwame Opoku.
Notes
1.On the so-called Benin Plan of Action, http://africanartswithtaj.blogspot.co.at/2013/02/benin-plan-of-action-plotting.html
2. Folarin Shyllon, BENIN DIALOGUE GROUP: BENIN ROYAL MUSEUM-THREE STEPS FORWARD, SIX STEPS BACK
Art, Antiquity and Law, Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, 341-347, Dec.2018.
3. Nigeria To Borrow Looted Nigerian Artefacts From Successorhttps://www.modernghana.com/.../nigeria-to-borrow-looted-nigerian-artefacts-from-s..
Opinion | We Will Show You Looted Benin Bronzes But Will Not Give ...
https://www.modernghana.com/.../we-will-show-you-looted-benin-bronzes-but-will-n...
4. See Annex II
5. Peju Layiwola, Benin 1897.com Art and the Restitution Question,
6. Annex III Document 3 from Sarr-Savoy Report
7. Opinion | Loan Of Looted Ethiopian Treasures To Ethiopia: Must ---https://www.modernghana.com/.../loan-of-looted-ethiopian-treasures-to-ethiopia-must...
8. Anger mounts as UK museum offers to return looted Ethiopian ...
https://ecadforum.com/.../anger-mounts-as-uk-museum-offers-to-return-looted-ethiopia.
9 See Annex IV
10. Preface to Benin 1897. Com. Art and the Restitution Question by Peju Layiwola, 2010, Wy Art Editions, Ibadan.
11. Ibid. p.84, Shyllon,’Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from France to Nigeria: An Unrighteous Conclusion’.
12. Kwame Opoku - BENIN PLAN OF ACTION: WILL THIS MISERABLE ...
https://www.toncremers.nl/kwame-opoku-benin-plan-of-action-will-this-miserable-do...
African Arts with Taj: Proposed loaning of looted-Benin bronzes to ...
https://africanartswithtaj.blogspot.com/2018/.../proposed-loaning-of-looted-benin.htm...
13. Peju Layiwola, Walker and the Restitution of Two Benin Bronzes, By Peju Layiwola ...
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/.../165632-walker-and-the-restitution-of-two-benin...
Kwame Opoku - A BRITON RETURNS TWO LOOTED BENIN ...
https://www.toncremers.nl/kwame-opoku-a-briton-returns-two-looted-benin-artefacts/
Prince Egun Agharesa Akenzua met Mark walker to receive the Benin bronzes
Tajudeen Sowole wrote on his web site, African Arts with Taj as follows:
https://africanartswithtaj.blogspot.com/2014/06/
‘'Prof Folarin Shyllon, Vice Chairman, UNESCO sub-Committee on Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property argued that the NCMM should have handled it with better caution. He noted that Walker did not put into consideration the fact that Benin as at the time of 1897 is different now, and under a nation state of Nigeria.
Shyllon cited an example of foreign countries where similar return of arterfacts happened from private hands and recalled that the artefacts being returned were handed over to the government. “For example, when some artefacts were returned to Ethiopia from a Scottish, the government received the works in Addis Ababa.”
Folarin however stated that given the situation created by Walker’s lack of understanding of the complexity involved and disrespect for ethics of international relation, “the NCMM should have been more careful in managing the situation.”
14. K. Opoku Egyptian Season Of Artefacts Returns: Hopeful Sign ... - Modern Ghana
https://www.modernghana.com/.../egyptian-season-of-artefacts-returns-hopeful-sign-t..
15. Shyllon, ‘Negotiations for the Return of Nok Sculptures from France to Nigeria: An
Unrighteous Conclusion’ in Peju Layiwola (ed), op. cit. pp. 81 -89.
16. The Parthenon Sculptures: The position of the Trustees of the British Museum
The Acropolis Museum allows the Parthenon sculptures that are in Athens (approximately half of what survives from the ancient world) to be appreciated against the backdrop of Athenian history. The Parthenon sculptures in London are an important representation of ancient Athenian civilisation in the context of world history. Each year millions of visitors, free of charge, admire the artistry of the sculptures and gain insight into how ancient Greece influenced- and was influenced by- the other civilisations that it encountered. The Trustees firmly believe that there is a positive advantage and public benefit in having the Sculptures divided between two great museums, each telling a complementary but different story.
