There really are no laws that are internationally recognized (and followed) to stop people from looting during a war. And even if there are now, there certainly weren't any such laws 150 years ago.
As for what logic they stop belonging to the person...because at a certain point, it becomes damn near impossible to track down the original owner.
Is the French government today (much less the private investor who actually owns it) the same French government that stole the property?
Is the Chinese government today the same Chinese government from whom it was stolen?
If we're going to start going back 150 years to address grievances, then the US government needs to give most of its land back to Native American tribes.
In fact, they have MORE of a claim to it than the parties in this case...because it actually WAS the same United States government that stole their land.
And yet governments have recently made efforts to return looted treasure to their rightful owners. I don't see why this would be any different considering we know who A) the owners is and that B) the items in question were indeed stolen.
Hatuey said:Ummm the original owners in this case would be then be people of China. What are you confused about?
Hatuey said:Yes. Or is France no longer an existent country?
Irrelevant. The American government 10 years ago wasn't the same as the American government today. Does that mean they no longer carry responsibility for the government that came before them?
Hatuey said:Extremist logic. These are specific items which were stolen from a specific group of people. How much land belonged to each Native American tribe? Where were the boundaries of their land?
Hatuey said:The U.S. government has had many instances of giving land back to Native Americans.
Hatuey said:Just look at the way they stop digging whenever a new Native cemetery is found.
Hatuey said:Matter of fact the U.S. government has gone even as far back as 40 years to address grievances with groups it considers it did wrong to. Just look at the reparations the Japanese got.
If somebody steals my car and police find it a year after do I no longer have a claim to such a car even if it was sold to somebody else? Seriously saying that China no longer has a legal claim to an object which was not only stolen from China but also that it's present owner knew was stolen from China is ridiculous.
Under what law, rule or logic do stolen items stop belonging to the person they were stolen from over time? Get serious.
That theft is governed by municipal law. This is governed by international law. In 1860, there was no body of law that governed this sort of situation. In other words, it was perfectly legal at the time.
Stealing, looting, plundering whatever you want to call it has NEVER been legal. Try. Again.
The British Museum's legal standing may be solid. International law hasn't kept pace with shifting global views over whether antiquities should be returned to their places of origin - often less-developed countries - or kept in big museums with resources for care and display.
Lucille A. Roussin, who has a doctorate in art history and archaeology as well as a law degree and teaches at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, said there's no dispute when Chinese officials say the bronze rat and rabbit heads that were auctioned by Christie's last week in Paris disappeared in the ransacking of the emperor's Garden of Perfect Brightness during the Second Opium War.
"Did they have a legal claim? No. Did they have a moral claim? Yes," Roussin said. The items in question "were certainly looted. But they were looted at a time when there was no international law on this kind of looted object."
Well, if China were stronger, it could have prevented it. Funny how just a few decades earlier, the Chinese were calling the Europeans barbarians, and then they were getting their butts kicked. They should have abided by previous agreements and not executed a French missionary.
As for the taking of cultural treasures, back in the 19th century, that was a consequence of losing a war. Again, as I said before, it is a GOOD thing they were taken. They would have been destroyed in the 1960s had they NOT been. If CHina wants them back, they will have to negotiate for them. The behavior of this bogus bidder to disrupt the auction was illegal and unethical.
Can your anti-Chinese crap Ludahai, your argument is full of holes and full of vitriol.
Prove the bolded assertion with evidence. Oh that's right, you can't. You can't justify theft with a "maybe". Even though a lot of China's relics were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, there were still a lot that did survive and are on display to this day. You need to brush up on your modern history a little bit before you cast accusations and irrational probabilities.
Sure it has been. It is part of customary state practice and such looting was commonplace during warfare in the 19th century and earlier.
There was nothing false in the statement this is in response to.
1. A French missionary was executed. Fact.
2. China was in violation of earlier agreements with Britain regarding treatment of British-flagged vessels. Probably fact -though one that is disputed.
3. China referred to the British and other Westerners as "Barbarians" just a few decades earlier. Fact.
4. Were China stronger, they could have resisted the West. Fact.
Ludahai said:Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?
