Does an immoral act cease to be immoral over time?

General Articles

 

 Does an immoral act cease to be immoral over time?

Where is the Morality?

If the PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) stormed London, destroyed Buckingham Palace, then looted 1,000’s of valuable items the world would cry out in outrage.

The world would demand that China return all the items.

So what is the difference between that hypothetical immoral act and the very real immoral act perpetrated by Britain and France on China in 1860 when they systematically destroyed the Summer Palace and looted all the treasures?

The only difference it time.

Did it cease to be an immoral act over time?

The answer must be a resounding NO!!

The ‘west' squirms and comes up with the feeble excuse that is was a different time. It tries to hide behind some arcane law that enables them, under force of arms, to loot and destroy. A law made by the colonial powers to give legal justification to unbridled larceny of defenseless countries.

They hide behind legal technicalities, such as the Statue of Limitations. **

Surely it is time that lack of morality and arcane law is challenged.

The ‘west’ is continually telling China it must strengthen its rule of law. Britain is very proud of its Common Law, which has been exported to many countries.

The Common Law is indeed a sound basis for any legal system.

However, by retaining possession of the looted items from the Summer Palace Britain is breaking one of the fundamental tenets of its own Common Law, the law of property.

At Common Law property can be owned and possessed, or it can be either owned or possessed.

Possession of property does not confer ownership.

If property is acquired by illegal means, then it can never be owned, it can merely be possessed.

So if a thief steals your antique vase he will gain possession but he will not gain ownership, which remains with you the rightful owner, you.

If the vase is subsequently found then you have right to claim ownership and have it returned to you, irrespective of who possessed it at the time.

If the thief sold it to another person then possession will have changed hands but not ownership. The thief cannot have passed on the title, ownership, because the thief never had it in the first place.

Any items from the Summer Palace in the hands of another party, be it government, museum of private individual, is merely in their possession. It was stolen from the Summer Palace so title, ownership, was not established.

It remains the property of the original owners, China.

Kaixin fails to see on either moral or legal grounds how any government, museum or individual can claim ownership of any item stolen from the Summer Palace.

Kaixin also believes that China, and all the countries that were looted by the colonial powers, should establish two grounds for the return of those items:

The first would be the moral ground, that an immoral act does not cease to become immoral over time.

The second would be to challenge ownership on a legal basis. This case could be bought first in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Kaixin fails to see how the ICJ can find otherwise than that the property is still owned by China and any government, museum or person in possession does not have true title, therefore the property should be returned forthwith.

The ICJ, being predominantly a European institution, may bring out a dusty colonial law to justify ownership. 

Kaixin believes that China would be justified in accusing the ICJ of bias, of being incapable of delivering a verdict divorced from its political masters. China and those other countries concerned should then form another court to hear cases specifically concerned with matters relating to colonial times.

Of course, law is both a matter of validity and enforceability.

Assuming the validity and jurisdiction of the new court, if it found in favour of China, how could its judgment be enforced?

That is why Kaixin believes that the first step is to convince, or at least prosecute the case, that possession of any items stolen from another country is immoral.

Then, with a legal judgment China would have both the moral and the legal basis for taking back possession.

This could mainly be achieved through economic pressure. The combined economic power of China and the other countries will be considerable over the next few decades.

This does not have to be a quick solution, but it should be an inevitable one.

Something to ponder.



Richest man gives to monastery restoration

BEIJING - The richest property tycoon in China promised to donate 1 billion yuan ($150 million) for the restoration of a Buddhist monastery complex in Nanjing, East China's Jiangsu province on Monday.

Wang said his donation is out of respect toward traditional Chinese culture, even though he is not a Buddhist, the Beijing News reported on Tuesday.

Bao'ensi / Temple of Gratitude, Buddhist Pagoda known as The Porcelain Tower, South Bank of Yangtze River, Nanjing Territory (China). No longer exists, but is being reconstructed. Was 260 feet high, octagonal (with eight corners) & 97 feet in diameter. Was largest building in China. Radiated sunrays & functioned as a center of pilgrimage. Destroyed about 1860 during the Taiping Rebellion.

See Kaixin's Feature of Baoénsi

Global Times 15/11/2010

Money cannot cover up historical scars

Newspapers in Britain were circulating stories about an 18-century Chinese vase being sold for £53million ($85.6 million), the highest price ever at an auction.

While many speculated that the unidentified buyer is probably Chinese, as has been the case at recent auctions, a Financial Times reporter, Alexandra Stevenson, concluded that this trend is a new wave of "patriotism" from Chinese businessmen and government-backed cultural representatives keen on getting back national treasures.

This "patriotism" has pushed the price of these treasures to record levels. Emperor Qianlong's vase that sold last week in Britain was more than 40 times higher than the initial estimate.

According to UNESCO's statistics, there are more than 1.67 million Chinese antiques in about 200 museums in 47 countries, and tens of millions of items lost in private hands all over the world. No matter how hard China tries, it is impossible to buy back every treasure.

The historical meaning of an antique does not only lie in the item itself. The current location of the item and the journey it experienced also records their sad histories.

Bringing the item home using a fortune of money will not wash out its history of shame.

China needs to work harder to get its lost treasures back. But basically they should come back for free.

Some have suggested rebuilding Yuanmingyuan, the imperial palace burnt down by British and French troops during the Opium War. But most Chinese are opposed to the idea.

The ruins of the palace, which still stand in Beijing, are a reminder of China's tragic history.

Money will not buy back China's dignity; it will not cover up the painful scars either.

Kaixin

The moral issue is clear.

The legal on appears to be also. Kaixin made a cursory search and found that in all cases where ownership was proven, then the property was returned. This was extensively tested in respect to property looted in WWII.

The Hague Convention of which Britain is a signatory is clear in respect to cultural property. While the law was not in force in 1860, surely the morality has not changed.

Hague Regulation Article 56

The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

Hague Convention

Article 1. Definition of cultural property

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a)
    movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
(b)
    buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
(c)
    centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments".

Article 2. Protection of cultural property

For the purposes of the present Convention, the protection of cultural property shall comprise the safeguarding of and respect for such property.

Legal Protection of Cultural Property: A Selective Resource Guide

** WSJ 24/8/2011

Family’s Claim Against MoMA Hinges on Dates

When the Expressionist artist George Grosz, a celebrated painter, fled Nazi Germany in 1933, he left behind two important oil paintings and a watercolor with his Berlin dealer. Next month the United States Supreme Court, in deciding whether to hear the case, will determine whether Grosz’s heirs have any hope that legal action will help them recover the works from their current owner, the Museum of Modern Art.

Beyond the family, the case has drawn the attention of Jewish groups and experts in international law who argue that the Grosz case, like many others concerning art looted or lost during World War II, have too often been decided not on the merits but on whether claimants filed suit before the legal time limit.

MoMA, for example, has won several lower court decisions in the Grosz case because judges have ruled that the family simply filed its suit too late to be considered under New York State law. The United States has twice signed international agreements that urged nations to decide Holocaust-recovery claims based on their substance, not on legal technicalities. But the agreements do not have the force of law.

“Museums are breaking their own ethics codes and causing the U.S. government to break its international commitments by invoking our courts to resolve Holocaust-era art claims on technical grounds rather than on the merits,” said Jennifer Anglim Kreder, co-chairwoman of the American Society of International Law’s Interest Group on Cultural Heritage & the Arts.

HOME