• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China relics buyer refuses to pay

There really are no laws that are internationally recognized (and followed) to stop people from looting during a war. And even if there are now, there certainly weren't any such laws 150 years ago.

And yet governments have recently made efforts to return looted treasure to their rightful owners. I don't see why this would be any different considering we know who A) the owners is and that B) the items in question were indeed stolen.

As for what logic they stop belonging to the person...because at a certain point, it becomes damn near impossible to track down the original owner.

Ummm the original owners in this case would be then be people of China. What are you confused about?

Is the French government today (much less the private investor who actually owns it) the same French government that stole the property?

Yes. Or is France no longer an existent country?

Is the Chinese government today the same Chinese government from whom it was stolen?

Irrelevant. The American government 10 years ago wasn't the same as the American government today. Does that mean they no longer carry responsibility for the government that came before them?

If we're going to start going back 150 years to address grievances, then the US government needs to give most of its land back to Native American tribes.

Extremist logic. These are specific items which were stolen from a specific group of people. How much land belonged to each Native American tribe? Where were the boundaries of their land? The U.S. government has had many instances of giving land back to Native Americans. Just look at the way they stop digging whenever a new Native cemetery is found. Matter of fact the U.S. government has gone even as far back as 40 years to address grievances with groups it considers it did wrong to. Just look at the reparations the Japanese got. But like I said. Your argument fails. The discussion at hand involves 2 specific items which we :

A) Know were stolen.

B) Know who they belonged to.

In fact, they have MORE of a claim to it than the parties in this case...because it actually WAS the same United States government that stole their land.

See above.
 
And yet governments have recently made efforts to return looted treasure to their rightful owners. I don't see why this would be any different considering we know who A) the owners is and that B) the items in question were indeed stolen.

Right, GOVERNMENTS who come into possession of property looted during war often return the property to the country it came from. Mostly as a goodwill gesture. They rarely make individual citizens return that property, except for specific events ascribed into their nations' laws, such as the Holocaust, and/or if the individual himself is partially responsible for the theft.

Hatuey said:
Ummm the original owners in this case would be then be people of China. What are you confused about?

Why do the people of China own it? It was the emperor's personal possession and I doubt he shared it with his subjects. (And before you bring up the White House as an analogy, the people VOTE for representatives who appropriate tax dollars to furnish the White House.)

Hatuey said:
Yes. Or is France no longer an existent country?

Irrelevant. The American government 10 years ago wasn't the same as the American government today. Does that mean they no longer carry responsibility for the government that came before them?

The US government is the same as it has been since 1789. France has had at least seven different governments since 1860.

Hatuey said:
Extremist logic. These are specific items which were stolen from a specific group of people. How much land belonged to each Native American tribe? Where were the boundaries of their land?

In the cases where the answers to those questions can be clearly identified, would you support returning the land in full and granting total sovereignty to the Native American tribes?

Hatuey said:
The U.S. government has had many instances of giving land back to Native Americans.

Not nearly as many instances as they do of taking land from Native Americans.

Hatuey said:
Just look at the way they stop digging whenever a new Native cemetery is found.

That's more out of respect than out of any sense that the land was wrongfully taken. And even if it was, that hardly cuts it. The US government looted an entire continent.

Hatuey said:
Matter of fact the U.S. government has gone even as far back as 40 years to address grievances with groups it considers it did wrong to. Just look at the reparations the Japanese got.

Going back 40 years to address specific grievances with living people who were actually affected is one thing. Going back 160 years to force a private investor, who had no part in the looting, to give property back to a government (the People's Republic of China) which never owned it in the first place is different.
 
Last edited:
If somebody steals my car and police find it a year after do I no longer have a claim to such a car even if it was sold to somebody else? Seriously saying that China no longer has a legal claim to an object which was not only stolen from China but also that it's present owner knew was stolen from China is ridiculous.

That theft is governed by municipal law. This is governed by international law. In 1860, there was no body of law that governed this sort of situation. In other words, it was perfectly legal at the time.
 
That theft is governed by municipal law. This is governed by international law. In 1860, there was no body of law that governed this sort of situation. In other words, it was perfectly legal at the time.

Stealing, looting, plundering whatever you want to call it has NEVER been legal. Try. Again.
 
Stealing, looting, plundering whatever you want to call it has NEVER been legal. Try. Again.

Sure it has been. It is part of customary state practice and such looting was commonplace during warfare in the 19th century and earlier.

link

The British Museum's legal standing may be solid. International law hasn't kept pace with shifting global views over whether antiquities should be returned to their places of origin - often less-developed countries - or kept in big museums with resources for care and display.

Lucille A. Roussin, who has a doctorate in art history and archaeology as well as a law degree and teaches at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, said there's no dispute when Chinese officials say the bronze rat and rabbit heads that were auctioned by Christie's last week in Paris disappeared in the ransacking of the emperor's Garden of Perfect Brightness during the Second Opium War.

"Did they have a legal claim? No. Did they have a moral claim? Yes," Roussin said. The items in question "were certainly looted. But they were looted at a time when there was no international law on this kind of looted object."
 
Last edited:
Well, if China were stronger, it could have prevented it. Funny how just a few decades earlier, the Chinese were calling the Europeans barbarians, and then they were getting their butts kicked. They should have abided by previous agreements and not executed a French missionary.

Can your anti-Chinese crap Ludahai, your argument is full of holes and full of vitriol.

As for the taking of cultural treasures, back in the 19th century, that was a consequence of losing a war. Again, as I said before, it is a GOOD thing they were taken. They would have been destroyed in the 1960s had they NOT been. If CHina wants them back, they will have to negotiate for them. The behavior of this bogus bidder to disrupt the auction was illegal and unethical.

