The Return of the Parthenon Sculptures and the Cultural Heritage of Europe

1 September 2017

Subject:       Draft Working paper

                        "The Return of the Parthenon Sculptures and the Cultural                                           Heritage of Europe"

Origin:         Australian Committee for the Return of the Parthenon Sculptures

Objective: For consideration and discussion by the Greek and European Union authorities

Remarks: The attached working paper on "The Return of the Parthenon Sculptures and the Cultural Heritage of Europe” contains the main principles of a suggested European Union position  in  this regard, to be presented to the United Kingdom in the context of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU)

  

I have climbed the Acropolis today in all humility, acutely conscious of that which it has bestowed upon the world. For this place, infused with the spirit of the gods and with the valour of heroes, shelters within its recesses masterpieces that have left the irreplaceable mark of their grandeur on our Earth.

                         Director-General of the UNESCO Frederico Mayor (1989)

The wholeness of the Parthenon demands our respect and warrants every effort to reunify it … Let us, for a moment, consider the state of the central figures of the west pediment. Poseidon’s shoulders are held in London while his pectoral and abdominal muscles remain in Athens … This deliberate and sustained dismemberment of what are some of the most sublime images ever carved by humankind brings shame on those who work to uphold this state of affairs.

                                Joan Breton Connelly, “The Parthenon Enigma” (2014)

The Parthenon Marbles are for many people in Europe and outside of Europe the major symbol of the oldest and most important contribution which has ever been made by any people to European civilisation, with such an intensity that this contribution has also become decisive for universal civilisation.

                                                                  Miguel Angel Martinez Martinez 

                                                 (Vice President of the European Parliament)

I. Introduction

1.               The Parthenon Sculptures, comprising the sculptured pediments, metopes and frieze removed by Lord Elgin and his men from the Parthenon in Athens in the early part of the nineteenth century and placed in the British Museum in 1816, symbolise the “entire body of unrepatriated cultural property in the world’s museum” and constitute an “essential part of our common past”.[1]   In the more than two hundred years since their removal, the Elgin collection of Parthenon Sculptures have become a paradigm for forcibly-removed cultural treasures.

2.         On 9 July 1961 Greece and the then European Economic Community signed an agreement for Association which was hailed as “linking the cradle of European civilisation with the nucleus of a united Europe”.[2]

3.                On 7 May 1999 the European Parliament issued a written declaration stating, inter alia, that the Parliament took the view that the “return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece would be a key move in promoting Europe’s common cultural heritage”.  The Parliament also acknowledged that the Parthenon of the Acropolis and its sculptures form an “integral and invaluable part of the European cultural and architectural heritage.”[3]

4.               The United Kingdom has given notification under Article 50 of the TEU of its proposed withdrawal from the EU as a Member State.

5.               The EU is required to negotiate and attempt to conclude a withdrawal agreement with the UK, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for the withdrawing Member State’s future relationship with the Union.

6.               The agreement will be negotiated in the light of the European Council guidelines and in line with the negotiating directives. The EU expressly notes that its own negotiating directives may be amended and supplemented as necessary throughout the negotiations, in particular to reflect the European Council guidelines as they evolve and to take advantage of  an “exceptional horizontal competence” to cover all matters necessary to arrange the withdrawal.[4]

7.                It is submitted that one of the issues that should be the subject of direct negotiation between the EU and the UK is the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures currently on display in London with the remaining Parthenon sculptural elements in the Acropolis Museum in Athens in order to perfect the EU’s actual and principled commitment to the safeguarding and protection of European cultural heritage.

II. A Cultural Europe - principles and practice

8.               The legal basis of the proposal is Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This states that the EU “shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore”.

9.                Article 167 has been described as “carrying the same weight as that of the free movement of goods” and as conferring an “important guarantee of respect for Member States’ cultural heritage as an indispensable element of a global European culture”.[5]

10.            The Treaty of Lisbon places great importance on culture: the preamble to the TEU explicitly refers to “drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe”.

11.            Article 3 of the TEU provides that the European Union shall respect the Member States' rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

12.             Article 6 of the TFEU states that the EU’s competences in the field of culture are to “carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”.

13.            The EU has acknowledged the cultural dimension of the Treaties and the EU’s external actions on many occasions as a reflection of the fact that Europe’s cultural richness and diversity is closely linked to its role and influence in the world. 

