Proposition 54K2847

Proposition de résolution relative aux oeuvres d'art "translocalisées" et à l'entame d'un dialogue avec l'Etat français.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Gautier Calomne, David Clarinval, Jean-Jacques Flahaux, Kattrin Jadin, Richard Miller

Submission date

Dec. 13, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

France cultural heritage work of art resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld MR PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 14, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Ms. Capoen and Ms. Pehlivan, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I will not be long while taking my time.

I would like to start with a few words of thanks to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Van der Maelen, for allowing the successful completion of this text.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Capoen and Pehlivan, for their report, which contains, in addition to the discussions we had in the committee, the exhibition of Mr. Guido Gryseels, the director of the Royal Museum of Central Africa, as well as the note prepared by the former Secretary of State, Ms. Zuhal Demir.

Finally, I would like to thank all the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations who contributed to deepening this much more complex and progressive topic than it seems at first glance. It is thanks to the work of the Commissioners that the initial framework for my proposal for a resolution, namely the opening of a dialogue with France, relating to undue artworks.

I used the technical term that it fits in this type of text: the "translocated" works. These are works that were taken from our regions, from Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia, to the revolutionary France and subsequently to Napoleonic France.

This starting framework, which was the proposal I had submitted, could, in the course of our work, be extended. As Houellebecq says, there has been an extension of the field of struggle – to the restitution of works of African origin preserved in our country, essentially in the museum of Tervuren. It was obviously on this point that Mr. Gryseels’ hearing was fundamental. He was able to reassure us about the risk often highlighted of opening the Pandora box and initiating a process leading to Tervuren emptying all of its collections. According to the director of the museum, this risk does not exist. Mr Gryseels even confirmed his willingness to engage in dialogue with the applicant and partner African States, in order to guarantee their population the right of access to their memory and its preservation. There are therefore pistes and initiatives are already taken in this direction either by the museum in Tervuren or, as Minister De Croo said in a committee, by Development Cooperation.

These elements allowed the addition of important amendments, which I welcome the authors, as well as a change in the title to take into account this "expansion of the field of struggle". The proposal is now entitled: "Proposition of resolution concerning the translocalized works of art in general and the beginning of a dialogue with the French State".

Since President Macron’s speech in Ouagadougou on November 28, 2017, it has indeed become undeniable that alongside the strictly museum dimension, an important dimension of cultural diplomacy has been added through the problematic restitution of heritage and artistic works.

I insist on this openness of mind on the part of the conservative of one of our greatest museums, because it is necessary to recite the speech of Aimé Césaire on colonialism. I strongly recommend it to you for everything related to the reflection that will have to be carried out in relation to our colonial period. Aimé Césaire states this: “The museum itself is nothing. Nothing is! And he does not want to say anything. He cannot say anything, where the blatant self-satisfaction rots the eyes, where, confessed or not, racism wipes out sympathy.” This is a very beautiful speech.

This means that, in the museum dimension, one policy must be conducted in relation to the other. The museum approach in our country must participate in the possible reconciliation between living cultures, as well as in a work of recognition of our collective history.

Steps have already been taken in this direction during the reopening of the Tervuren museum, but this is insufficient. This process must be continued. Museums are being created in Africa. This point must be emphasized because one of the arguments used for not returning works is that there would not be the necessary infrastructure to be able to keep them safely. Now there is a growing museum policy. The Museum of Black Civilizations in Dakar.

Africa has suffered a lot. We talked a lot about this in the commission and we need to be able to cover the wounds and help them heal.

Cultural diplomacy, based in particular on the restitution of works, is in this regard a magnificent instrument. Such cultural diplomacy can also prove effective – this is the other side – on the European ground and even on the ground of European revival.

I return thus to the starting point of the resolution: the works of art taken methodically (it was organized) by the troops of the French Revolution and then by the Napoleonic forces are works taken from Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia.

I will not resume all the debates that we have had in the committee but it seems necessary to insist on the fact that it is not at all, dear colleagues, a declaration of cultural war on France. It is about asking the government to propose to the French State to open a dialogue about works, such as Rubens, Van Dyck, a whole set of great names from the history of art in our provinces, which have been taken by force, which are kept in French museums and for which no acquisition title can be provided, and for a reason.

Between the official principle of inalienability of the "French" heritage and the pure and simple restitution, there is indeed a range of solutions, such as making available, shared ownership, exchange, etc. What matters is the political view of this matter. It is she who must bring back the legitimate fears, the special arguments, the national egoisms, the fixations of the conservatives. This political vision has already been mentioned in various assemblies in our country, especially in the Parliament of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, which Mr. Cheron remembers since he was present in the debates we had. Discussions were also held in the Flemish Parliament, the Parliament of the Brussels Region, the House, the Senate and the European Parliament on this subject.