Prove the bolded assertion with evidence. Oh that's right, you can't. You can't justify theft with a "maybe". Even though a lot of China's relics were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, there were still a lot that did survive and are on display to this day. You need to brush up on your modern history a little bit before you cast accusations and irrational probabilities.
 
Can your anti-Chinese crap Ludahai, your argument is full of holes and full of vitriol.

There was nothing false in the statement this is in response to.

1. A French missionary was executed. Fact.
2. China was in violation of earlier agreements with Britain regarding treatment of British-flagged vessels. Probably fact -though one that is disputed.
3. China referred to the British and other Westerners as "Barbarians" just a few decades earlier. Fact.
4. Were China stronger, they could have resisted the West. Fact.

Prove the bolded assertion with evidence. Oh that's right, you can't. You can't justify theft with a "maybe". Even though a lot of China's relics were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, there were still a lot that did survive and are on display to this day. You need to brush up on your modern history a little bit before you cast accusations and irrational probabilities.

Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?
 
Sure it has been. It is part of customary state practice and such looting was commonplace during warfare in the 19th century and earlier.

So let's forget the modern relationship that has since formed between these nations on good faith, and simply defer back to 1890's policy so we can keep whatever treasures we have stolen. What a ridiculous argument. Britain and France were only in China to force the Chinese to buy their opium, and now they have the audacity to claim that they had the right to steal from China? They invaded China, China didn't let them in.

Then again, if the Europeans had any morals at all they wouldn't have done the countless crimes against humanity they had in the past 200 years. Just because they spend a lot of PR effort into portraying themselves as saints for humanity, its going to be a bit hard to convince the other 80% of humanity who does not belong to Europe and North America.

France is already paying the price for it anyway, as China's trade mission to Europe skipped France all together while inking 10 billion euros of purchases in Germany alone. If France is willing to pay billions dollars a year for those bronze heads, then fools and their money will soon be parted.

The former imperialist powers are a bunch of thieves, and what's worse is that they are trying to justify their theft under the claim that they are protecting cultural treasures and preserving them. The same disputes are going on with Cambodia, Italy and Egypt right now.
 
There was nothing false in the statement this is in response to.

1. A French missionary was executed. Fact.
2. China was in violation of earlier agreements with Britain regarding treatment of British-flagged vessels. Probably fact -though one that is disputed.
3. China referred to the British and other Westerners as "Barbarians" just a few decades earlier. Fact.
4. Were China stronger, they could have resisted the West. Fact.

Please cite evidence from any treaty between the imperial powers and China which gave them universal rights to loot and remove cultural property from its lands. I'll save you the time, no such stipulation exists. Nothing you say can justify why, in modern times, China's stolen cultural heritage should not be returned.

Ludahai said:
Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?

Orius said:
Prove the bolded assertion with evidence. Oh that's right, you can't. You can't justify theft with a "maybe". Even though a lot of China's relics were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, there were still a lot that did survive and are on display to this day. You need to brush up on your modern history a little bit before you cast accusations and irrational probabilities.

Ever heard of reading? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that these relics would have definitely been destroyed, given that there are still relics in China today that survived. The Cultural Revolution did not destroy 100% of China's heritage. Your assertion is false.
 
So let's forget the modern relationship that has since formed between these nations on good faith, and simply defer back to 1890's policy so we can keep whatever treasures we have stolen. What a ridiculous argument. Britain and France were only in China to force the Chinese to buy their opium, and now they have the audacity to claim that they had the right to steal from China? They invaded China, China didn't let them in.

In the late 1850s, the Chinese were violating agreements it had inked, signed and exchanged instruments of ratification. I don't think the French missionary who was executed in Guangxi was invading China.

Then again, if the Europeans had any morals at all they wouldn't have done the countless crimes against humanity they had in the past 200 years. Just because they spend a lot of PR effort into portraying themselves as saints for humanity, its going to be a bit hard to convince the other 80% of humanity who does not belong to Europe and North America.

Did I say they were saints? No. Then again, you are supporting a country that has a lot of blood and crimes on its hands - arguably far worse than anything the British or French did.

France is already paying the price for it anyway, as China's trade mission to Europe skipped France all together while inking 10 billion euros of purchases in Germany alone. If France is willing to pay billions dollars a year for those bronze heads, then fools and their money will soon be parted.

Those bronze heads to NOT belong to the French government. The government of France has NO legal basis to loot from a private collection that has been paid for.

The former imperialist powers are a bunch of thieves, and what's worse is that they are trying to justify their theft under the claim that they are protecting cultural treasures and preserving them. The same disputes are going on with Cambodia, Italy and Egypt right now.

THey are ongoing. It is TRUE that they are protecting the treasures - far more so then they would have had they remained in China. However, there is nothing illegal about what has happened. If you look at my first post in this thread - I state that these countries may have a MORAL claim to make here. Of course, you missed that, didn't you?
 
In the late 1850s, the Chinese were violating agreements it had inked, signed and exchanged instruments of ratification. I don't think the French missionary who was executed in Guangxi was invading China.

Agreements that it was forced to ink or face oblivion. Do you think China really wanted to be forced to accept foreign missionaries into its interior? Do you think it really wanted to open up 5 of its port cities when beforehand it wanted zero economic relations with the West? It did so for survival.

The Imperialists killed way more Chinese in their invasions and subsequent rule than the Chinese ever killed in defending their nation. Your argument is bunk for the simple fact that none of this even relates to or justifies looting. Even if you defer to the argument on imperialist tactics of the day, that does not account for those countries keeping the relics now.

Did I say they were saints? No. Then again, you are supporting a country that has a lot of blood and crimes on its hands - arguably far worse than anything the British or French did.