14.            Although the Council of Europe’s Directive 2014/60/EU provides that cultural objects which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State on or after 1 January 1993 shall be returned in accordance with the procedure and in the circumstances set out in the Directive, it expressly acknowledges that each Member State may apply the arrangements provided for in this Directive to requests for the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of other Member States prior to 1 January 1993.[6] 

15.            In 2011 the European Parliament passed a resolution in which it acknowledged, inter alia, that culture has intrinsic value, enriches people’s lives and fosters mutual understanding and respect and further noted that the European Agenda for Culture sets the strategic objective of promoting culture as a “vital element” in the EU’s international relations.  It further acknowledged that cultural cooperation and cultural dialogue are the “building blocks of cultural diplomacy”. [7]

16.            The European Parliament re-affirmed that, in terms of culture and European values, it wants to underline the crosscutting nature and the importance of culture in all aspects of life and believes that culture needs to be taken into consideration in all EU external policies in line with article 167(4) of TFEU.

17.       The European Parliament in this resolution emphasised the importance of cultural diplomacy and cultural co-operation in advancing and communicating throughout the world the EU’s and the Member States’ interests in the values that make up European culture, and further emphasised the need to adopt a “comprehensive approach to cultural mediation and cultural exchange and the role of culture in fostering democratisation, human rights, conflict prevention and peace building”.

18.           The Parliament also urged that steps be taken to prevent the unlawful appropriation of cultural heritage and called for the adoption of a “coherent strategy for the protection and promotion of cultural and natural heritage”.

19.            On 30 May 2014 the Council of Europe published its Conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe [8] in which it again noted that the European Treaty stipulates that the Union shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage (consisting of the resources inherited from the past in all forms and aspects - tangible, intangible, including monuments, sites and landscapes)   is safeguarded and enhanced, and again re-stated that cultural heritage is a major asset for Europe and an important component of the European project.

20.       In 2017 the European Parliament endorsed an official communication Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations [9] and, inter alia, specifically stated as follows:

(a)    Culture is a common good and cultural heritage is a “universal legacy”;

(b)   The communication towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations provides a framework for the EU’s international cultural relations and priorities;

(c)    The EU and neighbouring states have historically influenced each other with regard to culture;

(d)   The EU, as a key partner of the United Nations, should work closely with UNESCO to protect global cultural heritage; and

(e)   Cultural diplomacy can function as an envoy of the EU and its Member States and help promote the role of cultural cooperation as a soft power tool in European external relations.

 21.          In terms of governance the European Parliament called for the establishment of a cultural diplomacy platform and called upon the European Commission to include culture in all existing and future bilateral and multilateral agreements in order to place further emphasis on the economic potential of cultural heritage.

 22.          In the context of an “inclusive and shared European narrative” the European Parliament also declared that the decision for the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 is an opportunity to “contribute to the promotion of cultural heritage, with an integrated approach, as an important element of the EU’s international dimension, building on the interest of partner countries on Europe’s heritage and expertise”.

 23.      And as the European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Tibor Navracsics, has declared in support of the strategy to place culture at the heart of EU international relations:

           "Culture is the hidden gem of our foreign policy. It helps to promote dialogue and mutual                     understanding. Culture is therefore crucial in building long-term relationships with countries             across the whole world: it has a great role to play in making the EU a stronger global                         actor." [10]

III. The case for the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures

24.     The historical and legal case for reunification of the Elgin collection is set out in the                             advice The Case for the Return of the Parthenon Sculptures provided in 2015 to the Greek             Government by an eminent English team of lawyers led by Geoffrey Robertson QC. [11]

25.       As Robertson reminds us, the Parthenon and its sculptures are the “keys to our ancient                          history”.  And they are the cornerstone of European cultural heritage. 

26.    The Parthenon is a national cultural symbol which is important to Greece’s self-identity and                deserving of protection under international law which is evolving and which recognises the                  sovereign right to claim unique cultural property of great historical significance taken in the                past. This is no less true of the challenge posed to Europe’s universal cultural legacy.

27.    The EU, in particular, recognises the importance value of “national treasures” as objects which            constitute elements essential and integral to a nation’s heritage and history by reason of their                artistic, historic or archaeological value. The Parthenon Sculptures are a national treasure par              excellence which transcend Greek borders and relate directly to the European cultural identity              and experience.

28.    Despite requests, the British Government will not engage with Greece over its requests for the            reunification of the marbles.  For more than thirty years the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures              has been discussed by the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of          Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation                (ICPRCP), without any movement whatsoever from the British side.  In 2015 attempts by                    UNESCO to facilitate mediation between the UK and Greece were rejected by the British side. 

