MUN News Flash: Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin.

Arguments Against Restitution: Preservation and Global Heritage

While the case for restitution is compelling, there are also arguments against the widespread return of cultural property. These arguments often center on concerns about preservation, the practicality of returning items, and the idea of a shared global heritage.

• Preservation Concerns

  Some argue that many cultural artifacts are better preserved in the institutions where they currently reside, which may have more resources and expertise to protect them. The return of these items to countries that may lack the infrastructure for proper conservation could risk their degradation.

• Shared Global Heritage

  Another argument is that cultural property, especially items that are centuries old, belongs to the shared heritage of all humanity. Proponents of this view suggest that keeping these items in global museums allows people from around the world to appreciate and learn from them.

• Practical Challenges

  The logistics of returning cultural property can be complex. Determining the rightful ownership of artifacts, especially when records are incomplete or contested, can be difficult. Additionally, the return of certain items could set precedents that lead to widespread demands for restitution, potentially emptying museums and disrupting international relations.

Global Perspectives on Restitution

Different countries have diverse perspectives on the issue of cultural property restitution, shaped by their histories, legal frameworks, and cultural priorities. As MUN delegates, it’s important to understand these varying viewpoints to engage in a well-rounded debate.

• United States – The U.S. often faces calls for the return of Native American artifacts and other cultural items. While the U.S. has supported some restitution efforts, it also advocates for the idea of a global heritage that transcends national borders.

• United Kingdom – The UK, home to institutions like the British Museum, holds many artifacts acquired during the British Empire. The country has been resistant to large-scale restitution, citing preservation concerns and the global heritage argument.

• France and Germany – Both countries have shown a willingness to engage in restitution, particularly regarding artifacts taken from former colonies. France, under President Emmanuel Macron, has initiated significant efforts to return African cultural property.

• Egypt – Egypt has been a vocal advocate for the return of its ancient artifacts, particularly those taken during the colonial period. The return of items like the Rosetta Stone is a significant point of contention.

• India – India seeks the return of artifacts taken during British rule, including the Koh-i-Noor diamond. The restitution of cultural property is seen as part of the broader effort to address the legacies of colonialism.

• China – China has actively sought the return of cultural artifacts taken during the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly those looted during the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion.

• Russia – Russia has historically been less involved in restitution debates but holds many items of cultural significance from other countries. It may prioritize the protection of its own heritage over restitution.

• Brazil, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia – These countries, like many others in the Global South, seek the return of cultural property taken during colonial rule. Restitution is seen as a matter of cultural justice and identity restoration.

• Italy and Greece – Both countries have been active in seeking the return of cultural property, particularly ancient artifacts like the Parthenon Marbles in Greece’s case. They argue that these items are integral to their cultural heritage.

• Australia and Canada – Both countries have supported the return of indigenous cultural property and human remains, seeing restitution as part of reconciliation with indigenous populations.

• Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE – These countries may prioritize the protection and return of artifacts that have been dispersed globally, viewing them as central to their cultural and religious heritage.

• Japan and South Korea – Both countries have sought the return of cultural property taken during historical conflicts, including during the Japanese occupation of Korea.

• Venezuela – As a former colony, Venezuela could align with other countries advocating for the restitution of cultural artifacts taken during colonial periods. Though not as vocal as countries like Egypt or Nigeria, Venezuela might support calls for ethical returns of artifacts to their countries of origin as part of larger efforts to reclaim cultural and historical heritage.
• Portugal – As a former colonial power, Portugal has a significant historical role in the debate over the restitution of cultural property. Portugal could face calls to return artifacts to former colonies such as Angola, Mozambique, and Brazil. Its inclusion could spark discussions on balancing the ethical obligation of returning cultural artifacts with the practical challenges of preservation and ownership.
• Netherlands – The Netherlands has been at the forefront of discussions about the restitution of cultural artifacts, particularly regarding colonial-era acquisitions. The Dutch government has recently returned artifacts to former colonies and would likely advocate for the ethical return of cultural property, setting a progressive example for other former colonial powers.
• Philippines – The country could join other former colonies in advocating for the return of cultural artifacts taken during colonial periods, adding depth to the debate on restitution.
• Venezuela – While cultural restitution might not be a prominent issue, Venezuela could still support the arguments for the ethical return of cultural heritage to rightful owner