Let's see... Britain invaded how many countries before it became the world's largest empire, forcing nations to accept their wholy unequal treaties and social stratifications? You are comparing British atrocities to China's internal domestic problems? There is no comparison.

I will admit though that all have been bloody monsters at one time or another.

Those bronze heads to NOT belong to the French government. The government of France has NO legal basis to loot from a private collection that has been paid for.

Which relates directly to the argument that I made earlier. The former imperial powers pick and choose which relics will be confiscated and returned. Blackmarket relics are confiscated all the time, especially Egyptian ones... yet who decides which are returned and which aren't? It's completely arbitrary. You claim that priviate property cannot be invaded by government, but this is false given relics that are confiscated by the cultural authorities of the imperial powers.

There needs to be a standardization process of what gets returned. If a foreign government makes a claim about relics that are theirs

THey are ongoing. It is TRUE that they are protecting the treasures - far more so then they would have had they remained in China.

I asked you to prove evidence to back up this point. Prove that these treasures would have been destroyed had they remained in China, and also account for why there are so much preserved treasures in China today that did survive the 100 years of insanity? Your 'what ifs' are bogus and easy to debunk.

Even if this were true, they would be Chinese relics destroyed by Chinese hands. It's their own property to do with as they see fit. What gives you or any country the right to tell them what property of theirs they should and shouldn't have access to?

However, there is nothing illegal about what has happened. If you look at my first post in this thread - I state that these countries may have a MORAL claim to make here. Of course, you missed that, didn't you?

I already acknowledged that there is no international law (yet) to protect cultural relics from being robbed, but the UN is working on one right now and once it is passed those claims will be realized. Of course, the imperial powers are going to fight the legislation tooth and nail because they believe their thefts are legitimate.

I don't trust your arguments Ludahai because you are so vehemently anti-PRC. I would make this identical argument for countries like Egypt, Cambodia, and Italy, all who have had their cultural and historical heritage robbed by the greed of former monarchies. Part of the Parthenon is in London right now and Italy wants it back... I believe their claim is legitimate as well.
 
Agreements that it was forced to ink or face oblivion. Do you think China really wanted to be forced to accept foreign missionaries into its interior? Do you think it really wanted to open up 5 of its port cities when beforehand it wanted zero economic relations with the West? It did so for survival.

It wanted economic relations with the West. It wanted to sell tea, but didn't want to buy anything in return.

As for signing the agreements. Are you saying it is ok for China to sign agreements and then not follow them? Sorry, but international law does not allow for that.

The Imperialists killed way more Chinese in their invasions and subsequent rule than the Chinese ever killed in defending their nation. Your argument is bunk for the simple fact that none of this even relates to or justifies looting. Even if you defer to the argument on imperialist tactics of the day, that does not account for those countries keeping the relics now.

And of course, the Chinese never invaded anyone, did they?

Let's see... Britain invaded how many countries before it became the world's largest empire, forcing nations to accept their wholy unequal treaties and social stratifications? You are comparing British atrocities to China's internal domestic problems? There is no comparison.

I didn't compare them. I merely said that none of them were saints.

I will admit though that all have been bloody monsters at one time or another.

The first sound statement you have made in this thread.

Which relates directly to the argument that I made earlier. The former imperial powers pick and choose which relics will be confiscated and returned. Blackmarket relics are confiscated all the time, especially Egyptian ones... yet who decides which are returned and which aren't? It's completely arbitrary. You claim that priviate property cannot be invaded by government, but this is false given relics that are confiscated by the cultural authorities of the imperial powers.

Can you cite any instances where the French government confiscated treasures that were in private hands and returned to the countries from which they originated?

There needs to be a standardization process of what gets returned. If a foreign government makes a claim about relics that are theirs

There is a legal process. China should try and use it.

I asked you to prove evidence to back up this point. Prove that these treasures would have been destroyed had they remained in China, and also account for why there are so much preserved treasures in China today that did survive the 100 years of insanity? Your 'what ifs' are bogus and easy to debunk.

I believe I originally said GOOD CHANCE (post #3)- which is undeniably true.

Even if this were true, they would be Chinese relics destroyed by Chinese hands. It's their own property to do with as they see fit. What gives you or any country the right to tell them what property of theirs they should and shouldn't have access to?

Fine, but now their legal owner is NOT China.

I already acknowledged that there is no international law (yet) to protect cultural relics from being robbed, but the UN is working on one right now and once it is passed those claims will be realized. Of course, the imperial powers are going to fight the legislation tooth and nail because they believe their thefts are legitimate.

Even if the UN made a law NOW, it would NOT apply to anything from the 19th century. Even international law recognizes a prohibition on ex post facto application of current international law.

I don't trust your arguments Ludahai because you are so vehemently anti-PRC. I would make this identical argument for countries like Egypt, Cambodia, and Italy, all who have had their cultural and historical heritage robbed by the greed of former monarchies. Part of the Parthenon is in London right now and Italy wants it back... I believe their claim is legitimate as well.

I am very anti-PRC, and with good reason. However, the same arguments apply with regards to Egypt and Cambodia.
 
It wanted economic relations with the West. It wanted to sell tea, but didn't want to buy anything in return.

This is not true. Britain approached the Qing several times requesting trade, and were denied several times while being called Barbarians. See: the McCarthy Expedition. China didn't want to give Britain anything, nor any of the imperial powers.

[URL="http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/208/READINGS/qianlong.html said:
Letter[/URL] from Qianlong Emperor to King George III, 1793"]Yesterday your Ambassador petitioned my Ministers to memorialise me regarding your trade with China, but his proposal is not consistent with our dynastic usage and cannot be entertained. Hitherto, all European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants, have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such has been the procedure for many years, although our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs [merchant firms] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence.