British Museum - Parthenon sculptures: position of the British Museum ...
https://www.britishmuseum.org/...us/.../parthenon_sculptures/trustees_statement.aspx
17 More on the Benin bronzes issue - Elginism
www.elginism.com/similar-cases/more-on-the-benin-bronzes-issue/.../746/
18. See Annex III
19. http://culturalpropertyrepat.blogspot.com/2013/
20. Legal and Other Issues in Repatriating Nigeria’s Looted Artefacts, 2009, p.32.
21.https://www.academia.edu/35225943/RETURN_AND_RESTITUTION_OF_CULTURAL_PROPERTY_IN_AFRICAN_STATES_UNDER_THE_1970_UNESCO_AND_1995_UNIDROIT_CONVENTIONS
Afolasade A Adewumi
Foot-note.
67 . Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation. Retrieved 6th July, 2014 fromhttp://icom.museum/programmes/art-and -cultural-heritage-mediation/; Coggins, C.C. 1998. A Proposal for Museum Acquisition Policies in the Future, International Journal of Cultural Property. Vol. 7, No. 2: 434 -437; Mayour, F. Problems and Scope, Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property, Appeal launched in 1994 by Director General of UNESCO; Fighting Illicit Traffic, Retrieved 6th July, 2014 from http://icom.museum/programmes/fighting-illicit-traffic; Opoku K, Blood Antiquities in Respectable Havens: Looted Benin Artefacts Donated to American Museum. Retrieved 6th July, 2014 from http://www.modernghana.com; Opoku, K. Nigeria Reacts to Donation of Looted Benin Artefacts to Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 17 July 2012; Rollet-Andriane, L. Precedents in Return and restitution of cultural property. Museum. Vol XXXI, No.14 – 7; UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects: Explanatory Report. Prepared by the UNIDROIT Secretariat, Uniform Law Review,2001-3: 476 – 564.68, A. loc.cit
69 Prunty, A.P. 1984.Toward Establishing an International Tribunal for the Settlement of Cultural Property Disputes: How to Keep Greece from Losing its Marbles. The Georgetown Law Journal. Vol. 72: 1155 - 1182; 70 Philippaki, B. 1979. Greece, Return and Restitution of Cultural Property, Museum Vol. XXXI, No.1:15 –
17 71 Bakula, C. Combating Trafficking in Cultural Property, The 1970 Convention: Evaluation and Prospects. Background Paper, second edition for participants in the Second Meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 20-21 June 2012; 72 Cordero, J.S. 2003. The Protection of Cultural Heritage: A Mexican Perspective.
Uniform Law Review. NS-Vol. VIII: 565 573
ANNEX I
EXTRACTS FROM FOLARIN SHYLLON, BENIN GROUP DIALOGUE-BENIN ROYAL MUSEUM-THREE STEPS FORWARD, SIX STEPS BACK- Art, Antiquity and Law, Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, 341-347, Dec.2018.
A Misstep
This is not the place to discuss the initiative of President Macron in Ouagadougou, nor the Sarr-Savoy report. Both have however been referred to because the Macron initiative took place before the Benin Dialogue Group meeting in Leiden as well as the commissioning of Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy to look into restitution or loan of African cultural objects to Africa. That being so, the prevailing mood, at least on one side of the debate, should have been taken into account, and the wholesale rejection of restitution as a matter of interest to the group should not have been so carelessly jettisoned. The point is being made because it gives fodder to some critics of the Benin Dialogue Group. In a reference to the Cambridge Statement, Kwame Opoku wrote: “We have the so-called Dialogue Group on Benin proposing a strange scheme whereby some of the looted Benin artefacts would be displayed in Benin City, but ownership of the artefacts would be with Western museums. And they find some Africans to approve of such a ridiculous and insulting proposal (emphasis added).”12 It is possible that Dr Opoku is unfamiliar with the resolution of the South KoreaFrench impasse with regard to the Oe-KyuJangGak royal archives.13. In 1866, the French navy plundered the Oe-KyuJangGak royal archives and the manuscripts/ books in 297 volumes ended up at the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1991, the Koreans began asking for their return.14 It was not until 2010 that President Nicholas Sarkozy decided to return them to South Korea. As usual the librarians and curators were opposed to the idea. They raised the red flag of inalienability of cultural property in French museums and archives.15 A French court ruled that the royal manuscripts belong to the National Library of France. Eventually, a creative solution was found. The manuscripts would go back to South Korea on a lease basis and the lease contract would be renewed every five years. In the words of the French President: “We have agreed [on a plan] in which the lease of the documents will be rolled over every five years.” Consequently, although to this day the manuscripts remain in French ownership, physically they are in South Korea where they are destined to stay forever. There is therefore already a precedent for what has been proposed. It is not “a strange scheme”, as Opoku suggested. And it is ill-advised for him to dub it “ridiculous and insulting”.