29.     The British Museum Act has effectively locked up all legal remedies by the strict prohibition on           deaccessioning and successive UK governments have stated that the issue of return is a matter             for the British Museum which in turn claims that the sculptures in London now tell a different             narrative and are separated both physically and historically from their Athenian birthplace.

30.   The proposed withdrawal by the UK from the European Union - Brexit - offers the opportunity           for the negotiating parties to honour the spirit and letter of the declaration by the European                   Parliament made more than a quarter of century ago that returning the Parthenon Sculptures                 would be a key move in promoting Europe’s common cultural heritage.

 IV. Recommendations

 31.   Article 167 of the TFEU reflects the “formal recognition by the European Union of the                        significance of culture as a basic concern of the Union”.[12]

 32.      The Parthenon and its sculptures constitute the genesis of Europe’s cultural identity and                       memory and must be reunited on European soil.

 33.   As Europe prepares to celebrate the European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018 the                              reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures is a matter that can and should be raised in the EU -              UK negotiations as a legitimate expression of the EU’s genuine commitment to safeguard and              enhance its cultural legacy.

 34.     As Rodi Kratsa MEP has written:

             “The issue of the return of the Parthenon Marbles constitutes … a moral issue of European                   nature. It is a demand associated with the respect and integrity of the Parthenon, this                           landmark monument of European culture of universal significance.  For this reason, the                       return of its Marbles is a moral obligation for the whole of Europe in the framework of the                   protection of our common cultural heritage.”[13]

 35.   The EU is strongly encouraged to enter into negotiations under Article 50 with a view to                      achieving an agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the Union and ideally a suitable                  framework of co-operation in the future that includes a satisfactory resolution of the issue of the          Parthenon Sculptures as an integral component of the EU’s pledge to conserve and safeguard all          cultural heritage of European significance.

   

George Vardas

---

[1] Merryman, J H “Thinking about the Elgin Marbles” (1985) 83 Michigan Law Review, p. 1985

[2] "Athens ceremony for EEC/Greek Association” Bulletin from the European community, July 1961, number 48

[3] European Parliament, OJ C 135, 14/05/1999 (p. 118)

[4] Negotiating directives - Council of the European Union (May 22 2017)

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7sOWduf7VAhXDnZQKHXRGCk0QFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consilium.europa.eu%2Fen%2Fmeetings%2Fgac%2F2017%2F05%2Fdirectives-for-the-negotiation-xt21016-ad01re02_en17_pdf%2F&usg=AFQjCNHtAhP0OESs6lardNPp6357FyHxuA

[5] Irini Stamatoudi, Cultural Property Law and Restitution: A Commentary to International Conventions and European Union Law (Edward Elgar 2011), pp. 127 & 128

[6] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0060&from=EN

[7] European Parliament Resolution on 12 May 2011 OJ C 377E , 7.12.2012, p. 135.

[8] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/142705.pdf

[9] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.13.1.html

[10] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2074_en.htm

[11] This advice can be accessed at: http://www.helleniccouncil.org.au/docs/The%20Case%20for%20the%20Return%20of%20the%20Parthenon%20Sculptures.pdf

[12] Irini Stamatoudi, Cultural Property Law and Restitution: A Commentary to International Conventions and European Union Law (Edward Elgar 2011), p.129

[13] Rodi Kratsa, MEP “Europe and the Parthenon Marbles: A Common Cause” in P. Van Gene-Saillet (ed.) The reunification of the Parthenon Marbles: A European Concern (Editions Bruylant, 2014) at p. 20

Brexit and the Parthenon: negotiating the exit of the marbles

The Parthenon Sculptures, comprising the sculptured pediments, metopes and frieze removed by Lord Elgin and his men from the Parthenon in Athens in the early part of the nineteenth century and placed in the British Museum in 1816, embody traces “of a great past to be recalled.”[1] 

The Parthenon and the magnificent sculptures that once adorned it represent the “longevity of human creation” and stand as a testament to humanity’s “defiance against the sands of the hourglass.”[2] 

For that reason they also constitute an integral part of our shared European and world cultural heritage.

Despite Greece’s long-standing request and repeated calls for their return and the reunification of all the known surviving sculptural elements in the Acropolis Museum, the United Kingdom has proven to be intransigent.  Its position has consistently been that the sculptures were legally acquired and are vested in the British Museum and nothing has changed.  The latest attempt at negotiations through a UNESCO-facilitated mediation fell over in 2015.  There has been no real movement since then.  