As for signing the agreements. Are you saying it is ok for China to sign agreements and then not follow them? Sorry, but international law does not allow for that.

So before you said there was no international law that could be applied at the time, now you are citing international law as reasoning for imperialist atrocities? How hypocritical can you get. In modern times, any treaty or contract signed under duress is worthy of being voided and made invalid.

After British and French forces destroyed the outpost of Tianjin and headed for the capital to sack Beijing, the Chinese Emperor was obliged to sign the treaties in order to prevent the oblivion of China. If he hadn't signed it, the invasion would have continued until millions more were dead.

Anyone who has studied the subsequent Treaty of Nanjing knows that it is completely unfair and gives the foreigners unlimited access to Chinese soil. It wasn't just the Qianlong Emperor that could not enforce the treaty, but his own people were rebelling on a large scale.

You know what... I'm not going to teach you Chinese history. Read a book. None of this justifies why France should be keeping relics now.

And of course, the Chinese never invaded anyone, did they?

If any country wants to make a claim that China is holding their relics, then I equally support such action. This has nothing to do with me taking China's side in particular... I take the side of any nation that has been robbed by imperialism.

Ludahai said:
Can you cite any instances where the French government confiscated treasures that were in private hands and returned to the countries from which they originated?

France returns looted Italian pottery

There is a legal process. China should try and use it.

The Hague Convention and the 4th Geneva Convention are post 1907, just after the imperial powers were forced out. However, the UN is currently making a new convention for signing that would acknowledge claims from even earlier.

I believe I originally said GOOD CHANCE (post #3)- which is undeniably true.

Great, so you acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that it definitely would have happened. I accept your concession on this point.

Fine, but now their legal owner is NOT China.

Legal from what perspective? Under Chinese law, it would have been illegal to take them in the first place. So according to the law of the country they were stolen from, they should be returned. Too bad there is no international court to acknowledge this.

Like I said, if France wants to alienate Franco-Chinese relations and lose billions in trade, then fools and their money are soon parted.

Even if the UN made a law NOW, it would NOT apply to anything from the 19th century. Even international law recognizes a prohibition on ex post facto application of current international law.

I don't know the specific details of the most recent convention that is being made, but my assumption would be that it would at least formulate a forum wherein countries could make a claim and have it recognized on an international scale.

I am very anti-PRC, and with good reason. However, the same arguments apply with regards to Egypt and Cambodia.

This is why I do not place much faith in the former imperial powers, even now. In modern times, they are just as selfish and inconsiderate of their past misdeeds as they were at the time. If any of them truly acknowledged their sins they would do the right thing and give back what is not theirs. But since it was the First and Second World Wars that forced the shutdown of European Imperialism, and not their own free will, I can see why little progress has been made in the reparations department.
 
This is not true. Britain approached the Qing several times requesting trade, and were denied several times while being called Barbarians. See: the McCarthy Expedition. China didn't want to give Britain anything, nor any of the imperial powers.

Your citation confirms exactly what I said. The Chinese sold tea (and porcelain) but didn't want to purchase anything.

So before you said there was no international law that could be applied at the time, now you are citing international law as reasoning for imperialist atrocities? How hypocritical can you get. In modern times, any treaty or contract signed under duress is worthy of being voided and made invalid.

You are guilty of selective reading. I said that there was no international law that could be applied regarding the relics. Treaties are recognized under internaitonal law and China was arguably in violation of those treaties. You are correct that in modern international law, treaties signed under duress are regarded as invalid, but there was no such provision in the 19th century.

After British and French forces destroyed the outpost of Tianjin and headed for the capital to sack Beijing, the Chinese Emperor was obliged to sign the treaties in order to prevent the oblivion of China. If he hadn't signed it, the invasion would have continued until millions more were dead.

Well, then China shouldn't have violated its earlier treaties.

Anyone who has studied the subsequent Treaty of Nanjing knows that it is completely unfair and gives the foreigners unlimited access to Chinese soil. It wasn't just the Qianlong Emperor that could not enforce the treaty, but his own people were rebelling on a large scale.

Oh, it wasn't fair. Back to that whining about the "Century of Humiliation?" Most treaties prior to the modern era were unfair. That is what happens when one country defeats another on the battlefield. If the Chinese Qing government had not been so arrogant in dealing with the Western powers (as indicated in the excerpt you provided earlier) then things would likely have been very different.

You know what... I'm not going to teach you Chinese history. Read a book. None of this justifies why France should be keeping relics now.

You don't have to teach me Chinese history. I am quite familiar with it thank you very much. France is not keeping the relics. They are in the estate of Yves St. Laurent.

If any country wants to make a claim that China is holding their relics, then I equally support such action. This has nothing to do with me taking China's side in particular... I take the side of any nation that has been robbed by imperialism.

And they may have a MORAL claim, but not a legal one.


France returns looted Italian pottery

Completely different situation. Those were RECENTLY excavated IN VIOLATION of existing international protocols regarding the trafficking of cultural treasures.

The Hague Convention and the 4th Geneva Convention are post 1907, just after the imperial powers were forced out. However, the UN is currently making a new convention for signing that would acknowledge claims from even earlier.

Source?

Great, so you acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that it definitely would have happened. I accept your concession on this point.

You change the parameters of what was said, and then taunt based on that. Typical.

Legal from what perspective? Under Chinese law, it would have been illegal to take them in the first place. So according to the law of the country they were stolen from, they should be returned. Too bad there is no international court to acknowledge this.

Too bad that law goes out the window during wartime.

Like I said, if France wants to alienate Franco-Chinese relations and lose billions in trade, then fools and their money are soon parted.

What do you expect the French government to do? Violate its own laws and confiscate the relics? Typical of the Sino/Russo contempt for the rule of law.