Conclusion
From the start the Benin Royal Court has been an active member of the Dialogue Group. During his reign Omo N’Oba Erediauwa sent a representative to the meetings. Now that his son Omo N’Oba Ewuare II is on the throne, he too has been sending a representative to the Group meetings. At the Cambridge meeting, the first since Ewuare II ascended the throne, he delegated his uncle Prince Gregory Akenzua, a Professor of paediatrics to represent him.
12. Kwame Opoku, ‘Macron Promises to Return African Artefacts in French Museums: A New Era in African- European Relationship or a Mirage?’ Modern Ghana, 10 Dec. 2017, 13. Elginism, ‘France to Return S. Korean Royal Documents’ 12 Nov. 2010, ; Elginism, ‘France Will Return Korean Kings’ Books’ 6 Dec. 2010, ; Elginism, ‘French Court Rules on Disputed Korean Manuscripts’ 19 Jan. 2010, ; Elginism, Kelly Olsen, 30 Jan. 2012 ‘Korean Royal Books Looted by French in the 19th Century Get Colourful Welcome’, . 14 See Jongsok Kim ‘The Oe-Kyujanggak Archives’ (2002) VII Art Antiquity and Law 7. 15 Article L. 451-5 Heritage Code (Code du Patrimoine).
Prince Akenzua also represented the Oba at the Leiden meeting. Whilst both sovereigns continue to argue for the return of their ancestors’ antiquities, they felt it imperative for them to send delegates to the meetings knowing full well the limitations of the meetings. Furthermore, when Prince Charles visited Nigeria 6th-8th November 2018, it was reported by Nigerian newspapers that the Oba (King) of Benin requested the Prince of Wales to support the agitation for the return of some of the Benin bronzes to Nigeria.16 What is clear from this, despite what certain critics may say, is that the Kings of Benin clearly know how to pursue claims for the return of their antiquities. Is it by refusing to take part in the activities of the Dialogue Group that the antiquities will return? The author Opoku, referred to above, has over the years published many strident articles calling for the return of African artefacts. Yet no Benin bronze or other looted or stolen African artefact has over this period returned to Africa. Therefore, the reproach to ‘some Africans’ engaging in a dialogue with Western museums is misguided. Is half a loaf not better than none at all? An ‘all or nothing’ approach to restitution has proven to be a road that leads nowhere. Be that as it may, the dissembling on the issue of restitution in the Leiden Statement is unfortunate. It is a backward step that is quite unnecessary. The Dialogue Group started unambiguously with the twin objectives of restitution and lease. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is quite unhelpful to abandon restitution in the Leiden Statement. Still, the criticism of the Dialogue Group by Kwame Opoku leaves much to be desired. If the British Museum and the Ethnology Museum, Berlin were today to declare that they would release 100 pieces each of the Benin antiquities in their possession, is there a museum in Lagos, Abuja or Benin City that can adequately house them and ensure their safety and proper handling? The plan of action agreed to in Cambridge appears, in the meantime, to be a credible way to accept the yearnings of interested and concerned Nigerians in the matter. 16 Adelani Adepegba, ‘Return Our Artifacts, Oba of Benin Tells Prince of Wales’ The Punch, 6 Nov.
ANNEX II
EXTRACTS FROM ELGINISM
Elginism
n. 1801. An act of cultural vandalism
December 8, 2010
French Bibliothèque Nationale staff speak out against return of Korean manuscripts
Posted at 11:17 pm in Similar cases
Following the recent announcement by France’s president that the Bibliothèque Nationale would return numerous looted manuscripts to Korea has led to a backlash by librarians from the BNF. This issue (where the president makes decision without first discussing it with all stakeholders, followed by a subsequent backlash) is very similar to what happened with the Palermo fragment of the Parthenon Frieze in 2006, whereby the Italian president stated that the fragment would be returned, but had not discussed this with the museum in Sicily which held it, leading to a very lengthy delay before the fragment finally arrived in Athens.