It must be acknowledged that French President Emmanuel Macron, and even in part against the opinion of his own administration, has given a famous accelerator to this case. What is this political idea? It is international and more directly, European. We know that the European Union needs gestures of trust between states, especially today. France, this great European state, can, thanks to its cultural history and heritage richness, contribute through such exchanges, agreements and restitutions. I’m sure our French friends can understand this and maybe they’ve even already understood it.

Finally, if, as I hope, the amendment-enriched text is voted as soon as possible, it also includes the request to work on an international legal framework. Indeed, and it will not be the least quality of the vote that we will express, it will be observed – I can guarantee you – by our African and European partners. It could also serve as an example and argument, for example, in the debate between Greece and the United Kingdom about Parthenon frises. The opening of this case by our country, which is in the heart of Europe, will have positive repercussions. The colonial era will not be completely completed, as long as the question of memory is not resolved in dialogue.

I will conclude by reminding that, while this issue has experienced new developments, ⁇ through the restitution to Jewish families and institutions of cultural goods stolen by the Nazis, it has long concerned great humanists. This is an issue related to humanism. I will only cite two examples. First of all, I will mention the historian Polybe. I read a lot of historians these days; I started this morning ...

Polybe, 2,200 years ago, described the double punishment that the winner inflicts on the defeated by depriving him not only of his cultural heritage, but by inviting him to admire in his own cities the humiliating spectacle of his remains.

Another important author: I will quote Cicero. The first trial relating to a case of this type is pledged by Cicéron in the Verrès case. I am addressing lawyers and constitutionalists. This despot had deprived Sicily, whose protectorate had been entrusted to him by Rome. He had simply deprived Sicily of all the works of art that were there. The Verrès trial took place in 70 A.D. by J.C. Cicero had asked for a time limit of 110 days to carry out his investigation. Eventually, Verrès went into exile.

Verrès used, to spot the interesting works, what Cicero called thresholds. Napoleon did the same thing in our country. He sent specialists, commissioners, to identify the places where there were important works.

No, I do not compare Napoleon to Cicero. Finally, I could compare Napoleon to Verrès. But I will not go until then.

However, the process was the same. Works have been taken from several of our cities – from Liège, Courtrai, Ghent, Antwerp, Tournai, etc. If important works, of Rubens and others, were taken away, it was because thresholds came to spot them.

This is what Cicero said in the name of the Sicilians: “The whole Sicily, if it could speak with one voice, it would say to you: What I had of objects of art and of decorations in my cities, my houses, my sanctuaries; what I had of right over these things, you, Verres, you have taken away and taken away from me. As such, I request, under the law, that this be returned to me."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Mr. Miller’s initiative, who has drafted and defended this text that has been his heart for many years. This document has led to a much broader debate than the title suggests. It was indeed an opportunity to address the issue of the restitution of African cultural and heritage goods acquired during the colonial period.

The resolution contains specific requests in this context. First, the need for an international legal framework governing the restitution of cultural heritage between States. Second, the need to order, like France, an inventory and analysis of the origin of cultural objects, art and human remains that are part of the collections of Belgian museums, in particular the collection from Central Africa. Finally, the need to strengthen the dialogue with the third countries from which the heritage and cultural goods preserved in Belgian museums originate in order to ensure their joint valuation.

It must be admitted that since the reopening of the Royal Museum of Tervuren, renamed the Africa Museum, the coloniality of our institutions and practices has been at the centre of many debates in our various parliaments, within civil society and in our media. According to experts and the former Minister of Culture Aminata Traoré, between 90 and 95 percent of the cultural assets of Africa, mainly from sub-Saharan Africa, would be located outside this continent. The extent of this material and intangible deprivation is questionable. While it is difficult to measure its direct and indirect consequences, it is, on the other hand, necessary and urgent to question this problem on the political, diplomatic and scientific levels.

The hearing of Mr. Guido Gryseels, general director of the Royal Museum of Central Africa, was very helpful in our debates, especially on the issue of restoration of African cultural heritage, a multi-faceted issue. As he pointed out, this is partly the result of the report on the restitution of heritage drawn up by Mrs. Bénédicte Savoy and Mr. Felwine Sarr at the request of President Macron in France. This report also sparked an extensive international debate. Of course, Belgium should play a role in this context.

Although, according to Mr Gryseels, until now, no African country has requested restitution to the museum in Tervuren, he nevertheless insists that Belgium, like France, address this problem without delay. At his hearing, Mr Gryseels pledged to "create a working group responsible for examining the possibilities and the problem of restitution with a number of experts and to elaborate the legal framework for a possible restitution".

This is precisely the object of the amendment that my group submitted in the plenary session: to constitute an interdisciplinary working group composed of Belgian, European and African experts with the task of inventory of African cultural and heritage goods currently preserved by Belgian museums, their status and the conditions under which they were acquired.

Our amendment also proposes an international conference on these issues to advance debate, reflection and solutions. This is an amendment that therefore aims neither more nor less to complement the excellent constructive work that we have carried out in committee. This amendment is also fully in line with the commitments made in commission by our Prime Minister.