I don't know the specific details of the most recent convention that is being made, but my assumption would be that it would at least formulate a forum wherein countries could make a claim and have it recognized on an international scale.

I would suggest you find a source since you are the one bringing it up. Again, it is a general principle of international law to not enforce new laws in an ex post facto fashion.

This is why I do not place much faith in the former imperial powers, even now. In modern times, they are just as selfish and inconsiderate of their past misdeeds as they were at the time. If any of them truly acknowledged their sins they would do the right thing and give back what is not theirs. But since it was the First and Second World Wars that forced the shutdown of European Imperialism, and not their own free will, I can see why little progress has been made in the reparations department.

As I said, there is a different between MORAL right and LEGAL right. SOrry you can't see that I HAVE made a distinction between the two and that I am arguing purely from a LEGAL perspective.
 
Your citation confirms exactly what I said. The Chinese sold tea (and porcelain) but didn't want to purchase anything.

I misread your original statement as the Chinese giving away tea in exchange for nothing. Apologies.

You are guilty of selective reading. I said that there was no international law that could be applied regarding the relics.

There was no international law that could be applied to anything prior to the League of Nations, as no such suprainternational regulatory body existed.

Treaties are recognized under internaitonal law and China was arguably in violation of those treaties.

Who regulated international law when the Treaty of Nanjing was signed? The answer is no one.

You are correct that in modern international law, treaties signed under duress are regarded as invalid, but there was no such provision in the 19th century.

Yes I know, but that wasn't my point. You were arguing that the Qianlong Emperor should never have signed a treaty that he wasn't willing to agree to. The fact is that he was willing to agree to it, but lacked enforcement oversight and the Chinese rebelled on a wide scale. The sacking of the Summer Palace, where these relics come from, was not because the Emperor was disobeying the treaty, but because the imperial powers were upset that the Chinese were not being controlled. How is that the government's fault?

The imperial attacks weakened the Chinese military and infrastructure considerably... how do you enforce a treaty that is inherently unenforcable? But that was the whole point you see. The imperialist powers knew it was an unbalanced treaty, and the lack of its enforcement gave them entitlements for further invasions and further unfair treaties. This is the same tactic they used in every nation they invaded. They claimed that the occupied government was not doing its job, then continued invading until they were essentially given full control of the country.

You can't use the claim that the Qianlong Emperor didn't honour his agreements and therefore China deserved to be looted. The Treaty of Nanjing and subsequent treaties were unbalanced and unenforceable in the first place.

Well, then China shouldn't have violated its earlier treaties.

There was no earlier treaty before the Treaty of Nanjing, as it was a result of the First Opium War.

If the Chinese Qing government had not been so arrogant in dealing with the Western powers (as indicated in the excerpt you provided earlier) then things would likely have been very different.

If, if, if... again, suppositions. You have a clear inability to discuss what did happen as I am continually having to clarify your points on history. Yet you revert to "what ifs" as justification for looting. I cannot prove your what ifs because they do not exist in history.

I personally do not souly blame the imperial powers for what happened in China. The Emperor and his xenophobia also contributed to the events which destroyed most of the ancient mainland... but as you know, Chinese history is incredibly complex and a domino effect, and so you cannot blame it all on one factor.

You don't have to teach me Chinese history. I am quite familiar with it thank you very much.

You have a very slanted and opinionated view of Chinese history which favours your current agenda against the mainland. You continually blame the Qing court for the events which lead to looting, yet any historian who studies China in the post-Ming era knows that the factors were much more complicated than those arising from one man.

France is not keeping the relics. They are in the estate of Yves St. Laurent.

It was the French army that took the relics in the first place when they attacked the Summer Palace, so by definition they were looted by France.

And they may have a MORAL claim, but not a legal one.

Yes we've been over this.

Completely different situation. Those were RECENTLY excavated IN VIOLATION of existing international protocols regarding the trafficking of cultural treasures.

You never stated that requirement in your initial criteria. Don't change the goal posts in order to save your sinking ship.


I only remember it from my studies in university... as far as I know it is still in the drafting process. You'd have to look up the Hague Convention protocol amendment. I am still in contact with my old professor and when I next talk to him I'll ask for the source. The idea is to create a sort of international claimant court to address stolen cultural property, under the banner of UNESCO. The Christie auction was already addressed in French court and it was dismissed immediately... but this is their domestic law, and so an international forum should be able to step in to address claims.

You change the parameters of what was said, and then taunt based on that. Typical.

Non-sense. You claimed that had the relics stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have likely destroyed them. I asked you to prove evidence for this claim, which, of course, you can't because it's an opinionated supposition. Given that many Chinese relics survived the rise of the Communists and still exist in China to this day, there is no way to know for sure what "might have" happened had the relics stayed.

Court rooms don't operate on what "could have" happened. Your parameters were unrealistic in the first place.

Too bad that law goes out the window during wartime.

Not really. There are standard war conventions that all signing nations now adhere to. Even war now has rules.

What do you expect the French government to do? Violate its own laws and confiscate the relics? Typical of the Sino/Russo contempt for the rule of law.

Spare me your sniveling remarks about Communism. I am not a Communist.

I expect the French government, and all nations with stolen property, to do what is right and return property within its borders to other nations who are demanding them back. No demand? No problem. France and Britain have tonnes of outstanding claims from foreign countries that want their heritage back. France itself has claims against Cuba, parts of Africa, etc. for return of its priceless and irreplaceable art. Yet France itself will not acknowledge claims against it for stolen property? Utter hypocrisy.

If relics which are now in private hands were originally looted by any establishment in relation to the French government, then yes, I expect them to be confiscated and returned. What makes those relics safer in a private collection than in a museum where curation is paramount, and where the public can have access to view their own heritage?

