Restoring heritage, redressing history: Why returning looted artifacts is only the first step

Editor's note: Zhao Yongsheng, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is the director of the French Economy Research Center at China's University of International Business and Economics. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The French National Assembly's unanimous passage of a bill on April 13 to simplify the restitution of colonial-era cultural property marks a pivotal moment in European diplomacy by addressing the legacy of artifacts seized between 1815 and 1972. While the tangible success of future restitutions remains to be seen, Paris is responding to an undeniable shift in global political dynamics and public sentiment. More than just a procedural update, this legislative momentum suggests that France is moving toward an essential reckoning with its colonial past and the systemic harm inflicted upon global heritage.

Historically, France's global expansion was fueled by a systematic and large-scale campaign of colonial plunder, a campaign from which China also suffered profound losses under the shadow of semi-colonialism. The most haunting testament to this history remains the ruins of Beijing's Yuanmingyuan Park (the Old Summer Palace). Even today, the words of Victor Hugo resonate with a moral clarity that transcends centuries. In his famous 1861 letter to Captain Butler, the French literary giant laid bare his fury over the atrocities committed by the Anglo-French allied forces: "One day, two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One plundered, the other burned." Hugo's rage at the burning and looting of this architectural marvel serves as a timeless indictment of a civilization that claimed enlightenment while orchestrating destruction.

France's history of global expansion was a project of systemic dispossession. In collusion with other Western powers, Paris oversaw the illegal seizure of a staggering volume of cultural heritage from across Africa and Asia – the nations of what we call the Global South today – through colonial expansion, war, and forced trade. While countless artifacts have vanished into the shadows of private collections and auction houses, the fragments that remain in the halls of the Louvre or the British Museum serve as cold reminders of this colonial harvest.

At its heart, this appropriation was never merely about art. It was a deliberate act of "cultural imperialism" designed to strip colonized peoples of their history. In an era where international relations often seem to be regressing toward the "law of the jungle," France's legislative move to simplify restitution is a rare and commendable act. By streamlining the return of these looted treasures, France is finally beginning the difficult work of institutional reflection and historical atonement.

However, we must not be too quick to applaud the "enlightenment" of those who have finally laid down the tools of dispossession. A historical debt of this magnitude requires more than a simple gesture to be settled. Profound wrongs demand a double measure of redemption before forgiveness can even be considered. The return of cultural relics is merely one ledger in the broader accounting of colonial history, an era defined not just by the theft of art but by violent conquest, the plunder of human life, and the systematic erasure of cultures that were once inflicted upon Global South nations.

While France's legislative progress is a step worth encouraging, importantly, the nations of the Global South must recognize this for what it is: a beginning, not an end. Far from the "end of history," the simplification of restitution is merely the opening chapter of a new era of civilization and justice. This moment represents a profound awakening of cultural identity across the South, signaling a shift that will fundamentally reshape the evolution of global civilization.

Regarding the feasibility of France's new bill, two structural breakthroughs deserve recognition. First, the process is finally moving away from the sluggish "case-by-case" model. While French President Emmanuel Macron made bold promises during his 2017 visit to Burkina Faso to return African cultural heritage within five years, progress was long stymied by a system that required grueling, individual negotiations for every single item. This latest legislation aims to replace that time-consuming and laborious treadmill with a streamlined path.

Second, the restitution of cultural heritage now enjoys the weight of institutionalized judicial protection. Although the bill awaits a final vote and the President's signature, the paradigm shift is clear. For nations like China, the pursuit of lost treasures will no longer depend on exhausting, isolated negotiations. Instead, it will be anchored in clear, official channels backed by comprehensive institutional support. In short, the return of history is transitioning from a matter of political favor to a matter of law.

Given the vast scale of China's displaced heritage, a scattershot approach to recovery is no longer sufficient. Instead, China must focus its efforts on a "strategic triad" of artifacts that embody its national identity.

First, we must prioritize those relics that serve as the imprints of Chinese civilization's source: the irreplaceable oracle bone fragments and the delicate Tang Dynasty manuscripts and silk paintings from the Dunhuang Mogao Caves. Second, we must reclaim the witnesses to national humiliation, such as the 12 Chinese zodiac sculptures of the Old Summer Palace. The 2013 return of the rat and rabbit heads by Francois-Henri Pinault, chairman of Kering, during then-French President Francois Hollande's visit was a symbolic gesture, but the mission remains unfinished. Finally, we must seek the restoration of immovable cultural components, such as monumental works like the "Six Steeds of Zhaoling" or the Longmen Grottoes' "Emperor and Empress Paying Homage to Buddha." Rather than just artifacts, these are the severed limbs of China's architectural and spiritual landscape that belong back in their original context.

The prioritization of these three categories is a matter of both scientific necessity and moral justice. First, the displacement of civilizational imprints has created a void in our historical record. Without these foundational artifacts, vital chapters of China's heritage remain incomplete. Second, those relics that serve as witnesses to national humiliation are the physical scars of the 19th and 20th centuries. They offer irrefutable proof of the Anglo-French forces' brutality, ensuring that the lessons of a "century of humiliation" are never forgotten. Finally, the urgency surrounding immovable components cannot be overstated. Not simply "taken," these treasures were violently hewn from their foundations. With every passing year, the hope of reintegrating these severed pieces into their original structures grows fainter. To wait any longer is to risk a permanent divorce between these national treasures and the soil to which they belong.

While prioritizing these three categories provides a strategic compass, it must be paired with a cold, rational assessment of the law's practical boundaries. We should resist the siren song of over-optimism. The road to restitution is still paved with significant legal hurdles.

Central to this challenge is the bill's specific scope. While the designated timeframe of 1815–1972 encompasses the 1860 looting of the Old Summer Palace, a critical distinction remains: Many French circles still classify these artifacts as "military spoils" or "war booty." This label continues to spark fierce debate in Paris over whether such items are even eligible for return. Furthermore, while legislators like Jeremie Patrier-Leitus invoked Victor Hugo's defense of China, the bill's primary momentum is still anchored in Africa. China must navigate these distinctions carefully, recognizing that even with new legislation, the fight for its heritage will be as much about legal interpretation as it is about historical justice.

Even as we acknowledge this breakthrough, we must remain clear-eyed about the work ahead. First, the French bill does not mandate a return. It only opens a door. The burden of initiation remains with the claimant government, leaving the final authority still in Paris. For nations like China, which were never formal colonies, this process will inevitably be a complex diplomatic and economic game played at multiple levels.

Second, our immediate priority must be vigilant monitoring to prevent the unauthorized auction of these treasures before they can be claimed. We should advocate for a "Sino-French Joint Management System" to institutionalize supervision, with legal authority granted by the bill. While this legislation provides a new institutional channel for the Old Summer Palaces' relics, success will likely depend on a mix of trade incentives and diplomatic consultation.

Finally, we must acknowledge the magnitude of France's break from the long-held Western dogma that public collections are non-transferable. For decades, this legal shield, enshrined in various national heritage codes, has been the primary defense used by the UK, Spain, Germany, the US, and Japan, whose museums are loaded with looted canonical treasures, to rebuff restitution claims. By toppling this first domino, France has transferred immense moral and legislative pressure to other major holders of looted heritage, most notably the UK, Germany, and the US. This model should particularly compel Japan, a neighbor whose history of colonization caused profound suffering and whose lack of sincere repentance remains a wound in the region. France's legislation is a commendable starting point for civilized justice, but it is just that – a beginning. The road to full historical redemption and the restitution of cultural relics remains long and arduous.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)