OPINION> Commentary
|
OPINION> Commentary
|
|
Whither global justice?
(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-03-06 07:42 The fate of two animal bronze-heads looted from China hangs in balance because the successful bidder has decided not to pay for the relics. The bidder has a valid reason for doing that: the relics were robbed from China and he is a Chinese. Why should a Chinese national or the Chinese government pay to get back a Chinese relic? As you read this, people could be bidding for Mahatma Gandhi's round glasses, watch, plate and bowl, and sandals in New York City. The Mahatma's family has called the auction an "insult" to the Father of the Indian Nation. But does it matter? Such incidents are becoming more common because auctioneers apparently have the legal right (sic) to sell cultural relics Westerners looted from the countries they once colonized or invaded. But since the international community prides itself for being more civilized today, shouldn't artifacts be returned to their original owners? The answer is surprisingly not positive because the existing world order was established by Western powers, who twisted it to suit their purpose. The same holds true for the international legal framework. There are conventions, for sure, such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects to prevent illegal dealings in cultural relics. But these conventions do not cover relics stolen, looted or acquired illegally before they took effect. The result: the person(s) who looted the bronze-heads from Yuanmingyuan, or the Old Summer Palace, when British and French forces destroyed it in 1860, have the "legal right" to sell them.
Neither national sentiments nor public opinion matter for the so-called art and antique dealers. Or else, the decision of the majority of more than 50,000 French respondents polled by Le Figaro that the bronzes should be returned to China would have generated a sense of propriety in the auctioneer and bidders. And Pierre Berge would not have said he would continue holding them if they were not sold. The lack of an international legal framework to deliver justice in such matters is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. But no matter where the bronzes are and may go, they will remain Chinese property, and the Chinese government and people will keep trying to get them back. Western powers owe the people of their former colonies and the countries they once invaded a debt - and not only for the properties they destroyed or plundered, but also in terms of morality and justice. The legal framework they set up to prevent properties they looted from being returned to their original owners has added to their debt. The existing regulations are against the principle of natural justice. If the demands of the relics' original owners for their return are justified and if people across the world support that but still justice is not delivered, then something is seriously wrong with the current world order. (China Daily 03/06/2009 page9) |