But now we have Brexit.  The United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union and somewhat tense and fraught negotiations have recently begun to attempt to finalise the divorce between the UK and continental Europe.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that where a Member State decides to withdraw, in light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. 

In her letter of 29 March 2017 to the president of the European Union, the British Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that the vote to leave the European Union did not represent a “rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans” and that the United Kingdom remained committed partners and allies.  May stressed that the engagement should be one that is constructive and respectful and conducted in a spirit of “sincere cooperation” given that the UK wishes to continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values.  The Prime Minister reiterated that the world needs the “liberal, democratic values of Europe” to prosper.

In turn, the European Union published its draft guidelines following the United Kingdom’s notification under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.  In that document, it specified that during the negotiations the Union will act as one, it will be constructive throughout and will strive to find an agreement.  It will abide by the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.  In certain unique circumstances the European Union acknowledged that “flexible and imaginative solutions” will be required.

Greece, among others, is called upon to form a position concerning the post-Brexit EU-UK relationship.   Brexit may therefore offer Greece a unique opportunity to impress upon its European partners that as part of a structured Brexit negotiation one particular “imaginative solution” that should be placed on the diplomatic table would relate to the eventual return of the Parthenon Sculptures to European soil.

This idea is not new.  In early 2017, at the 5th annual Greek Press Association dinner held in London, the guest speaker, Geoffrey Robertson QC, raised the proposal that Brexit could well bring the issue of the Parthenon sculptures to the fore.  According to Robertson, who was also one of the learned authors of a definitive legal advice delivered to the Greek Government about the prospects of Greece’s successfully litigating the return of the sculptures, one of the consequences of Brexit will be that the UK will no longer be bound by Article 3 of the TEU which provides that each member country must ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.  Accordingly, it is argued that Greece would have good reason to try to persuade its fellow member states to include the restitution of the Parthenon sculptures in their list of negotiation demands in exchange for satisfying one of the UK’s likely counter demands.

Such a strategy will require a combination of political will and diplomatic flair on the part of the Greeks, particularly as the Greek Foreign Ministry officially promotes the use of soft power as a persuasive approach to international relations through the nuanced use of cultural diplomacy and influence.

The Treaty of Lisbon places great importance on culture. The preamble to the TEU expressly refers to “drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe” and, as we have seen, Article 3 specifically mandates that Europe’s cultural heritage be safeguarded.

Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - the so-called ‘article on culture’ - requires the EU to encourage co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, support and supplement their actions in the improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples and conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance. 

This was reinforced by the Council of the European Union in its memorandum issued on 21 May 2014 in which it acknowledged that cultural heritage is a major asset for Europe and an important component of the European project.  It also emphasised that cultural heritage can help promote diversity and intercultural dialogue while contributing to a stronger sense of ‘belonging’ to a wider community. [3]

In April 2016 Federica Mogherini, the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Vice President of the European Commission, declared that the European Union is committed to developing a new strategy in international relations based on culture:

“Probably no other place in the world has the same cultural ‘density’ as Europe.  So much history, so many stories and cultures. We preserve millennial traditions and we are among the engines of global innovation. We should not be afraid to say we are a cultural superpower (for) our culture inspired the world because it was itself inspired by the world.” [4]

In March 2017 at the first G7 ministerial meeting on culture the joint declaration of the ministers of culture of the G7, amongst other things, reaffirmed their belief that cultural heritage, in all its forms, tangible and intangible, movable and immovable, being an extraordinary link between past, present and future of mankind, contributes to the preservation of identity and memory of mankind and encourages dialogue and cultural exchanges among nations, thereby fostering tolerance, mutual understanding recognition and respect for diversity. [5]

And finally, 2018 has been officially designated as the European Year of Cultural Heritage.  It offers an excellent opportunity to highlight the role of Europe's cultural heritage in fostering a shared sense of history and identity. 

And Greece and the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures should be at the centre of that conversation.  As culture is clearly a significant element in the European Union narrative and the Parthenon Sculptures - conceived and created during the Age of Classical Greece at the birthplace of democracy - are the par excellence of Europe’s cultural and architectural heritage, Greece should be seriously considering pursuing a Brexit-nuanced strategy of cultural diplomacy across Europe to arrive at a just solution to this long-running cultural property dispute. 