Orius said:Prove the bolded assertion with evidence. Oh that's right, you can't. You can't justify theft with a "maybe". Even though a lot of China's relics were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, there were still a lot that did survive and are on display to this day. You need to brush up on your modern history a little bit before you cast accusations and irrational probabilities.
So let's forget the modern relationship that has since formed between these nations on good faith, and simply defer back to 1890's policy so we can keep whatever treasures we have stolen. What a ridiculous argument. Britain and France were only in China to force the Chinese to buy their opium, and now they have the audacity to claim that they had the right to steal from China? They invaded China, China didn't let them in.
Then again, if the Europeans had any morals at all they wouldn't have done the countless crimes against humanity they had in the past 200 years. Just because they spend a lot of PR effort into portraying themselves as saints for humanity, its going to be a bit hard to convince the other 80% of humanity who does not belong to Europe and North America.
France is already paying the price for it anyway, as China's trade mission to Europe skipped France all together while inking 10 billion euros of purchases in Germany alone. If France is willing to pay billions dollars a year for those bronze heads, then fools and their money will soon be parted.
The former imperialist powers are a bunch of thieves, and what's worse is that they are trying to justify their theft under the claim that they are protecting cultural treasures and preserving them. The same disputes are going on with Cambodia, Italy and Egypt right now.
In the late 1850s, the Chinese were violating agreements it had inked, signed and exchanged instruments of ratification. I don't think the French missionary who was executed in Guangxi was invading China.
Did I say they were saints? No. Then again, you are supporting a country that has a lot of blood and crimes on its hands - arguably far worse than anything the British or French did.
Those bronze heads to NOT belong to the French government. The government of France has NO legal basis to loot from a private collection that has been paid for.
THey are ongoing. It is TRUE that they are protecting the treasures - far more so then they would have had they remained in China.
However, there is nothing illegal about what has happened. If you look at my first post in this thread - I state that these countries may have a MORAL claim to make here. Of course, you missed that, didn't you?
Agreements that it was forced to ink or face oblivion. Do you think China really wanted to be forced to accept foreign missionaries into its interior? Do you think it really wanted to open up 5 of its port cities when beforehand it wanted zero economic relations with the West? It did so for survival.
The Imperialists killed way more Chinese in their invasions and subsequent rule than the Chinese ever killed in defending their nation. Your argument is bunk for the simple fact that none of this even relates to or justifies looting. Even if you defer to the argument on imperialist tactics of the day, that does not account for those countries keeping the relics now.
Let's see... Britain invaded how many countries before it became the world's largest empire, forcing nations to accept their wholy unequal treaties and social stratifications? You are comparing British atrocities to China's internal domestic problems? There is no comparison.
I will admit though that all have been bloody monsters at one time or another.
Which relates directly to the argument that I made earlier. The former imperial powers pick and choose which relics will be confiscated and returned. Blackmarket relics are confiscated all the time, especially Egyptian ones... yet who decides which are returned and which aren't? It's completely arbitrary. You claim that priviate property cannot be invaded by government, but this is false given relics that are confiscated by the cultural authorities of the imperial powers.
There needs to be a standardization process of what gets returned. If a foreign government makes a claim about relics that are theirs
I asked you to prove evidence to back up this point. Prove that these treasures would have been destroyed had they remained in China, and also account for why there are so much preserved treasures in China today that did survive the 100 years of insanity? Your 'what ifs' are bogus and easy to debunk.
Even if this were true, they would be Chinese relics destroyed by Chinese hands. It's their own property to do with as they see fit. What gives you or any country the right to tell them what property of theirs they should and shouldn't have access to?
I already acknowledged that there is no international law (yet) to protect cultural relics from being robbed, but the UN is working on one right now and once it is passed those claims will be realized. Of course, the imperial powers are going to fight the legislation tooth and nail because they believe their thefts are legitimate.
I don't trust your arguments Ludahai because you are so vehemently anti-PRC. I would make this identical argument for countries like Egypt, Cambodia, and Italy, all who have had their cultural and historical heritage robbed by the greed of former monarchies. Part of the Parthenon is in London right now and Italy wants it back... I believe their claim is legitimate as well.