This working group should finally make a point on the conditions under which these collections were acquired as well as on the issue of their preservation and their restitution. It is also of interest that its conclusions may be presented to our Assembly. It would therefore be essential that the federal government take the initiative to set up this working group and organise this international conference on these issues, to advance the debate, reflection and solutions.

From time to time, objects belonging to peoples have been found in other peoples. The complexity of current restitution requests, due to the diversity of circumstances that have governed the movement of objects, requires the invention of new rules that take into account the interest we share in a more equitable distribution of cultural resources.

Because, yes, the work around our colonial past is essential and enormous. Most importantly, we all know it, it is far from finished. Even this resolution is not perfect, especially on the issue of the co-management of collections.

By walking through the hallways of certain museums, by reading the names of certain streets, or even by looking at certain frescoes or certain panels in our communal houses and city hotels, we know that there is obviously still a path to go to explain and contextualize our past, with a critical, historical and scientific look. We do not have to gather it. We cannot ignore our past. On the other hand, we must use and analyze it to grow out of it, and above all, to make our societies, our mentalities, our consciences and our unconscious evolve, especially in the representations that we still have of people living on the African continent, but also of our fellow African descendants.

If the work is huge, it is up to us to carry it out. I would like to give you a quote that a friend just shared with me as part of this discussion. An African proverb, often cited, says: "Whatever you accumulate the dust under your bed, one day you will move." Therefore, as an example, I also submitted a motion to the municipal council of Namur, on the issue of decolonization of our public spaces. The colonial history of our country can no longer be a taboo. I also think that mentalities are evolving in the right direction, including at the Tervuren Museum.

It is about amplifying this awareness within our different cultural institutions, but also in society in general, in collaboration with all public, private or academic actors of our country. The momentum is here. History has to say its word. The colonial history of our country has also been marked by violence, massacres and colonial crimes that must be addressed in order to build a better future for all.

We must acknowledge the many human suffering and ruptures to learn from them and put forward the actions that are necessary.

You will have understood, the debate extends well beyond the collections of the Tervuren museum or any other museum. It ultimately concerns the whole of our colonial past, as illustrated by the work we have done, here almost a year already, on the recognition of the segregation suffered by the metis from the Belgian colonization in Africa, work of which we can be proud.

Likewise, I will be very proud to support the text that is submitted to us today, hoping that my amendment will enrich it and gather your support.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our resolution passed on March 29, 2018 stipulated that the government should make a solemn declaration recognizing the segregation of methic children who were stripped of their black mothers during the colonization. I hope that before the end of this legislature, and as promised to me in commission by our Prime Minister, Charles Michel, he will come, between these walls, to honour his commitments. I hope that you, as President, will have the heart to make this statement possible.

I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Madame Grovonius.

I can tell you that the government statement you mentioned will normally take place within two weeks, namely on March 28, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, be reassured, I will not take the 110 days granted to Cicero and I will be short.

My group will with interest support this excellent resolution of our colleague Miller for its goal, which you have brilliantly defended, and also because it resonates with broader debates regarding the return of works or property unjustly stolen. In particular, they have awakened around the reopening of the Museum of Tervueren, the Afrikaans Museum and they also live at the global and European levels through UNESCO.

Some amendments that we have supported have, on the other hand, indirectly introduced our colonial past into this question that initially covered, for reminder, Belgian works translocated by the troops of the French Revolution. Indeed, the question of Belgium’s apologies to the Congo, to Rwanda, to Burundi for our colonial past is now again in actuality.

Two recent events have helped arouse this debate: first, a report of UN experts recommending in particular to Belgium to work on a memorial work and then, an interesting colloquium organized by the ULB about Congolese human remains stolen by our Belgian military and doctors at the time of colonization.

These events, along with my colleague Miller’s resolution, unanimously voted in the committee – I would like to emphasize it – seem to have given a new visibility to the speech of civil society and the associations of African descendants regarding our colonial past. They also awakened awareness of the policies that have expressed themselves at different levels of power and in the media in favor of a deep work of memory. Personally, I am delighted because it reflects, in my opinion, the premises of a consensus on the need for a thorough examination of this painful past and of how to interpret it as to follow it.

In order to continue this momentum given in our Parliament by Mr. Miller’s resolution that we are about to adopt, I invite my colleagues to take note of a resolution filed by my group already two years ago, co-signed by some parties. It calls for the establishment of an interdisciplinary and international working group that would be charged with a thorough analysis work.

A work that could help our country build an official discourse recognizing the role of the Belgian state and institutions as a whole during this period of colonization.

This text, which will be discussed next week in the Committee on Foreign Relations, could, in my opinion, extend the momentum initiated by this resolution and allow our Parliament to move forward resolutely on these issues, this before the dissolution of the chambers; in the spirit of the constructive work proposal made by Ms. Grovonius and in a way to respond to a request of civil society that is there, patently, and that each of us must have received.