COVER -> DAY ONE
 |
Last month a team of archaeologists in Turkey, working against the deadline of a dam inundation, unearthed a spectacular 1st Century BCE stone tablet. They photographed it carefully in situ and then transported it to a local laboratory prior to depositing it in a Turkish museum. This is what the boring, worthy, politically correct --- but nonetheless admirable --- manuals of good practice advocate. In this small matter at least, we are making good progress.
During the same week an intermittent campaign was renewed to restore the Kohinoor Diamond to its 'rightful owners'. The Kohinoor, tourists will recall, resides in the Tower of London among the Crown Jewels of the House of Windsor. It was acquired by the British in 1849 after the Second Sikh War. Here the manuals of good practice have little useful advice.
The Diamond, possession of generations of Moghuls, had a brief sojourn in Persia and was finally acquired by the Sikhs. To complicate matters, the battle after which it entered British hands took place on territory now claimed by Pakistan, so we have three irreconcilable claimants. No matter what the laws of booty and restoration, the Diamond is best kept where it is, for the time being at least. Its return to any of the three claimants would only exacerbate an already inflamed mandala of contention.
Meanwhile, two disputes of a similar nature have been rumbling on. A Graeco-British summit would not be complete without an appeal by the Greeks for the restoration of part of the Parthenon frieze currently held in the British Museum and generally (and somewhat dismissively) referred to as the Elgin Marbles. Whatever the balance of arguments in the past, the Greek claim is unanswerable --- whatever British apologists say about the levels of pollution in Athens.
It must, surely, be intrinsic to sovereignty that people can make their own mistakes and treat their heritage as they will. I can imagine how the British would react, for instance, if the White House somehow vetoed the construction of a new hospital because it would involve tearing down the sometime residence of a Pilgrim Father.
The other, and by far the most serious of these kinds of disputes, concerns the extent to which works of art seized by the Nazis should be restored to their then-owners' families or trustees. There is no easy answer. Some artefacts were seized by the Nazis and then by the Russians who sold them to private collectors in the West who, in turn, sold them or gave them to public museums and galleries.
In some cases the final owners are culpable, in others not, but to disentangle guilt and obligation is not easy and to conclude such matters fairly may cost more than the price of the works themselves.
It is hard to deny a family what it rightfully claims, particularly in the light of the way that many victims of theft were also victims of cruelty and their dear ones slaughtered.
To be legalistic is not necessarily to be just and to be just is not always to be fair. The answer, in theory, is for owner countries to contribute to a global fund which provides financial compensation in exchange for the items initially stolen to be loaned to the institution which currently holds them until such time as they are to be sold. At that point a final and binding settlement should be made. Needless to say, this will not happen.
If rich countries are not prepared to moderate their environmental degradation or feed the hungry they are not likely to spend on maintaining the moral right to what they have already paid for.
In a perverse sort of way I can understand an individual wanting to hold on to an original Picasso more than I can a government wanting to hang on to a piece of land or sovereignty.
I remember once dining with the head of the Central Bank in Guatemala when a General raised the question of his country's claim to Belize, to which my host replied that anybody with sense would simply negotiate rights of access to the Atlantic and forget the sovereignty; it was more trouble than it was worth.
Much the same might be said of the territory in dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The generals and the bankers, however, would be in agreement over the good sense of Mr. Charles Taylor's illegal but highly successful ambition of controlling the diamond industry in neighbouring Sierra Leone. Nothing but re-colonialisation is going to save the peoples of West Africa from decades of deprivation, torture, maiming and early death but, as this will not happen, Mr. Taylor's cruel logic will run its course.
The hard case is Jerusalem. Neither Palestine nor Israel actually requires Jerusalem for purely administrative purposes though they both require it for ceremonial, symbolic and religious reasons. Whether that requirement can only be satisfied by exclusive use is an interesting question.
After shedding and losing much blood over the matter, a variety of Christian sects have established a modus vivendi among themselves and between themselves and a series of political authorities. There is a case for establishing international rule over the tiny area comprising the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock and the Wailing Wall; a border between the two would be physically impractical, would be a source of endemic friction and, worst of all, would cheapen the spiritual experience of both. There is, however, no reason in principle why Israel should not run an administration from West Jerusalem and the Palestinians from the East. There may now be practical reasons why Israel would find this difficult, mainly as a result of aggressive settlement construction contrary to the spirit, at least, of the Camp David Agreement --- but matters would be much simplified if the status of the sacred places could be separated from the other territorial questions.
When you separate essentials from tangentials, problems become much more easy to solve. Who possesses the Kohinoor makes no difference to anyone's life; the coronation of the next British monarch will be no better nor worse for its presence, neither will it help a single soul in South Asia.
If you are dying from a combination of drought and civil war, there is nothing to choose between Ethiopia and Eritrea. If you or your family have survived the Shoah, how much difference will be made by re-possessing a picture? It is the fate of the righteous to be mistreated by the belligerent and the rapacious but that is a better, a more moral, fate than joining in.