It wanted economic relations with the West. It wanted to sell tea, but didn't want to buy anything in return.
[URL="http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/208/READINGS/qianlong.html said:Letter[/URL] from Qianlong Emperor to King George III, 1793"]Yesterday your Ambassador petitioned my Ministers to memorialise me regarding your trade with China, but his proposal is not consistent with our dynastic usage and cannot be entertained. Hitherto, all European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants, have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such has been the procedure for many years, although our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs [merchant firms] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence.
As for signing the agreements. Are you saying it is ok for China to sign agreements and then not follow them? Sorry, but international law does not allow for that.
And of course, the Chinese never invaded anyone, did they?
Ludahai said:Can you cite any instances where the French government confiscated treasures that were in private hands and returned to the countries from which they originated?
There is a legal process. China should try and use it.
I believe I originally said GOOD CHANCE (post #3)- which is undeniably true.
Fine, but now their legal owner is NOT China.
Even if the UN made a law NOW, it would NOT apply to anything from the 19th century. Even international law recognizes a prohibition on ex post facto application of current international law.
I am very anti-PRC, and with good reason. However, the same arguments apply with regards to Egypt and Cambodia.
This is not true. Britain approached the Qing several times requesting trade, and were denied several times while being called Barbarians. See: the McCarthy Expedition. China didn't want to give Britain anything, nor any of the imperial powers.
So before you said there was no international law that could be applied at the time, now you are citing international law as reasoning for imperialist atrocities? How hypocritical can you get. In modern times, any treaty or contract signed under duress is worthy of being voided and made invalid.
After British and French forces destroyed the outpost of Tianjin and headed for the capital to sack Beijing, the Chinese Emperor was obliged to sign the treaties in order to prevent the oblivion of China. If he hadn't signed it, the invasion would have continued until millions more were dead.
Anyone who has studied the subsequent Treaty of Nanjing knows that it is completely unfair and gives the foreigners unlimited access to Chinese soil. It wasn't just the Qianlong Emperor that could not enforce the treaty, but his own people were rebelling on a large scale.
You know what... I'm not going to teach you Chinese history. Read a book. None of this justifies why France should be keeping relics now.
If any country wants to make a claim that China is holding their relics, then I equally support such action. This has nothing to do with me taking China's side in particular... I take the side of any nation that has been robbed by imperialism.
The Hague Convention and the 4th Geneva Convention are post 1907, just after the imperial powers were forced out. However, the UN is currently making a new convention for signing that would acknowledge claims from even earlier.
Great, so you acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that it definitely would have happened. I accept your concession on this point.
Legal from what perspective? Under Chinese law, it would have been illegal to take them in the first place. So according to the law of the country they were stolen from, they should be returned. Too bad there is no international court to acknowledge this.
Like I said, if France wants to alienate Franco-Chinese relations and lose billions in trade, then fools and their money are soon parted.
I don't know the specific details of the most recent convention that is being made, but my assumption would be that it would at least formulate a forum wherein countries could make a claim and have it recognized on an international scale.
This is why I do not place much faith in the former imperial powers, even now. In modern times, they are just as selfish and inconsiderate of their past misdeeds as they were at the time. If any of them truly acknowledged their sins they would do the right thing and give back what is not theirs. But since it was the First and Second World Wars that forced the shutdown of European Imperialism, and not their own free will, I can see why little progress has been made in the reparations department.
Your citation confirms exactly what I said. The Chinese sold tea (and porcelain) but didn't want to purchase anything.
You are guilty of selective reading. I said that there was no international law that could be applied regarding the relics.
Treaties are recognized under internaitonal law and China was arguably in violation of those treaties.
You are correct that in modern international law, treaties signed under duress are regarded as invalid, but there was no such provision in the 19th century.
Well, then China shouldn't have violated its earlier treaties.
If the Chinese Qing government had not been so arrogant in dealing with the Western powers (as indicated in the excerpt you provided earlier) then things would likely have been very different.
You don't have to teach me Chinese history. I am quite familiar with it thank you very much.
