A/42/PV.47 General Assembly

I call on the representative of Zaire to introduce draft resolution A/42/L.lO. Mr. BAGBENI ADEITO N~ENGEYA (Zaire) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, the manner in which you have conducted the work of the Assembly since its opening has aroused the admiration and appreciation of all delegations. My delegation is thus confident of the success of the work of the forty-second session of the General Assembly and assures you of its co-operation. My delegation is speaking on agenda item 20, "Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin", for the purpose of evaluating the progress made in the implementation of the various General Assembly resolutions adopted from the twenty-seventh to the fortieth session, and submitting to the Assembly draft resolution A/42/L.lO, of 20 October 1987, which is sponsored by BoliVia, the Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Morocco, Oman, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Zaire. Since time immemorial man, regardless of the colour of his skin, has always wondered about the problems deriving from his existence, his raison d'etre, the purpose of his existence, his future, and his relationship to nature and, thus, tn mystery that lies beyond. Man has therefore used nature and tamed it to satisfy his own needs. Thus can be expldined stone-cutting, work in wood, bronze and iror the construction of huts, caves, bridges, and rafts and the making of the bow, the (Mr. Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya, Zaire) Man has therefore represented himself and also, through his paintings, sculpture, drawings, masks and music, his environment, his landscape, his tools and the animals he knows, as well as his perception and vision of nature, as he perceives them. It is this vision of the world that has given birth to the culture of a people, which includes the whole range of spiritual and material values created and hammered out throughout its evolution in time and space. Thus, each people has its own culture and civilization, and has created its own values which it cherishes and which, express its authenticity and genius. Works of art, manuscripts, documents, archives and other cultural or artistic treasures are precisely those items of cultural values to which each people attaches great importance. There is, therefore, no need to emphasize here the capital contribution of culture and the definition of societies in which the peoples of the world wish to live in harmony. The African States affirmed their recognition of the value of the culture of each veople in 1976, in Mauritius, through the adoption of the cultural charter of Africa. The importance of culture in defining a suitable model of development for our peoples has been emphasized by all the developing countries, and it was in that context that a number of developing countries took an initiative some years ago to bring about the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. In giving expression to that will the President of the Republic of Zaire formally proposed, on 4 October 1973, from this rostrum, the inscription on the agenda of the General Assembly of an item entitled "Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin". Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko stated on that occasion: (Mr. Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya, Zaire) "Among the claims of the under-equipped countries, particularly the former colonial countries, there is an area of vital importance. This relates to the cultural heritage of our countries. During the colonial period we suffered not only from colonialism, slavery, economic exploitation, but also and above all from the savage and systematic pillaging of all our works of art. In this way the rich countries appropriated our best and most unique works of art ••• 11 (A/PV.2140, p. 73) He went on to say: "During the Second World War another circumstance which demonstrates that what I am saying is right is that Hitler pillaged the Louvre and took away the magnificent works of art which were there. When lineration came, even before thinking of signing the Armistice, France did everything in its power to recover its art objects, and that is quite right. That is why I would also ask this General Assembly to adopt this resolution requesting the rich Powers which possess works of art of the poor countries to restore some of them so that we can teach our children and our grandchildren the history of their countries." (p. 76) Since the twenty-eighth session, the (;;eneral Assembly has placed this question on its agenda for consideration and decision and resolutions have been adopted. Following these resolutions, a large number of developed countries have shown their co-operation by agreeing to restore part of the cultural property that they had taken from other countries. The report of the Secretary-General clearly indicates in this regard the results obtained through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, which have facilitated this restoration of the cultural property of certain countries. (Mr. Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya, Zaire) As an example, there was the return to Jordan in 1986 of the "Sandstone Panel of Tyche with the Zodiac" by the Cincinnati Arts Museum in the United cltates through the Department of Antiquities of the Archaeological Museum of Amman. This agreement was concluded through the intercession of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and was the culmination of negotiations started in 1978. There was also the agreement reached in 1986 by the Museum of Archaeology of Antalya in Turkey and the Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles which made it possible to restore to Turkey parts of a sarcophagus representing the 12 labours of Hercules. In this connection, the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of" Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation has invited all member states, museums and similar organizations, to be guided by these agreements and to settle such litigation amicably. Similarly, UNESCO continues through the Intergovernmental Committee its study of the feasibility of a complete inventory of African cultural objects outside Africa, which today amount to more than 20,000 entries - 16,000 photographs and more than 4,000 descriptive texts - as well as microchips. The secretariat of UNESCO continues also to help member States in various ways in their efforts to combat the illicit traffic in cultural property. When it learned that 140 archaeological objects had been stolen from the Mexican National Museum of Anthropology, the Director-General of UNESCO wrote to all the States parties to the Convention calling for their assistance in the search for these objects with a view to their restitution. My delegation is pleased at the increasing number of States acceding to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. From 55 in 1985, they have risen to 61 in 1987, thereby showing the interest of States in the restoration of cultural property to the countries of origin. We hope that other