Greece’s standing in matters of culture cannot be over-stated.  On 24 April 2017 Greece, under the auspices of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hosted in Athens the first Ministerial Conference of the ten countries participating in the Ancient Civilizations Forum (also known as the GC10), namely, Greece, China, Egypt, Bolivia, India, Iraq, Iran, Italy, Mexico and Peru.  According to Greece’s Foreign Minister, Nikos Kotzias, the Forum was an opportunity to build a “positive agenda” for the multifunctional role that Greece can play internationally, noting that the participating countries are all considered cradles of ancient cultures and were coming together to discuss issues such as the role of culture as a source of soft power and the key tool of a modern and multidimensional foreign policy.[6]

Already both Mr Kotzias and the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Terens Quick, have had discussions with their British counterparts. Obviously, there are many issues that may potentially impact Greece, including the future of Greek students pursuing further studies in the UK, shipping and other aspects of Anglo-Hellenic trade and commerce, and the vexed and ongoing issue of the future of Cyprus.

Greece and the UK have long-standing and close historical ties, forged during the Greek Revolution of 1821 and rekindled on the battlefields of Europe during the Second World War when Greece joined Britain to fight the Nazi onslaught when the rest of Western Europe had succumbed.  Of course, there is also a notorious historical link, namely, the actions of Lord Elgin, Britain’s then Ambassador to Constantinople, who abused his diplomatic position to oversee the stripping and removal of approximately one half of the exquisite statuary from the Parthenon and their eventual transfer to the British Museum where they presently remain on display.

In his discussions with the British Secretary of State for UN and Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Deputy Minister Quick noted the Secretary of State’s positive comments:

“Beyond what Europe is doing, I should remind you that with Greece Great Britain has always had traditional political, diplomatic and friendly relations before the formation of the European Union. We are old allies, we have common interests, so we cannot remove them from our consideration when the time comes to look at issues in the post- Brexit era and in relation to Hellenism.” [7]

The Greek Deputy Minister added that without jumping to conclusions, he felt that the British are approaching the issue at a bilateral level as well, and that may have positive aspects.

The Greek President of the British-Hellenic Chamber of Commerce has correctly observed that the issue of whether Britain’s exit from the EU will offer more opportunities or threats to all sides involved will depend on the “political maturity, historical memory and thoroughness that we will show as a government, as productive entities, as a people, as Europeans.” [8]

Greece has unsuccessfully sought the return of the Parthenon Sculptures for many decades with no movement or compromise ever shown by the British Museum or the UK Government.  Diplomatic conversations at meetings of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation over thirty years have simply gone nowhere.  The British are clearly not interested in mediation and, regrettably, Greece has formally eschewed the idea of litigation before the courts (notably the International Court of Justice), instead opting for the well-worn diplomatic path.

But now the UK Government is forced to negotiate a Brexit deal amidst growing tension within its ranks and widespread concern as to how the country will emerge on “exit day”.  There is a lot at stake.

The Parthenon Sculptures are the embodiment of the cultural heritage of Europe and a means to understand our past.  Their return to Greece, combined with a reciprocal and recurring loan arrangement of other rare artefacts from Greece back to Britain, will not only bear testimony to the enduring character of the European Union and the social conscience of the United Kingdom to do the right thing, but will generate countless social and economic benefits for Greece in terms of growth and jobs, when after more than 200 years the sculptures of the Parthenon are finally and famously reunited in Athens.

It is time that Greece seized the initiative of constructive negotiations that Brexit potentially offers.

George Vardas and Elly Symons
Co-Vice Presidents
Australians for the Return of the Parthenon Sculptures

---

[1] Shanks, M. Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline (Routledge, London and New York, 1996) page 72

[2] Jusdanis, G. “Farewell to the Classical: Excavations in Modernism” Modernism/modernity Vol. 11 No. 1 (2004) page 37

[3] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(08)&from=EN

[4] https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/5164_en

[5] http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/culture/culture-2017-en.html

[6]  http://greece.greekreporter.com/2017/04/06/athens-hosts-first-ministerial-conference-of-ancient-civilizations-forum/#sthash.jY5HJvXv.dpuf

[7] http://www.terensquick.gr/2017/07/1055-brexit.html?m=1

[8] Athens-Macedonian News Agency 5 April 2017

The Case for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles Restated

 

 

Since Melina Mercouri confronted the director of the British Museum in the early 1980s demanding return of the Parthenon Marbles – the sculptures looted by Lord Elgin’s men over 200 years ago – successive Greek Governments have paid lip service to the issue of return.

It has been left to a sustained international campaign of Philhellenes around the world, including Australia, to mount the case for reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures.