France is not keeping the relics. They are in the estate of Yves St. Laurent.
And they may have a MORAL claim, but not a legal one.
Completely different situation. Those were RECENTLY excavated IN VIOLATION of existing international protocols regarding the trafficking of cultural treasures.
Source?
You change the parameters of what was said, and then taunt based on that. Typical.
Too bad that law goes out the window during wartime.
What do you expect the French government to do? Violate its own laws and confiscate the relics? Typical of the Sino/Russo contempt for the rule of law.
I would suggest you find a source since you are the one bringing it up. Again, it is a general principle of international law to not enforce new laws in an ex post facto fashion.
As I said, there is a different between MORAL right and LEGAL right. SOrry you can't see that I HAVE made a distinction between the two and that I am arguing purely from a LEGAL perspective.
I misread your original statement as the Chinese giving away tea in exchange for nothing. Apologies.
There was no international law that could be applied to anything prior to the League of Nations, as no such suprainternational regulatory body existed.
Who regulated international law when the Treaty of Nanjing was signed? The answer is no one.
Yes I know, but that wasn't my point. You were arguing that the Qianlong Emperor should never have signed a treaty that he wasn't willing to agree to. The fact is that he was willing to agree to it, but lacked enforcement oversight and the Chinese rebelled on a wide scale. The sacking of the Summer Palace, where these relics come from, was not because the Emperor was disobeying the treaty, but because the imperial powers were upset that the Chinese were not being controlled. How is that the government's fault?
The imperial attacks weakened the Chinese military and infrastructure considerably... how do you enforce a treaty that is inherently unenforcable? But that was the whole point you see. The imperialist powers knew it was an unbalanced treaty, and the lack of its enforcement gave them entitlements for further invasions and further unfair treaties. This is the same tactic they used in every nation they invaded. They claimed that the occupied government was not doing its job, then continued invading until they were essentially given full control of the country.
You can't use the claim that the Qianlong Emperor didn't honour his agreements and therefore China deserved to be looted. The Treaty of Nanjing and subsequent treaties were unbalanced and unenforceable in the first place.
There was no earlier treaty before the Treaty of Nanjing, as it was a result of the First Opium War.
If, if, if... again, suppositions. You have a clear inability to discuss what did happen as I am continually having to clarify your points on history. Yet you revert to "what ifs" as justification for looting. I cannot prove your what ifs because they do not exist in history.
I personally do not souly blame the imperial powers for what happened in China. The Emperor and his xenophobia also contributed to the events which destroyed most of the ancient mainland... but as you know, Chinese history is incredibly complex and a domino effect, and so you cannot blame it all on one factor.
You have a very slanted and opinionated view of Chinese history which favours your current agenda against the mainland. You continually blame the Qing court for the events which lead to looting, yet any historian who studies China in the post-Ming era knows that the factors were much more complicated than those arising from one man.
It was the French army that took the relics in the first place when they attacked the Summer Palace, so by definition they were looted by France.
You never stated that requirement in your initial criteria. Don't change the goal posts in order to save your sinking ship.
I only remember it from my studies in university... as far as I know it is still in the drafting process. You'd have to look up the Hague Convention protocol amendment. I am still in contact with my old professor and when I next talk to him I'll ask for the source. The idea is to create a sort of international claimant court to address stolen cultural property, under the banner of UNESCO. The Christie auction was already addressed in French court and it was dismissed immediately... but this is their domestic law, and so an international forum should be able to step in to address claims.
Non-sense. You claimed that had the relics stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have likely destroyed them. I asked you to prove evidence for this claim, which, of course, you can't because it's an opinionated supposition. Given that many Chinese relics survived the rise of the Communists and still exist in China to this day, there is no way to know for sure what "might have" happened had the relics stayed.
Court rooms don't operate on what "could have" happened. Your parameters were unrealistic in the first place.
Not really. There are standard war conventions that all signing nations now adhere to. Even war now has rules.
Spare me your sniveling remarks about Communism. I am not a Communist.
