Assembly calls for steps to combat illicit traffic in cultural property.

Assembly calls for steps to combat illicit traffic in cultural property

Reaffirming that the restitution of cultural or artistic treasures to their countries of origin served to strengthen international co-operation and preserve "universal cultural values", the General Assembly on 21 November called on States to pursue bilateral agreements in that area, to prepare inventories of their cultural property, and to adopt or strengthen the necessary protective legislation with regard to their own heritage and that of other peoples.

By resolution 40/19, adopted by a vote of 123-0-15, the Assembly also invited Member States engaged in seeking the recovery of cultural and artistic treasures from the sea-bed, in accordance with international law, to facilitate by mutually acceptable conditions the participation of States that had a historical and cultural link with those treasures.

The Assembly endorsed the opinion expressed at the World Conference on Cultural Policies, held in Mexico City in 1982, that the return of cultural property to its country of origin should be accompanied by the training of key personnel and technicians and the provision of the necessary facilities for the satisfactory conservation and presentation of the property restored.

Member States were also invited to sign and ratify the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

Report: Annexed to the Secretary-General's 21 June 1985 report (A/40/344) was a 1 May 1985 report of the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), noting that the inventory of African cultural property outside Africa, entrusted in 1981 to the International Council of Museums (a Paris-based non-governmental organization), had progressed to the completion of 20,000 entries. The Pacific region had built up the most thorough documentation of its dispersed cultural heritage held in other regions, the report stated.

Following the deposit by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Guatemala, Senegal and the United States of their instruments of ratification or acceptance of the 1970 Convention, the number of States parties to it had risen to 55, the report stated. In addition, the ratification process was said to be well advanced in Australia, France and the Netherlands.

Also detailed in the report were recommendations adopted at the most recent session of UNESCO's Inter-governmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation, held in Athens and Delphi, Greece, in April 1985.

The Committee approved the substance of the draft guidelines for the use of the standard form concerning requests for return or restitution, and considered requests from various States seeking the return of cultural property, including a request by Greece for the return of the Parthenon Marbles (also known as the Elgin Marbles) by the United Kingdom. The matter is the subject of bilateral negotiations.

Recognizing the need for training of specialized personnel and development of infrastructures for protection of movable cultural property, the Committee also recommended to the Director-General of UNESCO the systematic development of locally relevant training programmes and the provision of assistance for the development of museums and conservation facilities. Finally, it called for stepped-up national and international measures to combat illcit traffic in cultural property, and recommended that UNESCO and other agencies continue information activities aimed at clarifying the real nature and scope of the international community's objectives concerning return and restitution of cultural property.

Debate

Iraq said no real progress had been made and no genuine response had been elicited on the return of cultural property to its original owners. All States that had acquired archaelogically precious objects from other countries should enter into bilateral negotiations, with UNESCO's assistance, to reach agreement and organize the process of the return of those artifacts to their legitimate owners.

Nepal said that "owing to the rapacious depand of affluent collectors of antiques and objets d'art, a pernicious breed of traffickers" had been plundering its "treasure chest of cultural property even while decorating the homes of the very affluent and even numerous museums and art galleries abroad". It wanted bilateral negotiations for the return or restitution of cultural property, and international technical co-operation on preparing inventories. "Appropriate steps should in any case be undertaken by UNESCO and the International Council of Museums to curb the ongoing illicit trafficking in cultural property."

Oman said it had been victimized by the plunder of its cultural property that was now scattered around the world in various museums and cultural institutions. Oman had retrieved some items, although much remained outside. Oman was determined to recover its cultural property and to preserve the many works of Omani art which were now in the United Kingdom, Portugal, the United States, France, India, East Africa, South East Asia and China.

Ecuador said the time had come for the return of its artifacts amassed in foreign museums as a result of largescale collecting expeditions. In many cases international museums could participate in that equitable and necessary task of restitution, providing duplicate pieces, or at least copies of unique items. Ecuador was willing to co-operate in a struggle against illicit trafficking in cultural property.

The Byelorussian SSR said the United Nations should encourage UNESCO efforts to promote bilateral negotiations for the return or restitution of cultural property and the drafting of measures to combat illicit trafficking in cultural property, and should take measures to prohibit the illegal export or trade in art objects. Cultural property wad disappearing and was being destroyed in conflicts which had been brought about by the subversive and aggressive actions of imperialism and reaction. Tremendous damage had been done to the cultural heritage of many peoples by fascism. Many cultural objects to this day had not been found or returned. The most reliable means for maintaining cultural property "is to fight for peace, to elimiate the threat of nuclear war, to eliminate the vestiges of colonialism and to end the greed of people who are pilfering the heritage of other peoples".

Gabon considered "the plundering of the cultural heritage of our regions by the colonial system to be a form of genocide the goal of which was to take the very soul of the populations involved. For African countries, "which were not in any way spared this form of genocide", it would only be logical to proclaim their legitimate right to recover their cultural property into which colonial administrators, missionaries, researchers and tourists had made steady inroads illegally for centuries. Like the plundering of their raw materials, the illicit exportation and transfer of cultural property had increased the imbalances in developing countries. "The urgent need to restore this heritage to its legitimate owners is a categorical imperative that will enable our regions to recover their identity".

Peru said that although there were encouraging signs with regard to the return of illicitly appropriated cultural property, progress was also required with regard to the return of such property now in the hands of large museums but not being exhibited. It would also be necessary to think of possible, mutually acceptable ways of dealing with unique objects that represented genuine milestones in the evolution of mankind's culture. Peru required the return to it of products of its culture that were now outside the country.

The United Kingdom said could not accept the principle that cultural property which over the years had been acquired freely and legitimately should be returned to other countries. However, it condemned illicit trafficking in such property, and was sympathetic to the wishes of those countries that wanted to develop and improve their collections. Museums in Britain would be happy to collaborate with such countries in achieving their aims through bilateral contact. Items in British museums belonged to those museums and not to the British Government. Provided that those items were legitimately acquired, there were no grounds in law on which the United Kingdom could order their return.

The Federal Republic of Germany said although it shared the objectives of the resolution's sponsors, it felt that UNESCO was the appropriate body to deal with the matter.

The Syrian Arab Republic said it reserved the right to recover its cultural property plundered by Israel, and its legitimate right to demand the restitution of its cultural property that was taken from its territory, its museums and other collections of antiques "during the foreign occupation and the period of the Mandate". That cultural property dated from very ancient times.