Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1216530
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 MARCH 2020 OPINION LATE in 2018 President Macron of France, leader of a former colonial pow- er, declared that his country would return 26 looted treasures to the African state of Benin. He was taking delivery of an in- dependent report he had commissioned, which sent shockwaves through muse- ums around the world. The Savoy-Sarr report had recommended that objects removed in colonial times without the consent of their country of origin be per- manently returned, if the country asks for them. According to many art historians the French President had swept aside dec- ades of museum policy. As recent as this year other declarations by a group of mu- seums, defended their collections stress- ing the importance and value of 'uni- versal' museums: "Over time, objects so acquired – whether by purchase, gift or portage – have become part of the muse- ums that have cared for them, and by ex- tension part of the heritage of the nations which house them". Tristram Hunt, Victoria and Albert Museum director, believes that to 'decol- onise' a museum is to 'decontextualise' it. Contrastingly he sees the creation of more universal museums – across Africa, India and the global south – as the real challenge, detaching the "encyclopaedic museum from its colonial preconditions and reimagine it as a new medium for multicultural understanding". Unlawfully removed objects During these months of negotiations with Britain exiting the EU, Greece, backed by Italy, renewed its demands for the restitution of the Parthenon marbles (classical Greek sculptures). Buoyed by the vanity of imperial Britain, Lord Elgin early in the 19th century had removed the marbles to Britain via Malta – where the ship lost its treasures at sea and had to be retrieved – for his personal use, later sell- ing them to the British Museum. Greece has inserted a clause in the EU's draft negotiating a mandate for a trade deal with Britain which calls for the re- turn of "unlawfully removed cultural objects" to their place of origin. In this stance the Mediterranean state appears to have the support of Romantic British poet Lord Byron, who in Childe Har- old's Pilgrimage, laments the removal of the sculptures from the Athenian tem- ple: "Dull is the eye that will not weep to see / Thy walls defaced, thy moulder- ing shrines removed / By British hands." This Greek claim sparked a world-wide controversy. In the UK some see it as 'a joke', others believe that failing to re- spond to this petition Britain would be seen as having become 'so mesmerised by its own lost empire that it is incapable of restoring a past injustice'. Returning removed cultural objects to their country of origin always makes interesting reading. Raphael Vassallo (Great, so when do we get La Valette's sword back?, MT, Feb. 23), focusing on Malta, queries the possible return of La Valette's ornamental sword from France. It is perhaps worthwhile here to highlight a point or two on historical facts as re- gards the sword (and dagger) which are now in the Louvre. The decorative arms, which were given to the Grandmaster by the Spanish king Felipe II after the Is- land's victory of the Great Siege of 1565, were removed by General Napoleon Bon- aparte from Valletta in 1798. First of all, in my opinion, all former powers should seriously consider the re- turn of other nation's national artefacts as they certainly help to further strength- en diplomatic and friendly bonds. Since former colonial powers have more than enough items of their own I see no need for them to hang on to other nation's rel- ics. When La Valette died in 1568 the sword and dagger became the property of the Order. On June 12, 1798 a Convention was signed between General Bonapar- te on behalf of the Republic of France and the Order of the Knights to pass all of their possessions and property to the French Republic. Besides the Spanish ambassador, this international agree- ment was officially signed and sanctioned by four Maltese deputies namely Baron Mario Testaferrata, ex-uditori Benedet- to Schembri and Gio. Nicolò Muscat and ex-counsellor F. T. Bonanni. They were representing some four thousand Maltese literati gathered in Valletta two days be- fore imploring Grandmaster Hompesch to surrender the Island to the French. One observes that up to 1964, this was the only instance, in Malta's long history of changing suzerains, that the Maltese themselves had been invited to partake to any international treaty that concerned their destiny. Claiming ownership of iconic artefacts Therefore the removal of any of the Or- der's treasures from Malta by the French during this period, legally speaking, could not be described as looting. Yet only a few Charles Xuereb Should former empires return removed relics (and do we get the sword back)? Charles Xuereb is a broadcaster and historicist. He is the author of 'France in the Maltese collective memory' The 1814 plaque on top of the Main Guard in front of the President's Palace claiming British possession through the 'love' of the Maltese when prominent Maltese citizens were only informed of the Island's absorption in the British Empire three years later It is bad enough to find one's iconic national treasures in global museums owned by governments from whom one could negotiate their return but it is worse to have to pay huge sums of money to private concerns in order to return removed artistic Maltese artefacts