Assembly urges increased efforts for return of cultural property.

Assembly Urges Increased Efforts for Return of Cultural Property

ON 25 November, the Assembly called for increased efforts to achieve the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. The vote on resolution 38/34 was 123 in favour to none against, with 13 abstentions (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States).

Under the resolution, the Assembly invited Member States to draw up, in co-operation with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), inventories of cultural property in their territory and their cultural property abroad; appealed for the conclusion of bilateral agreements for the return of such property; endorsed the view that the return of such property should be accompanied by the training of key personnel and the providing of facilities for conservation and presentation; and invited all States to ratify the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

It also reaffirmed that restitution of such objects d'art contributed to the strengthening of international co-operation and the preservation of universal cultural values.

The Assembly also appealed to Member States to encourage the mass information media and educational and cultural institutions to work for greater and more general conscientiousness with regard to the return or restitution of cultural property to countries of origin.

UNESCO and the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin were commended for their work in various areas including development of infrastructures for the protection of movable cultural property and reduction of illicit traffic in cultural property.

Secretary-General's Report

The Assembly reviewed a report by the Secretary-General (document A/38/456) transmitting a report of the UNESCO Director-General on developments on the return or restitution of cultural property over the past two years. The report also contains the text of proposals by the UNESCO Executive Board to implement the Convention on the illicit movement of cultural property and six recommendations concerning the return of cultural property and reconstitution of historic monuments, made by the World Conference on Cultural Policies, held 26 July to 6 August 1982 in Mexico City.

In his report, the UNESCO Directory-General states that only one Member State--Sri Lanka--had made use of the procedure for return of cultural property defined by the Intergovernmental Committee. That country was conducting bilateral negotiations with the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, some of the nations holding Sri Lankan objects.

A Turin court had awarded the return of a large collection of archaeological objects, mainly ceramics, to Ecuador. The objects, which had been illegally exported to Italy, were returned in the spring of 1983.

The report said negotiations between Iraq and two American museums--the Semitic Museum at Harvard University and the Oriental Institute of Chicago--had resulted in the return of 584 cuneiform tablets to the National Museum in Baghdad in 1982. The return of 1,055 more pieces was expected.

A number of cataloguing efforts had been hampered due to a lack of personnel in the museums of developing countries. Long-term efforts were needed to ensure contact with museum professionals and to launch projects which would enable professionals in isolated museums to be more involved in modern museology, the report said.

Debate

Zaire said each people wanted to protect the originality, knowledge, culture and creative capacity which distinguished it from others. UNESCO's Intergovernmental Committee had done a remarkable job in promoting the return of cultural property to countries of origin. Works of art and documents represented a cultural heritage. Zaire welcomed the co-operation already made in the field and encouraged future co-operation.

Colombia said the right of a country to a cultural heritage pre-supposed a right to its cultural artifacts. Considerable sucess had already been achieved with regard to cultural treasures retrieved from the sea-bed.

Educational institutions should stress the importance of the return of cultural property. The corollary to the return of such objects would be free access of other countries to such cultural property. Colombia said it was trying to maintain its cultural heritage of beautiful colonial architecture and restoring its pre-Colombian native cities.

Ecuador said 12,000 artifacts, many of them pre-Colombian pottery-- had been returned to Ecuador by Italy, following a successful lawsuit. Efforts aimed at such restitution of cultural property showed how the United Nations could harmonize actions of nations in attaining common ends. The return of cultural items to their countries of origin also demonstrated better understanding between industrialized and developing nations.

Democratic Kampuchea said the jewel of the Khmer civilization was Angkor Wat, and the world should be concerned with its fate. It was not only a masterpiece of art. It also represented the soul of the people of Kampuchea, and the people themselves felt bruised when it was damaged. Before the Vietnamese invasion, the monument was in good shape. Journalists had reported that the monuments had been plundered by the Vietnamese army. They were now threatened with permanent destruction because Viet Nam's objective was the annexation of Kampuchea. In an effort to destroy the spirit of the Kampuchean people, the monuments at Angkor would eventually be destroyed.

Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the President of Democratic Kampuchea, had said that regrettably because of the present situation, the proposed UNESCO plan to restore Angkor Wat would place that agency in the position of giving de facto recognition to the Heng Samrin regime. For that reason, Prince Sihanouk said he could not support the project.

Guatemala said it had suffered over the years from despoiling and plunder of archeological and other objects from its Mayan and colonial cultures. In spite of all efforts, there were many artifacts outside the country which had not been returned and many still leaving the country illegally.

The Syrian Arab Republic reaffirmed its right to recover the important cultural properties taken by the Israeli occupation authorities. It also retained the right to request return of cultural property shipped out of Syrian territory during the period of the Mandate and in earlier times, from the third millenium before Christ up to the fifteenth century.

The United Kingdom said it could not accept the principle that cultural property which, over the years, had been acquired freely and legitimately should be returned to other countries. It believed that the great international collections of works of art constituted a unique international resource for the benefit both of the public and of scholars.

Nevertheless, the United Kingdom remained sympathetic to the wishes of countries who wanted to develop and improve their collections, and museums in Britain would be happy to collaborate with those countries.

The Byelorussian SSR supported all efforts aimed at the return and restitution of cultural artifacts. The United Nations should encourage UNESCO's efforts in that area. Colonialism had inflicted often terrible damage on the cultural heritage of many countries. Even today, Israel and South Africa were committing damage to the countries they occupied. The Byelorussian SSR had also been plundered by the Nazis during the Second World War.

Photo: Part of the facade of historic Angkor Wat.