States that are not yet parties to this convention will become parties to it. These elements and the need to ensure the return or restitution of works of art or cultural properties to the countr ies of or ig in have led my delegation to submit to the General Assembly for examination and decision th~ draft resolution in document A/42/L.lO, which: "Reaffirms that tJ1e restitutlon to a country of its ob]ets d I art, monuments, museum pieces, arcl1ives, manuscripts, documents ana any other cUltural or artistic treasures contributes to the strengtnening of international co-operation and to the preservation and flowering of universal cultural values through fruitful co-operation between deveiuped and developiny countries; "Recommends that Member 8tates adopt or strengthen tne necessary protective legislation with regard to their own heritage and that of other peoples; "Requests ~ember states to study the possibility of including in permits for eKcavations a clause requiring archaeologists and palaeontologists to provide the national authorities with photographic documentation of each object brought to light during the excavations inunediately after its discovery~ "Invites Member States to continue drawing up, in co-operation with the United Nations ~ducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, systematic inventories of cultural property existing in their territory and of their cultural property abroad; (Mr. Hagbeni Adeito Nzengeya, Zaire) "Also invites Member States engaged in seeking the recovery of cultural and artistic treasures from the sea-bed, in accordance with international law, . to facilitate by mutually acceptable conditions the participation of States having a historical and cultural link with those treasures; "Appeals to Member States to co-operate closely with the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation and to conclude bilateral agreements for this purpose; ••• "Welcomes the steady increase in the number of States parties to the Convention [of 1970] on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of OWnership of Cultural Property. I1 The draft resolution commends lithe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation on the work they have accomplished, in particular through the promotion of bilateral negotiations, for the return or restitution of cultural property, the preparation of inventories of moveable cultural property, the reduction of illicit traffic in cultural property and the dissemination of information to the public", and it requests lithe Secretary-General, in co-operation with the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-fourth session a report on the implementation of the present resolution; and "Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-fourth session the item entitled 'Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin l ." My delegation hopes that this draft resolution, of which Egypt is also a sponsor,. will receive the approval of all delegations. Mr. BADAWI (Egypt): I should like to take this opportunity to express my country's appreciation to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the valuable report on the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin, contained in document A/42/533, dated 9 September 1987. The role UNESCO has played and is playing in promoting bilateral negotiations for the return or restitution of cultural property and in enhancing international technical co-operation in this field, as well as in the steps adopted to encounter illicit traffic in cultural property, is very much welcomed by my delegation. The Egyptian civilization is a very old one. It is deep-rooted in history; its written history goes back more than 7,000 years, but its history is much longer than that. The Egyptians in their ancient history were the first to be active in the field of construction as well as culture. Their founding of the S~ate, with its central power, and their achievement of a stable society were characteristic of Egyptian history. One dynasty after another was at the helm of power in Egypt, and they left behind a great heritage in all fields of culture, art, literature and monuments. It has been the lot of ~gypt - and probably tnis is a norm of development or historical process - not to be at its best all the time. fhus, periods of strength and glory were followed by periods of weakness and decline. One wave of conquest (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) after another took over Egypt and tried to shape its future, politically as well as culturally. However, many features of Egyptian civilization disappeared or were buried under debris on the banks of the River Nile - of which Egypt is a gift, as the famous Greek historian Herodotus wrote thousands of years ago. As time went on, one civilization followed another, and there were other changes, environmental, climatic and even social. Treasures of the ancient Egyptian civilization disappeared, and many of its marvellous monuments were covered by layers of sand or debr is. Excavation for the remnants of the Egyptian civilization became an objective in modern times, not only to discover all about the ancient civilization of Egypt but also to enrich knowledge of human evolution and history. Egypt became a target for flocks of researchers, archaeologists and excavators. The French expedition led by Napoleon in 1798, though it had its imperialistic ambitions, also rendered a great service to the history of Egypt and humanity as well. The renowned French scholar Champollion managed to decipher the hieroglyphic writings, and thus many historical secrets were revealed. That led to great world interest in Egy~tian history and monuments. Many foreign adventurers were seen in remote parts of the country digging for artifacts. Many valuable and rare pieces of monuments were stolen in the process. The Egyptian wings of many of the famous museums of important countries of the world make an Egyptian feel both prOUd and bitter at the loss of such marvellous pieces. What happened to the Egyptian monuments is not exceptional. It became a world-wide phenomenon, and the third world countries suffered the most. This impels us and other countries to search for a way to restore these monuments or at least to learn their whereabouts. The draft resolution contained in document A/42/L.lO, now before the Assembly, is merely a step in our endeavour to seek tne help and understanding of the international community in this important cause, which concerns us all. It has a bearing on our co-operation and collaboration in digging for artifacts, aeciphering the secrets of old civilizations and patching together the various pieces to construct a clear and accurate picture of human evolution through the ages. Egypt is keen on formulating a code of conduct for the excavators and archaeologists in their endeavours in regard to artifacts. We appeal to all Member countries which have monuments belonging to others to return them to the countries of origin. We appeal to all Member States to co-operate, to show a spirit of unselfishness and to help the third-world countries to preserve