I expect the French government, and all nations with stolen property, to do what is right and return property within its borders to other nations who are demanding them back. No demand? No problem. France and Britain have tonnes of outstanding claims from foreign countries that want their heritage back. France itself has claims against Cuba, parts of Africa, etc. for return of its priceless and irreplaceable art. Yet France itself will not acknowledge claims against it for stolen property? Utter hypocrisy.
If relics which are now in private hands were originally looted by any establishment in relation to the French government, then yes, I expect them to be confiscated and returned. What makes those relics safer in a private collection than in a museum where curation is paramount, and where the public can have access to view their own heritage?
I will have to get more info... but again, in the least it would create an official international forum for staking such claims.
I do see the difference... however I have spent most of this debate arguing against your moral imperative which is based on a biased view of Chinese history mixed with your own Sinophobia. If you scroll back to my first post in this thread, I said there is no legal claim, but the countries should do the right thing and return the property. It was you who started blaming the past with normative statements. I am simply trying to balance out your extremism, as moderates tend to do.
The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.
The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.
This is false. The PRC is bound by all agreements made by its Qing predecessors. This is why Hong Kong was not ceded back to China until the 90's, when the treaty expired.
Again, not true. There has been international law for thousands of years, though for most of it, it was regional in nature. Only in the 19th century did it become global - the global international law evolving essentially from Western international law. However, even in pre-modern times, there was international law whether it was in East Asia which was enforced by a hegomonic China or the laws practiced amongst the city-states of ancient Greece.
It is true that there was no suprainternational regulatory body, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a series of rules that international actors were expected to abide by.
The recognized members of the international community.
The emperor would still be responsible for making sure all elements of the government adhered to it. The execution of a missionary by the Guangxi Provincial government would certainly fall under his area of responsibility under international law.
It could be argued that in the late 1850s, the infrastructure of the Qing government had been far more weakened by the Taiping Rebellion than by anything the ENglish and French did in the Second Opium/Archer War.
Sure I can. CHina did not honor its agreements. Under international law, both France and England had the right to redress. The fact that they were unbalanced was irrelevant.
And it was the Treaty of Nanjing's violation that led to the Archer War, which is when these relics came into French hands.
I should be Harry Turtledove. Perhaps I should write a novel about what would have happened had the Ming continued on the course Zhu Di set for it.
Seriously, I am not using the what ifs to justify the looting. Again, I am not defending it MORALLY. I am merely making a legal argument that China's govenment has no legal claim to those relics.
Have I ever blamed it on a single factor? Heck, the Chinese regarded the Qing emperors as foreigners anyway. The Chinese were, as you said, highly xenophobic, which brought on the disaster that China sufferred. If they had talked with the British as equals from the beginning, this would possibly been averted.
Sorry if you think a realistic look at Chinese history is slanted and opinionated. I do NOT hold to the school that foreigners were to blame for all of China's troubles. The Manchus as well as the Han Chinese themselves were actually far more to blame for China's failures than the foreigners ever were.
Sure they were. But they are not today in the possession of the French government.
A large proportion of relics that were known at the time of the CUltural Revolution were damaged or destroyed. I saw quite a lot of evidence of this first hand in Beijing, Ji'nan, Nanjing, Shanghai, Kunming, Shenyang and many other places in China. This simply can not be denied.
No. Court rooms operate on the principle of LAW. China has no LAW in this case that supports its claims, something confirmed by a student of international law cited in an earlier post.
Sure there are. But this is 2009, NOT 1860. The rules have changed.
What would the legal basis of the French government to seize relics that are privately held?
I am not Sinophobic. I love China and the Chinese. I am fascinated by Chinese history, culture, food and so many other things about China. However, my love for China and the Chinese does not blind me to the fact that, like anyone other old culture, there is a tremendous amount of baggage, something that would be looked down upon by today's standards. My gripe against China is not its past, it is the thugs and criminals who rule it in the present.
First statement? True
Second statement? Barely true. The treaty that expired was only in regards to the section that was LEASED after the Boxer Rebellion and the foreign intervention. Had Britain wanted to retain Hong Kong proper, they would have had the legal right to have done so.
You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.
The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.
My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.
I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.
You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.
The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.
My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.
I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?