I would suggest you find a source since you are the one bringing it up. Again, it is a general principle of international law to not enforce new laws in an ex post facto fashion.

I will have to get more info... but again, in the least it would create an official international forum for staking such claims.

As I said, there is a different between MORAL right and LEGAL right. SOrry you can't see that I HAVE made a distinction between the two and that I am arguing purely from a LEGAL perspective.

I do see the difference... however I have spent most of this debate arguing against your moral imperative which is based on a biased view of Chinese history mixed with your own Sinophobia. If you scroll back to my first post in this thread, I said there is no legal claim, but the countries should do the right thing and return the property. It was you who started blaming the past with normative statements. I am simply trying to balance out your extremism, as moderates tend to do.
 
I misread your original statement as the Chinese giving away tea in exchange for nothing. Apologies.

No problem. You are not "you know who." :mrgreen:

There was no international law that could be applied to anything prior to the League of Nations, as no such suprainternational regulatory body existed.

Again, not true. There has been international law for thousands of years, though for most of it, it was regional in nature. Only in the 19th century did it become global - the global international law evolving essentially from Western international law. However, even in pre-modern times, there was international law whether it was in East Asia which was enforced by a hegomonic China or the laws practiced amongst the city-states of ancient Greece.

It is true that there was no suprainternational regulatory body, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a series of rules that international actors were expected to abide by.

Who regulated international law when the Treaty of Nanjing was signed? The answer is no one.

The recognized members of the international community.

Yes I know, but that wasn't my point. You were arguing that the Qianlong Emperor should never have signed a treaty that he wasn't willing to agree to. The fact is that he was willing to agree to it, but lacked enforcement oversight and the Chinese rebelled on a wide scale. The sacking of the Summer Palace, where these relics come from, was not because the Emperor was disobeying the treaty, but because the imperial powers were upset that the Chinese were not being controlled. How is that the government's fault?

The emperor would still be responsible for making sure all elements of the government adhered to it. The execution of a missionary by the Guangxi Provincial government would certainly fall under his area of responsibility under international law.

The imperial attacks weakened the Chinese military and infrastructure considerably... how do you enforce a treaty that is inherently unenforcable? But that was the whole point you see. The imperialist powers knew it was an unbalanced treaty, and the lack of its enforcement gave them entitlements for further invasions and further unfair treaties. This is the same tactic they used in every nation they invaded. They claimed that the occupied government was not doing its job, then continued invading until they were essentially given full control of the country.

It could be argued that in the late 1850s, the infrastructure of the Qing government had been far more weakened by the Taiping Rebellion than by anything the ENglish and French did in the Second Opium/Archer War.

You can't use the claim that the Qianlong Emperor didn't honour his agreements and therefore China deserved to be looted. The Treaty of Nanjing and subsequent treaties were unbalanced and unenforceable in the first place.

Sure I can. CHina did not honor its agreements. Under international law, both France and England had the right to redress. The fact that they were unbalanced was irrelevant.

There was no earlier treaty before the Treaty of Nanjing, as it was a result of the First Opium War.

And it was the Treaty of Nanjing's violation that led to the Archer War, which is when these relics came into French hands.

If, if, if... again, suppositions. You have a clear inability to discuss what did happen as I am continually having to clarify your points on history. Yet you revert to "what ifs" as justification for looting. I cannot prove your what ifs because they do not exist in history.

I should be Harry Turtledove. Perhaps I should write a novel about what would have happened had the Ming continued on the course Zhu Di set for it. :mrgreen:

Seriously, I am not using the what ifs to justify the looting. Again, I am not defending it MORALLY. I am merely making a legal argument that China's govenment has no legal claim to those relics.

I personally do not souly blame the imperial powers for what happened in China. The Emperor and his xenophobia also contributed to the events which destroyed most of the ancient mainland... but as you know, Chinese history is incredibly complex and a domino effect, and so you cannot blame it all on one factor.

Have I ever blamed it on a single factor? Heck, the Chinese regarded the Qing emperors as foreigners anyway. The Chinese were, as you said, highly xenophobic, which brought on the disaster that China sufferred. If they had talked with the British as equals from the beginning, this would possibly been averted.

You have a very slanted and opinionated view of Chinese history which favours your current agenda against the mainland. You continually blame the Qing court for the events which lead to looting, yet any historian who studies China in the post-Ming era knows that the factors were much more complicated than those arising from one man.

Sorry if you think a realistic look at Chinese history is slanted and opinionated. I do NOT hold to the school that foreigners were to blame for all of China's troubles. The Manchus as well as the Han Chinese themselves were actually far more to blame for China's failures than the foreigners ever were.

It was the French army that took the relics in the first place when they attacked the Summer Palace, so by definition they were looted by France.

Sure they were. But they are not today in the possession of the French government.

You never stated that requirement in your initial criteria. Don't change the goal posts in order to save your sinking ship.

My sinking ship? You bring into the discussion something that is CLEARLY covered by international law today and try to compare it to something that is completely different. THAT is indicative of someone with a sinking ship.

I only remember it from my studies in university... as far as I know it is still in the drafting process. You'd have to look up the Hague Convention protocol amendment. I am still in contact with my old professor and when I next talk to him I'll ask for the source. The idea is to create a sort of international claimant court to address stolen cultural property, under the banner of UNESCO. The Christie auction was already addressed in French court and it was dismissed immediately... but this is their domestic law, and so an international forum should be able to step in to address claims.

I would be very interested in seeing the source to this. Once you find it, please post it here or PM it to me.

Non-sense. You claimed that had the relics stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have likely destroyed them. I asked you to prove evidence for this claim, which, of course, you can't because it's an opinionated supposition. Given that many Chinese relics survived the rise of the Communists and still exist in China to this day, there is no way to know for sure what "might have" happened had the relics stayed.