Parthenon Sculptures come to Adelaide

 

The Foundation of Hellenic Studies in Adelaide, South Australia has now stepped up to the mark and staged a series of events that have raised the profile of the campaign for return, coincidentally with the release of a landmark legal opinion that breathes new hope into the campaign.

 

In late March 2016 the Foundation unveiled a dramatic exhibition of fourteen exact replicas of sculptures from the sacred rock.  The Acropolis Sculptures Retrospective had arrived in the city of churches, offering visitors a virtual guided tour of the Acropolis and the tragic pillaging carried out by Lord Elgin and his men.   

Then, on 6 May 2016 at a gala dinner held at the Adelaide Festival Centre attended by over 400 guests, the prominent Australian barrister, Geoffrey Robertson QC, in a keynote speech delivered a devastating critique of the continued retention of the sculptures in the British Museum.

Geoffrey Robertson went to the core of the issue: the sculptures were not taken legitimately by Elgin as supporters of the British Museum claim; they were stolen.  Robertson, an accomplished criminal law counsel, confessed “I could not have defended Lord Elgin”. 

In 1780 the French had sought to take moulds and the Ottoman authorities in Athens gave a limited permission but on strict terms not to remove any sculptures.  Robertson pointedly asked how it was that Elgin managed to that that very thing 20 years later since he was, after all, an “under-bright but over-ambitious Tory”.  Elgin was fortunate to have in his camp the Rev Leigh Hunt.  Elgin had applied for permission to draw and mould but Hunt paid bribes and persuaded the Turkish Military Governor of Athens to allow Elgin’s workers to remove parts of the structure.  Elgin was thrilled and authorised the payment of greater bribes.  The desecration of the Parthenon had begun.

It was an act of astonishing vandalism, according to Robertson.  Back in England, the issue of the sculptures was debated in Parliament in 1816 and Lord Elgin was heavily criticised because he had taken advantage of his diplomatic status and indeed profited from his ambassadorship.

Robertson dealt with a number of arguments that defenders of the British Museum raise from time to time.  For example, it is asserted that “no Elgin; no marbles” on the basis that Elgin’s intentions were to save and preserve the sculptures upon seeing their condition in situ.  But he arrived in Athens after most of the marbles had been ripped off the temple.  It was not an act of necessity.  Without Elgin, the marbles would still be on the Parthenon.

The sculptures are central to Greece’s identity.  As Melina Mercouri declared, they are the “essence of Greekness”.  Robertson explained how his colleague, Amal Clooney, had gone behind the historical corridor and ascertained that - contrary to a widely-held view that Mercouri’s demand in 1982 was the first time Greece had requested the sculptures’ return – the first claim was made back in 1833, one year after independence had been gained from the Ottoman Turks.

In 1836 the King of Greece sent a letter to the Greek delegation in London referring to the “glory of Greece” and that the sculptures’ removal was disputed in the name of human rights.  The British Foreign Office agreed in 1940 and advised the UK Government accordingly.  Only during the period between 1967-1974 when the junta was in power (run by “philistine fascists’) that no demand for return was made.

So what has happened since then?

The standard response by a revolving door of Greek Culture Ministers over the last 30 years has been that the Parthenon Sculptures must be returned and for a long time it was felt that the opening of the New Acropolis Museum – which finally occurred in 2009 – would mark the pivotal moment when the marbles in the British Museum would be reunited with their Athenian siblings under the bright Attic sky. 

But Greece did not bargain for the clever historical revisionism of the British Museum which steadily re-invented itself as the museum of the enlightenment – a universal museum supposedly embodying the collective memory of mankind – where (so the narrative goes) the Parthenon Sculptures truly belong in London. 

Over that period Greece and Britain have also met on countless times under the aegis of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation but have failed to make any progress as the British Ministry of Culture has continuously stonewalled efforts to hold any meaningful dialogue.  For over 30 years the committee has met and encouraged both parties to continue to negotiate, but to no avail.  This came to a farcical head in early 2015 when the British Government formally declined a UNESCO offer of mediation, restating a by now familiar line that the Elgin collection was legally acquired and there is no point in having any discussions until the Greeks acknowledge the British Museum’s legal ownership of the sculptures.

In October 2014 at the invitation of the then Samaras-led government Robertson, together with lawyers Professor Norman Palmer and Amal Clooney came to Athens in a flurry of publicity but with a simple message: litigate or perish.  The lawyers were asked to draft an extensive legal opinion providing Greece with a number of legal options to pursue the return of the sculptures.  That advice was eventually completed and delivered to the SYRIZA Government which came to power in early 2015 but successive Culture Ministers in that government have deemed litigation as a risky exercise not worth taking.  Although there have been attempts to pull back from this negotiating precipice, the damage was done.  The British sense that the Greeks lack confidence in their own legal and moral case for return and respond accordingly.

