Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Financial Commitment of Repository Countries: A Key Element of Reparation

2021; UCLA James S. Coleman African Studies Center; Volume: 54; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1162/afar_a_00592

1937-2108

Silvie Memel Kassi, Sarah Frisbie, Amanda M. Maples, John Warne Monroe,

Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation

English translation by Sarah Frisbie, Amanda M. Maples, and John Warne MonroeThe issue of restitution of African cultural property proves complex if we take into account the challenges that this poses for both repository countries and countries of origin. In the controversy provoked by the publication of the report by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy,1 in which we see certain Western museums claiming the title of universal museums with the vocation of “better” presenting cultural heritage and the history of [African] peoples, the viewpoint of Africa, which was never consulted, might be surprising. The example of loans of objects, which sometimes include African works, between Western museums and Western traveling exhibitions without any obligation facing the owner states is symptomatic of the unenviable fate of African cultural heritage. The international traveling exhibition Masters of Sculpture in Côte d'Ivoire, which traveled to four European countries (Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, France) in 2014 and 2015, revealed that out of the 330 objects—80% of which are of Ivorian origin—loaned for the occasion by fifty European and American museums2 (not counting private collections), only twelve ethnographic specimens taken from the collection of the Musée des Civilizations were under the control of the Ivorian State. Even if these public collections benefit from legal protections against sale or seizure, the fact that they assume other functions when taken out of their original contexts leads us to wonder about their real identity. To whom do they ultimately belong? This is where President Emmanuel Macron's speech in Ouagadougou in November 2017 on the return of African cultural property to its countries of origin takes on its full meaning. Indeed, the euphoria with which this speech was welcomed, as well as the Political Declaration of December 2018 in Cotonou of the heads of state and of government of the CEDEAO3 which followed on the same subject, proves that the question of restitution is a central one. This is evidenced by the arrangements and measures taken since then at the level of each state to respond to the common desire to re-appropriate African cultural identity and repair looted memories.The questions that Amanda M. Maples raises with the First Word “African Restitution in a North American Context: A Debate, a Summary and a Challenge” (African Arts 53 [4]: 10–15) assume a highly symbolic character for Africa. And for good reason: not only do North American museums particularly distinguish themselves with a mea culpa when they speak of their complicity in the dispossession of peoples, but for the first time, the question of reparation is clearly and relevantly addressed. This is why, while I share the point of view of all the contributors to Maples's text4—and particularly Daouda Keïta from the National Museum of Mali, who maintains that “the process of restitution of African cultural heritage will not be really effective unless the partners work together to develop a program that takes into account the specificities of each country”—I will go even further by radically campaigning, among other things, for a financial commitment from northern countries [who are] the holders of African works.Indeed, the problem of the lack of resources of African states is a reality known to all, which is not without consequences for the cultural sector supported by museums. In fact, the activities generally funded by an insufficient budget do not prompt the desired emulation, thus showing a dissonance between the programs of these heritage institutions and where the true interests of their target audiences lie.It should also be stressed that when we speak of African museums in the context of restitutions, the question that generally comes up in debates concerns their capacity to ensure a level of infrastructure, security, conservation, etc. A financial commitment could therefore intervene at this level in the construction of infrastructures of international stature and standard—this, to retain the local audiences who shun the museums of the continent for the benefit of what are considered the “real museums” of Western countries.After analyzing what has occurred thus far, we hold that the issue of restitution of cultural property requires legal action: North American and African museums would benefit from favoring the path of frank and close cooperation. My proposals go in the direction of a comanagement or a coexploitation of the aforementioned objects, so that Western museums which hold [these objects] could allow the countries of origin—by mutual agreement—to benefit from the return of the aforementioned exploited objects. As a concrete example, I propose an institution of partnerships, agreements, and conventions giving mandate to North American countries for a rental deposit for a fixed period, while infratructures for the reception of these works are put in place in the [associated African] country.Financial commitment, finally, could intervene to promote awareness for the public, for political authorities, and for all participants of culture on a massive scale. A typical example of an innovative project that unfortunately has stalled for lack of funding is that of the Collection fantôme (Phantom Collection), a collection of missing objects. A cultural, educational, and community project dealing with the illicit traffic of cultural goods and the responsibility of museums, the Collection fantôme, which took off in 2017 in Côte d'Ivoire, has lost steam for several months now due to the lack of finances from the state and local partners. For context, the Collection fantôme is a set of artistic responses to the questions raised by the phenomenon of illicit trafficking in cultural goods to which the Museum of Civilizations of Côte d'Ivoire was a victim during the postelectoral crisis of 2010. The Collection fantôme and its accompanying Manifesto aim not only to mentally prepare for the return of the objects kept outside their borders, but also to create a response within the receiving communities in regards to the safekeeping of cultural heritage. After a launch in Abidjan and Paris and an initial partnership with the Visual Arts Service of Evry in France, which chose to make the project its central work for the year 2017–2018, the project's Ivorian supporters continued to popularize the concept within the arts schools of Côte d'Ivoire. The national theme of this project was Non à la culture du vide (“No to an empty culture”), while the one chosen by Evry was entitled Ceux qui nous regardent (“Those who are watching us”). The work of Ivorian and French students was exhibited at the Musée des Civilizations de Côte d'Ivoire in December 2018. Thus, this project became inscribed in cultural activity (artistic, educational, instructive, recreational) and in universities linked to research.The challenge for the organizers—le Musée des Civilisations and la Fondation Tapa et l'Art(san)frique—regarding the turbulent cultural history of African peoples is to succeed in the dynamics of postcolonial cultural and artistic cohesion, to take a preponderant part in cultural action policies, and at the same time, to lead creative and awareness-raising work about the preservation of stolen and/or endangered cultural heritage. The success of the project at the community level required the participation of the thirty-two regional directors of culture and the effective collaboration of the regional prefects, regional advisers, mayors, authorities, customs officials, national police force, etc. Five thousand signatures have already been collected while waiting for the grand opening of the national exhibition planned for after COVID-19, if the funds are mobilized.In conclusion, I welcome the initiative of Amanda M. Maples who, through the platform offered by this Dialogue of African Arts, gives the floor to African professionals in the museum sector for mutual enrichment with the aim of achieving a happy outcome from the controversy of restitutions. Africa, like North America, has an interest in favoring the path of frank and consensual cooperation, which ipso facto prohibits the systematic repatriation of all objects of African origin. To this end, I agree with Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, quoted by Sarr and Savoy [and by Maples], when he asks that only the artistic treasures which best represent African societies, those which were the most vital, be restored. Not to accede to this legitimate request shared by all the peoples of Africa, in the case of the North American or European repositories of these treasures, is to resolve to live continuously with a bad conscience in a world which aspires more and more to peace and to social—and racial—cohesion.The other points listed in the draft action plan seem to me just as relevant and deserve to be addressed by other contributors in order to succeed in the North American challenge, and to know how to accomplish a large amount of shared work through reparations and restitutions.