The BNF staff have responded by creating a petition against the return of the manuscripts.
REPATRIATION OF LOOTED DOCUMENTS BACK TO KOREA. Dr. Kwame Opoku said,
12.11.10 at 6:51 pm
PROTEST BY OFFICIALS AT THE FRENCH BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONAL
I assume the officials at the French Bibliothèque National are conscious of what they are doing and are aware of the implications of their stand of the return of the looted manuscripts back to Korea.
One is surprised at the very feeble arguments presented for their opposition to the decision by Sarkozy to return the manuscript to Korea:
“It should not be forgotten that copies of most of these manuscripts exist in Korea”
That copies of the manuscript exist in Korea is no argument against the return of the original to the country of origin. The French could also make copies before the originals are returned to Korea. Or are copies only good for Korea, the land that produced the originals but not for France, the land that took them away by military force?
That “the decision was taken against the advice of the Bibliothèque and of the Ministry of Culture” raises issues of competence and authority that can be settled by French lawyers and the courts. This contention does not affect at all the juridical situation regarding the ownership of the manuscripts as far as Korea is concerned.
The argument that the decision
“is sure to strengthen the increasingly sustained claims for the return of cultural property that various countries are making to the archives, museums and libraries in France, Europe, and beyond.”
This may be so but Korea and other States that are claiming the return of artefacts looted from their countries do not need such decision to bolster up their claims. These demands have been made over decades are no novel issues. This is an old argument that if you give in here others will also come and claim their stolen objects. Does the Bibliothèque consists only of looted objects or objects of dubious acquisition?
“- the decision demonstrates the growing and worrying subordination of the law and heritage policy to politic economic and geostrategic considerations, at the risk of threatening the principle of inalienability in respect of public collections.
With all due respect to the protesters, the French should be the last to make such an argument for nowhere else are politics, economics, and geostrategic so intertwined with such considerations as in France. Think of the establishment of the Musee du quai Branly, the Bibliothèque National François Mitterrand and all the various cultural institutions that have been built on political considerations. The very names of these institutions show the political motivations at work.
“The risk of threatening the principle of inalienability in respect of public collections.”
This is no doubt a useful and necessary principle in preserving national cultural property but where it is clearly established that the objects have been stolen or looted, surely that principle should not apply. In any case, there is a procedure under French law for seeking a modification by application to the Minister of culture as has been done recently in the case of certain Egyptian artefacts and also in the case of human remains that were returned to South Africa and also the Maori heads that were returned to the Maoris, in New Zealand...
The protesters should be reminded that in several United Nations and UNESCO resolutions and Conferences, holding countries have been urged to return cultural objects to their country of origin.
ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums – 2001 Edition
Provides that:
6.2 Return of Cultural Property
Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.
6.3 Restitution of Cultural Property
When a country or people of origin seeks the restitution of an object or specimen that can be demonstrated to have been exported or otherwise transferred in violation of the principles of international and national conventions, and shown to be part of that country’s or people’s cultural or natural heritage, the museum concerned should, if legally free to do so, take prompt and responsible steps to co-operate in its return.
The Bibliotheque should have followed these principles in handling the Korean manuscripts.
We have always maintained the view that if museums and libraries would not seek to arrive at acceptable compromises with countries of origin of artefacts, the politicians will eventually step in and act in a way that may not please the specialists but will solve the issue. This is what has happened. Are the French museums and libraries going to learn from the case of the Korean manuscripts and act before politicians intervene in the other pending claims from the African, Asian and American States?
One has the impression that the protesters have forgotten the natural and logical interest of the Koreans in their manuscripts. It may also be questioned on what moral basis the French officials are protesting in a matter in which return is the honourable solution. The protest does not show any concern for the Koreans even though the protesters write about the Bibliothèque “demonstrating its high regard for the heritage of all civilizations across the world and its desire to make this heritage available to everyone. A high regard for all civilizations should move all to support the claims of the Koreans to recover their manuscripts taken away by brutal military force.
Comments
Post a Comment