their treasures and to preserve their national cultural heritage. The study ana discovery of monuments is a commendable endeavour but illegal expropriation is another matter. The first aims at co-operation ana understanding of the evolution of the common history of mankind and drawing lessons from the collective wisdom of successive generations, While the second aims at distorting the history of others and damaging their national character. Revealing the secrets of the ancient civilizations is a step forward on the long way to promoting interaction ana communication among nations to build a better future based upon understanding, harmony and co-operation. The draft resolution before this Assembly is not new. It was first considered by the General Assembly at its twenty-eighth session, in 1973, at the request of Zaire. Egypt and Zaire alternately used to submit the draft annually. Since 1981 it has been decided to biannualize the item. It was considered by the General Assembly at its fortieth session, in 1985, and resolution 40/19 was adopted. The draft resolution before us is an updated version of the previous one, taking into consideration the recommendations of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Committee, held in Paris from 27 to 30 April 1987. The draft resolution calls upon all Member States to collaborate and promote bilateral negotiations for the return or restitution of cultural property in accordance with the guidelines laid down by UNESCO in collaboration with the International Council of l-1useulns. It requests the Member States to study the possibility of including, in excavation permits, a clause requesting archaeologists and palaeontologists to provide the national authorities with photographic documentation of each object found during excavations. It also recommends that Member States ensure that the inventories of museum collections include not only objects exhibited but also those held in reserve and that they include all the necessary documentation, particularly photographs of each object. All these ideas are included in the report of the Secretary-General in document A/42/533. Our aim is to spread and promote understanding and co-operation among nations for the benefit of all mankind. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express once more from this rostrum the appreciation of my country for the serious and effective co-operation shown by UNESCO in saving the rock-cut colossi of Abu Simbel and the Philae temples, in the southern part of Egypt. Our appreciation also goes to all countries which collaborated in such a noble and sublime objective. By the same token, we express special appreciation to France for its help in treating the mummy of the great Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses 11. Such mummies are a clear manifestation of the historical glory and scientific achievements of ancient Egypt. Egypt calls upon all Member States which have not acceded to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 14 November 1970, to do so. It gives me great pleasure to inform this body that Egypt extends all necessary facilities to excavators, and the Egyptian museums welcome the scholars and archaelogists in their endeavours and their search for historical facts for tne sake of humanity at large. Egyptian exhibitions tour many countries. One may recall the tour of the treasures of Tutankhamen, which attracted great aUdiences in many parts of the world. At present preparations are under way for an exhibition of the jewellery of the Pharaohs to be held in France in November 1987. (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) The international community must pay full attention to and respect the rights of the author of a book, and the World Intellectual Property Organization spares no effort in this respect. It is perfectly in order to call for respect for the right of a country to ask for the return or restitution of its cultural property. Egypt, as a sponsor of the draft resolution before the Assembly, calls upon all nations to join in supporting it so that it may be adopted by consensus. Thus we can lay down a stone for the foundation of a better world in which understanding prevails. Mr. RODRIGUEZ MEDINA (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): There is a growing belief in the international community that it is urgently necessary for our countries to maintain within their borders the works of art of their people. Works of art are the expression of our feelings and our science. They represent our national identity. Moreover, they are a way of arousing our anthropomorphic conscience. They represent our pride and they impel our peoples towards greater achievements. Countries and organizations which, legally or illegally, take the cultural possessions of others and conceal them in private or official collections show no respect for our high ideals. Colombia, like many other nations, has throughout its history suffered from the pillaging of its cultural heritage. Systematically our pre-Colombian treasures and religious jewellery have been looted unashamedly, first in the name of colonialism and now in the name of artistic trading or tourism. Colombia is convinced that the principles of an international lRorality for the protection of our patrimony must be consolidated and should prevail over purely economic or sUpposed political interests. (L'1r. Rodriguez I'-ledina, Colombia) That is why we are gratified at the growing interest the Assembly is showing in this vital question in order to reassess conce~ts of Justice, equity and the promotion of human ideals. We are convinced that it is the right of all peoples to recover their lost heritage, and that in this regard there is an ethical duty on the part of those who have retained these treasures and a moral obligation on the part of the United Nations. Those who proclaim that the political emancipation of our peoples will not be fully achieved until they have recovered these treasures, which are the faithful witnesses of our civilization and our future, are right. Colombia supports the draft resolution and reiterates its view that all these colonial works of art should be restored to us. We have had a number of resolutions on the subject, as a result of which we were able to recover invaluable property, thus arousing great hopes in regard to the scope and impact of our protective action. (Mr. ROdriguez Medina, Colombia) Our delegation is one of the sponsors of draft resolution A/42/L.IO, submitted by Zaire and other countries, because it is in keeping with our philosophy with regard to the preservation of our cultural heritage. We ask that it be adopted by consensus. We cannot let this opportunity pass without emphasizing the invaluable work the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is doing "in this"area, and here Colombia wishes to express full support for that body. However, we reiterate the urgent need for UNESCO to study, independently of any other action, the establishment of groups of experts which would at all levels advise our countries in respect of the identification, codification, protection