A large proportion of relics that were known at the time of the CUltural Revolution were damaged or destroyed. I saw quite a lot of evidence of this first hand in Beijing, Ji'nan, Nanjing, Shanghai, Kunming, Shenyang and many other places in China. This simply can not be denied.

Court rooms don't operate on what "could have" happened. Your parameters were unrealistic in the first place.

No. Court rooms operate on the principle of LAW. China has no LAW in this case that supports its claims, something confirmed by a student of international law cited in an earlier post.

Not really. There are standard war conventions that all signing nations now adhere to. Even war now has rules.

Sure there are. But this is 2009, NOT 1860. The rules have changed.

Spare me your sniveling remarks about Communism. I am not a Communist.

I didn't say anything about communism. The comment was related to the rule of law.

I expect the French government, and all nations with stolen property, to do what is right and return property within its borders to other nations who are demanding them back. No demand? No problem. France and Britain have tonnes of outstanding claims from foreign countries that want their heritage back. France itself has claims against Cuba, parts of Africa, etc. for return of its priceless and irreplaceable art. Yet France itself will not acknowledge claims against it for stolen property? Utter hypocrisy.

What would the legal basis of the French government to seize relics that are privately held?

If relics which are now in private hands were originally looted by any establishment in relation to the French government, then yes, I expect them to be confiscated and returned. What makes those relics safer in a private collection than in a museum where curation is paramount, and where the public can have access to view their own heritage?

Again, what is the legal basis for such a seizure?

I will have to get more info... but again, in the least it would create an official international forum for staking such claims.

As I said, please get back to me when you find it. I am genuinely interested in it.

I do see the difference... however I have spent most of this debate arguing against your moral imperative which is based on a biased view of Chinese history mixed with your own Sinophobia. If you scroll back to my first post in this thread, I said there is no legal claim, but the countries should do the right thing and return the property. It was you who started blaming the past with normative statements. I am simply trying to balance out your extremism, as moderates tend to do.

I am not Sinophobic. I love China and the Chinese. I am fascinated by Chinese history, culture, food and so many other things about China. However, my love for China and the Chinese does not blind me to the fact that, like anyone other old culture, there is a tremendous amount of baggage, something that would be looked down upon by today's standards. My gripe against China is not its past, it is the thugs and criminals who rule it in the present.
 
The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.
 
The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.

TECHNICALLY, the PRC is the successor regime to the ROC and the Qing Dynasty, and is thus bound and obliged to the same agreements, boundaries, etc. as its previous regimes save for how they are subsequently altered while it is in power. This is a standard practice in international law.

Just as the Fifth French Republic is the successor to the Fourth Republic and all prior manifestations of the sovereignty of France.
 
The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.

This is false. The PRC is bound by all agreements made by its Qing predecessors. This is why Hong Kong was not ceded back to China until the 90's, when the treaty expired.
 
This is false. The PRC is bound by all agreements made by its Qing predecessors. This is why Hong Kong was not ceded back to China until the 90's, when the treaty expired.

First statement? True
Second statement? Barely true. The treaty that expired was only in regards to the section that was LEASED after the Boxer Rebellion and the foreign intervention. Had Britain wanted to retain Hong Kong proper, they would have had the legal right to have done so.
 
Again, not true. There has been international law for thousands of years, though for most of it, it was regional in nature. Only in the 19th century did it become global - the global international law evolving essentially from Western international law. However, even in pre-modern times, there was international law whether it was in East Asia which was enforced by a hegomonic China or the laws practiced amongst the city-states of ancient Greece.

It is true that there was no suprainternational regulatory body, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a series of rules that international actors were expected to abide by.

You are confusing international law with regional law. The Western treaty system and mercantilist values were not present in Asia when the imperial powers arrived with their demands. They were foreign concepts to China. China always used the tributary system to establish relations with its Asian neighbours and that was the basis of their economic friendships. They didn't use treaties.

The recognized members of the international community.

You mean the West? Don't be silly... there were no international regulations at that time that even came close to applying to Asia. It was the Western powers and their own mercantilist rivalry that caused them to enter China in the first place. They were all competing for trade in silk, tea, spices, coffee, and fine China. Britain became the hegemon in this department later on.

The emperor would still be responsible for making sure all elements of the government adhered to it. The execution of a missionary by the Guangxi Provincial government would certainly fall under his area of responsibility under international law.

The missionary was executed for breaking Chinese law, which the West didn't acknowledge. Missionaries did not have unlimited access under the Treaty of Nanjing. That came later in the following treaty in the Second Opium War. He was legally executed for prosyletizing Catholicism in China without permission from the governor. His execution was legal. The Western powers just wanted any excuse to further their control.

It could be argued that in the late 1850s, the infrastructure of the Qing government had been far more weakened by the Taiping Rebellion than by anything the ENglish and French did in the Second Opium/Archer War.

Yes, it could be argued, but it would not be consistent with historical facts. The Taiping Rebellion gained the strength that it did because the Qing military had weakened resources as well as competent leadership, due to the First Opium War and the Treaty of Nanjing. Prior to the arrival of the Western forces, the Qing could have easily contained such fanaticism. Not to mention, Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the rebellion, started his cause due to Christianity and his own conversion. Where would he have learned such a religion? Gee I wonder.

Sure I can. CHina did not honor its agreements. Under international law, both France and England had the right to redress. The fact that they were unbalanced was irrelevant.

Under European law, perhaps. You cannot make international claims in an era where no such international system existed, so cease the pretense already.

China was incapable of honouring its agreements. The treaties were practically signed at gunpoint, and the imperial powers knew it.