To add insult to injury, in 2013 and again in 2015 two major bilateral meetings took place between different British Foreign Secretaries and their Greek counterparts to discuss the present state of Anglo-Hellenic relations.  In the lengthy communiques that followed both meetings there was not one word mentioned about the Parthenon Sculptures.  How can cultural diplomacy (in any guise) work if the issue is not even on the agenda?

Geoffrey Robertson lays down the case for return

But the momentum is slowly but surely shifting.  Back in Adelaide, Geoffrey Robertson did not disappoint as he clinically demolished the tired and often insulting arguments of the British Museum and its supporters.  Referring to the Parthenon and its sculptures as the “keys to our ancient history” Robertson also took aim at “lacklustre culture ministers” and the mindset that cultural diplomacy that has failed Greece in the past will somehow prevail in the future.   The British Government will not engage with Greek requests for return.  This position is simply untenable. 

Since 1833 Greece has made formal demands for return culminating in the request for mediation through UNESCO but the British have consistently rejected such approaches; they will send the sculptures to Russia (a reference to the controversial loan of the River God Ilissos sculpture in late 2014 to the Hermitage) but never to Greece.

The British Museum Act has effectively locked up all legal remedies by the strict prohibition on deaccessioning and so Greece has to look to international legal remedies through either the European Court of Human Rights or the International Court of Justice.  As Geoffrey Robertson declared: “without litigation the Parthenon Marbles will remain in the Duveen Gallery forever”.

According to Robertson, national cultural symbols which are important to a nation’s self-identity are deserving of protection under international law which is evolving and which recognizes the sovereign right to claim unique cultural property of great historical significance taken in the past.

The full power and beauty and architectural context of the sculptures can only be appreciated if they are reunited with the surviving sculptures in Athens.   In London, the sculptures are anachronistically displayed under artificial light in the Duveen Gallery.  They give the impression of an old newsreel.  The “unique wonder of the marbles” refutes the so-called slippery slide excuses by the museum.  The Parthenon is unprecedented in human history.  It is a “wonder of the world to be appreciated in the most natural way possible”.

As for the British Museum’s claims that it is a 'world museum’, a 'something for everyone’ pluralistic museum, Robertson pointed out that in the case of the sculptures the museum has jumbled artefacts from all over the world in a display that has no coherence.  In the British Museum the marbles are simply “titbits in a cultural smorgasbord” whereas in the New Acropolis Museum they would literally come to light.

But the British Museum is prepared to go to extremes to justify its position.  It claims, for example, that in the British Museum the visitor cannot only look at 5th century Athens but also compare what followed.  The curator of the museum’s Greek and Roman exhibitions, Ian Jenkins, has actually referred to an Assyrian panel showing the torture of prisoners and points out that the Greeks avoided depicting such cruelty.  Similarly, the classical horsemen preparing for the cavalcade on the Parthenon marbled frieze are compared to a photograph an English fox hunt.  The iconic heifer “lowing at the skies” (as Keats wrote in Ode to a Grecian Urn) is reduced to a photograph image of African Masai youth attempting to restrain a bolting cow.   The attempted linkage is just illogical.

 

 

 

And then there is the British Museum’s descent into historical revisionism. 

The Australian writer, Donald Horne in The Great Museum, noted the trend which developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to establish a museum of antiquities.  In addition to art museums the new European desire to order the universe saw the evolution of historical museums such as the British Museum stocked with the loot of empire to affirm the “legitimacy of imperial domination”.   The Parthenon Sculptures continue to bear testimony to that imperialist mindset.

Robertson also quoted from the American scholar Joan Connelly’s seminal work, The Parthenon Enigma:

 

The wholeness of the Parthenon demands our respect and warrants every effort to reunify it … Let us, for a moment, consider the state of the central figures of the west pediment.  Poseidon’s shoulders are held in London while his pectoral and abdominal muscles remain in Athens … This deliberate and sustained dismemberment of what are some of the most sublime images ever carved by humankind brings shame on those who work to uphold this state of affairs.

The reassembled replica of Poseidon, with both London and Athens components, was on view outside in the exhibition.  To any reasonable viewer, this state of affairs is simply untenable.

 

Poseidon’s shoulders are held in London (far right) while his pectoral and abdominal muscles remain in Athens

The legal opinion

Within 48 hours of Geoffrey Robertson’s speech, the Guardian newspaper in London published the actual written legal opinion which had apparently been leaked to it.  And that advice demonstrates that Greece would have, at the very least, an arguable case to bring before the International Court of Justice in its own right or through UNESCO seeking an advisory opinion from the court, invoking the emerging principles of customary international law that recognise the inextricable link between a country’s cultural identity and rare artefacts of great significance that were illegally or dubiously removed in the past.

Interestingly, in a separate interview with the Guardian, the current Culture Minister, Aristidis Baltas, has ventured that Greece is hoping to forge alliances to bring pressure to bear upon the British Museum through the United Nations but again appeared to hesitate about legal action apart from stating that Greece would go to court “if all the nations of the world say ‘the marbles should be returned’”. 

 

 

 

Elly Symons, Vice President of Australians for the Return of the Parthenon Sculptures, with Geoffrey Robertson QC. 

The Australian committee supports the proposed litigation strategy.

 

Robertson, lamenting the Greek Government’s determination to go down the doomed and futile diplomatic route, alluded to what he called the “Navarino syndrome” and the apparent deep well of gratitude to the British.  And yet, as he observed,  the English love litigation and they always comply with a judgment.  Greece could seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ.  If Greece were to lose on a technicality, it does not follow that it would have lost the whole campaign.  It can be brought again.  Customary law may not have evolved as much as Greece would like, but it can try again when it has evolved.

To the claim that it will take a long time Geoffrey Robertson asked rhetorically: “how long is never?”  He added:

 “The Marbles will never return to Greece unless there is litigation in Strasbourg or the Hague.  We are at risk of damage to the campaign.  By failing to take legal action we are perceived to be lacking confidence.”

According to Robertson, now is an opportune time for states to reclaim wrongfully taken cultural property in the wake of the barbarous activities of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, highlighted by the barbarous cultural vandalism of the ancient site of Palmyra.  The ICJ can enunciate the legal norm regarding the right to protect cultural property for unlawfully removed cultural property no matter how long ago the spoliation took place. 

Robertson received a standing ovation from the crowd.  In concluding the night, organiser Harry Patsouris urged everyone to “keep the passion going”.

Back to UNESCO

 

On 29-30 September 2016 the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee is again meeting in Paris.  Although the agenda has not as yet been released, the UNESCO committee’s website states that the 20th session of the Committee aims to examine the follow-up to the recommendations promoting bilateral negotiations which were adopted at the 19th session in October 2014. 

And what was that recommendation?

Noting that the Parthenon Sculptures had been the subject of a case pending before the Committee since 1984, the Committee recalled that in July 2013 the Director General of UNESCO had met with Mr Panos Panagiotopoulos, Minister of Culture of the Hellenic Republic, and during their discussion, Panagiotopoulos had expressed his hopes “that UNESCO could use its good offices with the authorities of the United Kingdom as a facilitator in the matter of the Parthenon sculptures”. 

Panagiotopoulos was four culture ministers ago in the space of less than three years.  Another reason why the British do not take the Greek side seriously. 

As we have seen,  the UK government - with the British Museum in tow - rejected mediation in March 2015 and in so doing rejected any UNESCO-authored diplomatic initiatives or indeed any proper and meaningful engagement with the Greeks.

In the intervening period, consecutive Culture Ministers in the Tsipras Government have simply restated that Greece will continue to pursue all diplomatic and political options open to it, including mediation.  As Robertson caustically but accurately describes it, the British are simply laughing at the Greeks over their constant indecision and prevarication.

So what needs to be done?

The time has come for the Greek State to finally assert itself and to formally claim back the Parthenon Marbles.

Greece should take advantage of the upcoming meeting of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee in September 2016 to prosecute its claim.  Mediation has been rejected by the British.  Diplomacy has not worked.  The Greek representatives, armed with the legal opinion drafted by the Robertson team, need to say that enough is enough and unless the British side is prepared to sit down for genuine bilateral negotiations (which is unlikely given their past utterances, then Greece will in the first instance petition UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ.

As the advice itself concludes, a universal benefit will flow from the renewal and re-integration of Greece’s pre-eminent monument, both as an artefact of unparalleled beauty in itself and as an eloquent symbol of human progress towards civilisation and democracy.

The Parthenon was conceived as a unity and the sculptures were designed as an integral part of the temple.  The time for their reunification has arrived.