and eXhibition of our cultural treasures. In this way we would at last have an updated, region-by-region inventory, which could lead to the consolidation of a world register that could be easily consulted and controlled. We could then draw up lists of national property in foreign hands - whether pUblic or private. We also insist on the full ratification of the Convention on the subject and on the strengthening of national and international public opinion which, having been made fUlly aware of this issue, would favour the affected countries and exert influence on the usufructuary countries. Mr. TURK~~N (Turkey): As a country blessed with immense historical and archaeological wealth, our deep interest in the item under discussion is self-evident. Our geographical location in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East has for centuries made Turkey a natural bridge between cultures. The archaeological wealth of Turkey has unfortunately been plundered over the years, and treasures, artifacts and architectural masterpieces of great historical significance and value have been taken out of the country. That is why we attach a (Mr. Turkmen, Turkey) particular importance to the question of the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. We welcome the draft resolution (A/42/L.lO) intrOduced by ~aire and we are happy to give it our support, as we have done in the case of all previous resolutions under this item. We are in agreement with 1ts global orientation and with the recommendations it contains. We have taken note of the new recommendations included in it that deal with the photographic documentation of objects found during excavations, the inclusion of objects held in reserves in the inventories of museum collections and providing inforlnation on national measures for the prevention of illicit traffic in cultural property. We have studied the report of tne Secretary-General, which transmits the report of the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) with regard to the efforts undertaken to promote the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin and the activities devoted to tl~e implementation of the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Committee, as well as the work of its fifth session. We are happy to note that some progress has been made in the restitution of cultural property to its original owners, but obviously there is much that remains to be done. As a party to the Convention on tne Means of prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Turkey regards close international co-operation within the framework of UNESCO and the Intergovernmental Committee as vitally important for ensuring meaningful progress in this area. As a sign of the importance we attach to this question, Turkey has presented its candidacy for membership in the Intergovernmental Committee, which has done remarkable work in promoting bilateral negotiations for the return of CMr. Turkmen, TurkeY) cultural property, and whose third session we hosted in Istanbul in 1983, where significant decisions were taken. As mentioned in paragraph 11 of the annex to the Secretary-General's report, six months ago Turkey applied to the Intergovernmental Committee for the return of a collection of 7,400 Hittite cuneiform tablets and one sphinx, which had been excavated at the archaeological site of Bogazkoy in Turkey and sent to a museum in Berlin for restoration Shortly after their discovery at the beginning of the century. We are now in a position to inform the Assembly that, after 12 years of bilateral negotiations, our authorities have recently reached an agreement with the authorities of the German Democratic Republic for the return of the collection of these tablets to Turkey before 15 November 1987 and the continuation of negotiations concerning the return of the sphinx. We should like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of the German Democratlc RepUblic for the good will and co-operation it has shown in reaching this agreement. Another satisfactory agreement has been reached by the Museum of Archaeology of Antalya in Turkey with the Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the annex to the Secretary-General's report, according to which a part of a sarcophagus was returned to Turkey as the country of origin. My Government hopes that this amicable settlement will constitute an example for other similar caseS which are yet outstanding with some museums in the United States. I cannot fail to mention in this regard an important case concerning the Lydian antiquities of gold and silver of the ancient Kingdom of Lydia, which were unlaWfUlly excavated and unlawfully taken out of Turkey. This unique and irreplaceable treasure is an invaluable part of the artistic and cultural patrimony of the Republic of Turkey. We are determined to ~ursue this matter uncil it is resolved by the return of the Lydian antiquities to Turkey. (Mr. Turkmen, Turkey) Turkey has been making a serious effort to implement the principles set out in the resolutions adopted on this matter. We have acnieved important progress in preparing the inventories of cultural property as a result of the enactment in 19B3 of a law on the @rotection of cultural and national property. The exhibition in foreign countries of moveable cUltural property from Turkey has been regulated within the same framework. This law also covers the necessary measures for the protection of archaeological sit~s in Turkey. In conclusion, I should like to stress that the cultural heritage of a country is an integral part of its life and an expression of its national and historical identity. For this reason, we believe that the return of cultural property to the country of origin constitutes not only a worthy goal but also an effective means for strengthening friendly relations and promoting better understanding and mutual respect among nations. Mr. ZEPOS (Greece): The General Assembly is today considering a draft resolution on the return of cultural property to the countries of origin. It is a matter which the Assembly, on the initiative of the President of the Republic of Zaire, has been regularly examining since 1973. The General Assembly, attaching to the question of the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin the importance it deserves, is rightly referring with equal conviction to the importance of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This international legal instrument is not a recent one, and therefore I wish to be allowed briefly to refer to some of its main aspects. I think it has successfully served so far to encourage and consolidate to a satisfactory extent the trend towards an ever-growing international consciousness that the return and restitution of cultural property to its rightful country of origin constitutes an obligation based on a moral principle and the rules of ethics. Although it is always expected that the rule of law is fundamentally based on, and coincides with, moral principles and ethical values prevailing at a given period of history, it is not often that such explicit reference is made to them in an internationally-binding legal instrument. This fact re(lects the ever-growing consciousness that articles of cultural property constitute the most prominent expression of national identity and should be preserved within toe precincts and the jurisdiction of every nation concerned. It is regrettable to see, as we do so often, privately or otherwise, such precious articles, products of the genius and skills of African, Asian, American and European nations displayed as fashionable pieces of the antiques trade, in demand in the affluent circles of various societies. It is even more regrettable and abhorrent when such pieces of cultural property find their way to the illegal (Mr. Zepos, Greece) markets, having been removed from their lawful country of origin in the wake of foreign invasion and occupation of its territory. The Secretary-General has submitted to the Assembly the report of the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which contains extremely interesting information on the progress made so far by the Intergovernmental Committee established by that Organization with the purpose of implementing its relevant resolutions and assisting in the realization of the objectives of the 1970 Convention. The report contains notable examples of claims regarding restitution of cultural property having been settled in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. We should congratulate ourselves on those results. I cannot fail to note with interest that in the report we learn, among other things, of articles of cultural property that are part of the age-old Greek civilization having been returned to another country, as. prescribed by the Convention, because they were found there. On the other hand, the report registers lack of progress towards the restitution of treasures constituting a unique expression of the cultural heritage of the Greek nation, forming a most vital and prominent part of its cultural identity, which were removed from the structure of a monument of unique artistic value, a landmark in its own right, in its own country. Obviously I have in mind "the Parthenon marbles" - as they should be called, instead of bear lng the name of the person responsible for their removal. The Government of Greece is continuing its efforts for their recovery, efforts that include the launching of a project, now at a well advanced stage, to house the Parthenon marbles. In the event of lack of progress on this matter, we may reach a stage when the halls to receive the Parthenon marbles are prepared for the purpose but remain empty, awaiting a satisfactory agreement in accordance with the principles and rules I have just (Mr. Zepos, Greece) referred to and the Convention of 1970. I trust that it will not be a case of having to wait too long before the moral principles and ethics enshrined in the Convention produce the result desired by ever-growing numbers in the country where the marbles still remain. Mr. AL-AMIN (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Once again the General Assembly is considering this important question. It is our hope that great progress will be made towards the restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. It is also our hope that those States that continue unjustly to keep cultural artefacts belonging to other States will not insist on failing to return them to their legitimate owners. It is well known that such cultural objects were mostly pillaged and transferred at a time of direct colonial domination over countries of great civilizations, when the populations of those countries were languishing in ignorance, lack of awareness and social-cultur.al backwardness. Those were acts of terrible exploitation - uncivilized, inequitable and unjust. On the other hand, the calls for the restitution of the pillaged monuments and artefacts are being made on a scientific, logical and civilized basis - that of entering ~nto bilateral negotiations, with the assistance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. History books everywhere are full of shining pages about great Iraq, the cradle of human civilization since the beginning of time. The word "Mesopotamia" kindles feelings of pride, not only in the hearts of Iraqis and Arabs, but all over the world, owing to the great contribution made by that ancient civilization in the fields of science, sociology and law, a contribution that has benefited all mankind. (Mr. Ai-Amin, Iraq) Over the centuries the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations have continued to be inexhaustible sources of contemporary civilization. They still remind us all of the value of civilization as a human achievement, going beyond parochial interests and aggressive tendencies. Suffice it for us to remember the ancient Iraqi cities, such as Ur, Babylon, Akkad and Nineveh and other monuments of the great civilized history of Iraq, which was, and continues to be, a source of inspiration for all mankind. (Mr. Al-Amin, Iraq) We remember with the greatest pride that 1,100 years ago Baghdad was the heart of Islamic and Arab civilization. It was a beacon of' civilization all over the world. Its great role reaffirms the continuity of history and the link between the past and the present. On 20 October 1977 the General Assembly published an official document recording some of the artifacts pillaged from our country and the names of the museums in which they were being kept. The international community, through a large number of legal and sociological studies, has come to accept historic monuments as an integral part of the environment in which they were created. Uprooting them from that environment and placing them elsewhere is an attempt to dismember the comprehensive picture of history and the heritage and identity of the country of origin. It is an inhuman act, since it also takes away a great indispensable source of inspiration for modern literary and artistic creativity, which gives expression to the identity of a nation by its presence. I do not wish to deal with the touristic importance of the presence of monuments and artifacts in the country of origin and the moral and material benefits deriving therefrom, which are the sole rights of the legitimate owners of such monuments and artifacts. Some progress has been made here and there as a result of efforts in past years for the restitution of cultural properties to the countries of origin~ yet that progress continues to fall well short of expectations and of the demands made by the international conferences held since the Mexico Conference on Cultural Policies of July 1982 and the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation, held in Paris in April this year, as well as the calls and demands made by other conferences and syn~osia and the efforts of the United Nations, particularly of the united Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNSSCO), the Intergovernmental Committee and the national committees in a large number of affected countries. The question, in our view, is not one of merely reopening the debate or adopting new resolutions, despite the importance of those things. The question basically is a civilized understanding of this just, legitimate cause; that is to say, there is a need to consolidate the world's perception of the protection, preservation and development of the cultural heritage as an integrated whole. That should constitute the basic step and must become a part of the concept of international co-operation aimed at deepening the awareness of the importance of a people's heritage. Faced with this great cultural aim, any attempt at justification, in particular those pertaining to the inability of count~ies of origin to protect their cultural artifacts and the inability of their museums to absorb those artifacts, is a mere uncivilized endeavour aimed at keeping those great monuments and cultural treasures for selfish reasons, thus undermining one of the most sublime objectives of humanity. I should like to point to paragraph 10 of the annex to the Secretary-General's report (A/42/533) and to reaffirm that the most important objective is the return of cultural properties to the countries of origin - and that must be without prejudice to their rights, whether the country which is keeping the property is a member of UNESCO or not. My delegation reaffirms its previous view concerning the need to implement recommendations pertaining to this important subject. It calls upon this, international Organization to move more effectively, and to widen the scope of its activities, so as to request the States that are keeping cultural property (Mr. Al-Amin, Iraq) belonging to other countries to return them to their countries of origin, from which they were pillaged. Mrs. GORBUNOVA (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian): The delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers it important that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and from time to time the General Assembly of the United Nations, should be considering the question of the return or restitution of cultural properties to their countries of origin. In this matter fruitful co-operation between the countries is essential. As a result of this it would have been possible to return illicitly acquired cultural property to those to whom it belongs by right. In the view of the delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic it is necessary to provide comprehensive encouragement to the efforts of UNESCO aimed at restoring to a country illicitly exported, plundered or stolen national works of art, monuments, museum exhibits, archives, manuscripts, documents and any other artistic or cultural treasures. The relevance and importance of efforts in this sphere derive from the need to eliminate the disastrous consequences to the cultural heritage of peoples of colonial domination and aggression. Much of the search, requests and claims made today by a number of young countries concerning the return of their cultural property are rooted in the colonial era. Also, to this day, although 40 years have passed since the end of the Second World War it has not been possible to find or return many of the treasures plundered and stolen as a result of the aggression of Hitlerite fascism. Thus on the territory temporarily occupied by Fascist invaders very much great, and in some cases irreparable, damage was done to works of art and other cultural properties. The invaders destroyed and plundered hundreds of museums and architectural monuments and exported millions of works of art, (Mrs. Gorbunova, Byelorussia SSR) including pictures, sculptures and unique books. They destroyed or stole many items of historical and ethnological value. Back in 1940 in order to carry out their plan for the cultural plundering of the Soviet Union, Fascist Germany set up a special organ of so-called experts in the field of the figurative arts. One of its sub-divisions was that in occupied Minsk. In the city of Minsk, capital of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Hitlerites destroyed the State Gallery, which housed priceless pictures by well-known painters, they plundered all the libraries and removed over 4 million booksJ they destroyed monuments; they took out historical and archive material, ancient books and manuscripts. So far it has not been possible fully to ascertain the location of the works of art that were removed. Some of the cultural property of our people was found in third countries. Among the manuscripts were works by the national authors, Janka Kupala - in particular the work entitled "Kurgan" - and Jakub Kolas and passages from the Book ~ Kings pUblished in 1516 by F. Skarina, who was the first printer in Byelorussia. Long is the list of the evil deeds of the colonizers and aggressors against their victims, and this applies also to the cultural sphere. They must be made up for and not allowed to happen in the future. The most reliable method of preserving and increasing cultural property and heritage is the struggle for peace, the elimination of the threat of nuclear war, the liquidation of the remnants of colonialism and, in the last analysis, the establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security. (Mrs. Gorbunova, Byelorussian ciSR) In resolution 40/19 the General Assembly recommended that Member States should adopt or strengthen the necessary protective legislation with regard to their own cultural heritage and that of other peoples. The relevance of that recommendation derives from cases of illicit traffic in cuLtural property and the tneft of such property. In this connection, our delegation would deem it appropriate to have an exchange of experience and information between States on national, legaL and practical measures to use the cultural heritage for educational purposes. In the Byelorussian SSR there is a law on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments. In that law historical and cultural monuments are declared to be the property of the people and are deemed to be an inalienable part of the world cultural heritage. The protection of monuments is an important task for Government and social organizations. The right of ownership of cultural and historical monuments is vested in the Government but also in kolkhozes, in other co-operative and social organizations and in individual citizens. During the sale ot a heritage item the State has the right of priority purchase. The specially-empowered bodies for the protection of monuments are the Ministry of Culture of the Byelorussian ~S~ and the main archives administration of the Council of Ministers of the Byelorussian SSR and their organs in the f1eld. Historical and cultural monuments, regardless of whom they belong to, are subject to Government registration. Citizens who personally own cultural and historical monuments are required by law to comply with the rules for their protection, use, registration and restoration. Similar requirements apply to collective owners of cultural items. Violation by any citizens or legal personalities of the rules for the safety of a cultural or historical monument belonging to them results under article 147 of the Civil Code of the Byelorussian SSR in its legal confiscation; appro~riate compensation is given. Archaeologicdl (Mrs. Gorbunova, Byelorussian SS~ excavations within the territory of the Byelorussian SSR are permitted only on the authorization of the Academy of Sciences of the Byelorussian SSR and must be registered with the Ministry of Culture of the Byelorussian SSR. With respect to the protection of the cultural and historical heritage, a major role is played by the Byelorussian voluntary society for the protection of historical and cultural monuments. Any citizen aged 16 or older can become a member of the society. 'l'he principal task of the society is the mobilization of broad sectors of the population for the active study, discovery and protection of the national cultural heritage. In a brief statement it is not possible to dwell on all the aspects of the question related to the preservation and development of the world cultural heritage. In this global question the problem of the return or restoration of cultural properties to their countries of origin is not without significance. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is directing its efforts towards a solution of that problem. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSN considers it necessary to provide for the just regulation of tnts problem and for the drawing up of measures which would prevent any damage to or illicit acquisition of the cultural property of other peoples. It is necessary to ensure that citizens of each country have the right to enjoy the achievements of world culture. This right should be ensured by providing accessibility to the treasures of national anc world culture found in State-owned and public institutions, through the establishment and uniform deployment of cultural and educational facilities, the development of television and radio, the pUblication of books and periodicals, the setting up of networks of free libraries, and the expansion of cultural exchanges with other countries.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. 1 call on the representative of Zaire on the point of order. Mr. BAGBENI ADEITO NZENGEYA (zaire) (interpretation from French): This is not actually a point of order, Mr. President. I wish merely to make a technical correction to paragraph 10 of draft resolution A/42/L.IO. That paragraph should read as follows: "Requests States parties to keep the Secretary-I.Jeneral of the United Nations and the Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization fully informed of the measures taken to ensure the application at the national level of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property,-. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) I I wish to inform members that Benin and Iraq have become co-sponsors of the draft resolution. The General Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.lO. I ask members to bear in mind the correction just made by the representative of Zaire. We shall now begin the voting process. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cy~rus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, German Uemocratic RepUblic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, l-lozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab ~mirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe In favour: None Against: Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, I!'rance, <.:ierinany, Federal Republic of, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution A/42/L.lO was adopted by lu3 votes to none, with 15 abstentions (resolution 42/7).*

I shall call on representatives who wish to make statements in explanation of vote. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decis10n 34/401, explanations of vote should be limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. *Subsequently, the delegations of Albania, Bahamas, Harbados, 8otswana, Burma, Cuba, Gabon, Kenya, Lesotho, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Uruguay advised the secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. Mr. BIRCH (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) I My delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/42/L.10. The United Kingdom cannot accept the principle that cultural property which has over the years been acquired freely and legitimately should be returned to other countries. On the other hand, we of course condemn illicit trafficking in such property. We are always willing to discuss specific cultural property questions bilaterally with other Governments. My delegation can support much of the draft resolution wh~ch tne Assembly has just adopted. We remain sympathetic to the wishes of those countries that want to develop and improve their collections, and museums in Britain are happy to collaborate with them in achieving this through bilateral discussions. But certain operative paragraphs of the resolution present us with serious difficulties. Operative paragraph 2 runs counter to our belief that the great international collections of works of art constitute a unique resource for the benefit of both the public and the international academic community. Support for operative paragraphs 5 and 6 would imply that my delegation favoured the drawing up of a systematic inventory of cultural property within the United Kingdom. As we said in the debate on this subject in 1985, this would cause great practical difficulties. Operative paragraphs 10 and 11 of the resolution refer to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Ratification of this Convention would present I considerable problems for the United Kingdom. But, as the Assembly will know, representatives of the United Kingdom art and antiques trade adopted a code of practice on 1 April 1984, which, together with the code of practice already implemented by British museums, in practice provides an effective safeguard against illicit traffic in cultural goods. Indeed, at the meeting in Florence on 25 September 1987 of the Confederation Internationale de Negociants en Oeuvres d'Art, the international trade association, on which the leading trade bodies in the art world are represented, it was decided to adopt for all member organizations a code of practice which will be very closely based on the British model. I should emphasize that items in British museums belong to those institutions and not to the British Government. Provided that the items were legitimately acquired there are no grounds in law on which the British Government could order their return. In conclusion, I could not help noting the remarks made by the representative of Greece about the Elgin marbles. I would only say that those works of art were acquired legally from the sovereign Power in Greece at the time. We cannot accept the principle of the return of objects to their country of origin except in the case of illegal acquisition. But we are always ready to discuss the matter further with the Greek Government on a bilateral basis. Count YOHK von WARTENBURG (Federal Republic of Germany): My delegation abstained on the draft resolution A/42/L.10, on the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. Although we share the general objectives of the sponsors, we should like to reiterate our reservations on several parts of the text, which we have explained at previous sessions of the General Assembly on this item. We hold the view that united Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is the approprite body to deal with these matters. Mr. TELLE (France) (interpretation from French): My delegation abstained on draft resolution A/42/L.10, relating to the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. However, my country wishes to stress that we share the fundalnental objectives of the sponsors of the text, as well as the estimable reasons that prompt them, which were explained by the Permanent Representative of zaire in his introductory statement. For those reasons, France at present is considering the possibility of acceding to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural property and thus removing its mainly legal difficulties. Therefore, my delegation hopes that in the near future it will be able to associate itself fully with the adoption of a text on this important matter. Mr. MORAGA (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution on the restitution of cultural property that has just been adopted. Further, we consider that, given the vastness and the controversial nature of the concept of CUlture, there are other areas of fact and thinking which are extremely important and in respect of which it would also be desirable that (Mr. Moraga, Chile) something be done. We cannot limit the content of culture to material expressions or objects. There are other forms of cultural subjection, which are indub~tably complex, but which also deserve serious consideration, neither tendentious or ideological. The right to prevent phenomena of indiscriminate elimination or destruction of culture and ancestral traditions demands careful consideration, as anthropologists continually point out. Culture can be damaged or destroyed as much through the exodus of its tangible expressions as through the massive imposition of outside values imposed through continued repetition or by otner means. We believe that cultural identities should be respected and should coexist with the more recent forms of a more living and universal culture. To prevent the introduction of outside values or prejudices in the face of alien forms of culture should be a matter of continued interest to the international con~unity. A country like Chile, with recent and more remote migrations, where there coexist all kinds of traditions that result from various ethnic groups living in harmony, attaches special importance and value to the efforts of this Organization to preserve national cultures, which is why we voted in favour of the draft resolution. Mr. ABOU-HADID (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation reserves the right of the Syrian Arab Republic to restore its cultural properties that have been expropriated by the Israeli occupation authorities and listed in Israeli registers in contravention of international law. We also reserve our right to demand the return of our cultural property, which reflects our national history and was removed from our museums during the foreign occupation in the days of Mandate. Mr. BIFFOT (Gabon) (interpretation from French): The problem of the return or restitution of cultural property to the cduntries of origin is, as has already been mentioned by one delegation, a problem that falls primarily within the province of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). I say "primarily" with reason. I have come from UNESCO, where I have been representing my country, and I know that this problem is one of its preoccupations. But I do not think it could be said that Oecause the question of cultural property is being considered at UNESCO it has no place here. I think many problems would not be considered here if we applied that yardstick. If we were to eliminate the consideration here of cultural problems that come within UNESCO's purview and of problems that come witnin the purview of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations or other specialized agencies of the United Nations, I believe we might just as well lock up these premises and be content with reading the reports of the various organizations concerned. That is why I do not at all subscribe to the point of view that has been put forward. Of course one can abstain, but please do not explain the abstention by saying the problem is being dealt with by UNESCO. AS for the legality of acquisition of the cultural property of formerly colonized countries and developing countries, I am rather familiar with this problem. I have been in the field of diplomacy only since 1984, but I have spent the whole of my career dealing with these cultural problems as a psychosociologist. As the Assembly is aware, during the period of acquisition mot than one item of cultural property was acquired from developing and ex-colonized countries. It really was a world where might was right. The reasoning of the strongest held sway rather peacefully. You were given a ridiculously small amount of money for something you knew to be of rare cultural value. Where does legalit~ come into that? In any event, as far as I am concerned, I would certainly not wit to debate the point. I think it would be better to set up a c~nmission that would be responsible for consider ing the problem of legali ty. The terms and concepts concerned are so complicated that only a committee appointed to consider tne matter would be capab. of undertaking the necessary serious study and presenting us with the results. I believe that, even when it is affirmed that property was acquired legally, it remains a very complicated matter. I could give an example; France will certainly not holo it against me becaus I am one of its cultural products. The obelisk at the Place de la Concorde, for example: who could say Whether it is truly French or whether it should be return to Egypt? It is very con@licated.

I call on the representative of Greece, who has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I remind him that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to la minutes for the first statement and to five minutes for the second, and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. ZEPOS (Greece): I have asked to speak in reply briefly to the representative of the United Kingdom. I welcome his statement that his Government will continue to negotiate and discuss with the Greek Government the question of the restitution of the Parthenon marbles. Concerning the other point that he raised in connection with the legality of the act of removing the marbles, I respectfully point out that that is a matter of debateJ it is a historical question and is under debate among competent historians in many countries, including even his own. I certainly do not intend to speak about the matter as it is developing in the United Kingdom, but I wish to point out that the question remains under debate and that it is highly questionable whether that act of removal was legal at the time.

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 20. The meeting rose at 11.55 a.m.