Treaty of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the first line. It says "unequal treaty". This is what all historians refer to it as. You claim that you have studied the past, but your dishonesty shows.

And it was the Treaty of Nanjing's violation that led to the Archer War, which is when these relics came into French hands.

Yes I know about the Archer War. Again, you are trying to argue that China deserved to be looted, but your historical knowledge does not hold up to scrutiny. You have first cited international law, which did not pertain to China at all and only among European powers and its conquered territories; then you try to cite the Qing's "violations" of Treaties, even though the Qing lacked the ability to even enforce them; now you are citing entire wars as a justification for looting. It is just laughable.

Putting more claims aside and legal claims, why not just admit that the looting was done upon the free will of the military, and they didn't give a damn whether or not it was legal? Stop trying to blame China for everything, as you always do.

I should be Harry Turtledove. Perhaps I should write a novel about what would have happened had the Ming continued on the course Zhu Di set for it.

Based on what you have already said, I doubt any historian would take you seriously. Maybe the fringe Sinophobic activists in the West would buy it.

Seriously, I am not using the what ifs to justify the looting. Again, I am not defending it MORALLY. I am merely making a legal argument that China's govenment has no legal claim to those relics.

Not using ifs? Yes you are. "If" they had stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have destroyed them. That is an unprovable supposition. Your intellectual dishonesty is displeasing.

If the Qing had enforcability at all, the relics would not have been stolen in the first place, as it would have been illegal to do so. So yes, China did have a legal claim to the relics... but once they left the mainland, they didn't. But that doesn't account for why they shouldn't be returned in modern times.

Have I ever blamed it on a single factor? Heck, the Chinese regarded the Qing emperors as foreigners anyway. The Chinese were, as you said, highly xenophobic, which brought on the disaster that China sufferred. If they had talked with the British as equals from the beginning, this would possibly been averted.

I love this paragraph. "I'm not blaming it on a single factor, but... I blame the Chinese." It could also be said that if the West had respected they were in a foreign land that operated different than their own, and they weren't so greedy with their quest for empire, the problem could have been averted? The argument works both ways. At least I can acknowlege that.

The Manchus were later accepted as the rulers of China and they did all they could to respect Chinese beliefs. It was why their transfer to power was so seamless after the invasions were complete.

Sorry if you think a realistic look at Chinese history is slanted and opinionated. I do NOT hold to the school that foreigners were to blame for all of China's troubles. The Manchus as well as the Han Chinese themselves were actually far more to blame for China's failures than the foreigners ever were.

A realistic look at Chinese history does not involve placing blame on anyone. It is the revisionists and people with an agenda who decide that one side was the greater evil. In this debate I have been defending the Chinese because your side is wholy against them. You claim to have a balanced view but it's not balanced at all. You continually blame the Qing and the Chinese way of life for why they were invaded without even considering Western involvement.

Sure they were. But they are not today in the possession of the French government.

If you trace the transferrence of property back to the original owners, it doesn't matter anyway. The French government stole them, plain and simple. That's why I find it incredibly ironic that the French government can be absolved of responsibility now... "Oh, they're in private hands now, we don't have anything to do with it!" So much for accountability.

A large proportion of relics that were known at the time of the CUltural Revolution were damaged or destroyed. I saw quite a lot of evidence of this first hand in Beijing, Ji'nan, Nanjing, Shanghai, Kunming, Shenyang and many other places in China. This simply can not be denied.

I never denied it. You, however, are denying that a large part did survive, and I myself have seen this with my own eyes. Revisionists like you make it seem like the Cultural Revolution destroyed all of China. Fact is, it didn't. A lot of its heritage lives.

No. Court rooms operate on the principle of LAW. China has no LAW in this case that supports its claims, something confirmed by a student of international law cited in an earlier post.

Yes, we covered this. Right now I am mostly debating against your Sinophobia, a mistake that I will not enter upon again.

Sure there are. But this is 2009, NOT 1860. The rules have changed.

I know, but that's not what I was replying to. Re-read your statement that I was replying to, and try again.

What would the legal basis of the French government to seize relics that are privately held?

If the French Government were the original looters, then they could declare the original resale illegal and confiscate them, returning them to the authority that demands them. If private looters went overseas then there is not much that can be done about it. (i.e. Egyptian grave robbers.)

I am not Sinophobic. I love China and the Chinese. I am fascinated by Chinese history, culture, food and so many other things about China. However, my love for China and the Chinese does not blind me to the fact that, like anyone other old culture, there is a tremendous amount of baggage, something that would be looked down upon by today's standards. My gripe against China is not its past, it is the thugs and criminals who rule it in the present.

I don't believe this for one minute.
 
First statement? True
Second statement? Barely true. The treaty that expired was only in regards to the section that was LEASED after the Boxer Rebellion and the foreign intervention. Had Britain wanted to retain Hong Kong proper, they would have had the legal right to have done so.

You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.

The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.

My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.

I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.
 
You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.

The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.

My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.

I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.

In this case, it was the British who were bound by the treaty to return Hong Kong to [Qing] China, or it's successors. The PRC didn't have to didn't have to honour anything, they were just simply given Hong Kong.
 
You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.

The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.

My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.

I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.

Your point does NOT stand. Britain did not have to return Hong KOng proper because that was given to BRitain in perpetuity in the 1840s. The 99-year lease referred to the New Territories and Lantau Island, NOT Hong Kong proper that Britain was obligated to return in 1997. There was NO obligation regarding Hong Kong Island because that was not part of the lease. Please get your history straight.

However, we are in agreement that the PRC is in fact bound to the agreements made by the predecessor regimes, the ROC and Manchu Qing dynasty.

I will respond to your longer post in the morning.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom