Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Yesterday I began my contribution to the debate on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) Bill which aims to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1999 protocol to that convention by stating that my party supports and welcomes this Bill. As was mentioned earlier, it is ten years since we signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and we have not yet ratified it. The UN Convention which is the subject of the Bill before us today is even older. I know that of the 124 states that are a party to it, only four have signed it but not yet ratified it and Ireland is one of those. Last night I noted that similar legislation was passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly at the behest of my party colleague, Ms Carál Ní Chuilín when she was Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure in the Six Counties and it is timely that we are now following suit. Hopefully this legislation will have good effect.

We have seen throughout the world the effects of some of the most recent wars on UNESCO cultural institutions and heritage sites. We have seen how different groups have specifically targeted the historical wealth that exists in this world that helps to explain to the public where we came from and to some extent, where we are going. We have had our own history of that here. Giraldus Cambrensis, also known as Gerald of Wales, wrote about Ireland long ago. He denigrated the Irish and set out that they were a different race who should be set aside. In today's parlance, his suggestion was that the Irish were second class, or even third class and somewhat akin to the caste system that operates in India, that we were worthless. As we saw subsequently with the Statutes of Kilkenny and the Penal Laws, the conqueror often tries to destroy the identity of the conquered, to deny them their language, their history and their traditions.

In those days, there would not have been as much built heritage. In the past couple of hundred years, however, there is much more. As we have seen from recent wars in the Middle East, some of that region's built heritage is much older than that in northern Europe. Ireland has some built heritage, however, such as Newgrange, Knowth, Dowth and other major graves. Structures such as Dún Aonghasa are built heritage, but built heritage of its era is not as common as it is in other parts of the world. This is the type of built heritage we want to protect.

We want to protect the heritage of whole civilisations that no longer exist and that have left us a legacy. The legacy might not be in writing but in the graphics on the side of caves. The civilisations have left us a heritage of artefacts. That is what this Bill is trying to capture, such that during a war the combatants do not target specifically for destruction artefacts that are 1,000 years old or regard them as the spoils of war to be robbed and expatriated to their country. We have some expatriated artefacts in our museums here. In England, there was a fight over the years to have certain artefacts repatriated to the countries from which they were stolen in the first place. Artefacts were often taken when soldiers were pillaging, or there was a systematic attempt to rid countries a wealth, perhaps through an imperialist power taking all the gold, be it in the form of an artefact or otherwise, and expatriating it and melting it down. The Spanish and Portuguese did this with the wealth of the South Americans. They destroyed gold material that was more than 1,000 years old at the time just to satisfy the greed of an empire. It was melted down to make coins.

In preparation for this debate, I read Fintan O'Toole's article about the Reclining Buddha, a beautiful Buddha now in the National Museum of Ireland, where my father worked years ago. It is imperial loot; that is specifically what it is. Mr. O'Toole names the person responsible. He states:

Col Sir Charles Fitzgerald, an Irishman in the British army in India, stole it while on a punitive military expedition to Burma in 1885-6. In 1891, Fitzgerald sent it, along with other looted Burmese statues, to the museum.

What else is in our museums that should be repatriated or at least offered up to some of the countries in question? In some ways, while we possess the objects we hold them illegally. In this day and age, we could make facsimiles which would be just as good as the originals. We could say that, for years, we held the original and that in some ways we held it in trust because we were not imperialists. The Irish Government did not set out to rob the artefacts or pillage and plunder in other countries, but because our territory was part of the British empire, some museums and stately houses in Ireland have plundered artefacts as a consequence. We should consider that. If we are passing legislation such as this, it would be appropriate to have an audit of our museums to ascertain what we hold.

There was a long dispute over the Elgin Marbles in London. The Egyptians were demanding their return. It is an ongoing battle of which I am aware. In the past, there have been requests to return many of the Korans held in museums in this State, such as the Chester Beatty Library. Rather than holding on to artefacts that are not only religiously very valuable but also historically very valuable to the areas from which they originated, they might be returned. Before doing so, we could make facsimiles. There was an example of this in this House only recently. The last portrait that was erected in this House is a facsimile of one from Westminster, a painting of the Irish parliamentarians in Westminster entitled "The Men who made Home Rule". We do not have the original, yet the facsimile conveys the same message. It is appropriate that we consider that when examining this matter.

Over the years in Ireland, we have not been as respectful as we should have been to our own built heritage. I remember the controversy over the demolition of Frascati House in Blackrock when I was very young. It became a Roches Stores supermarket for a while. The house was the summer house of the Fitzgerald family, the family of the Earl of Kildare who owned Leinster House, yet it was demolished just to facilitate the building of a supermarket.

We all remember, with the possible exception of those younger than me, the destruction at Wood Quay. The State is not always as protective as it should be. This was in peacetime. Think of what could be done during war. With regard to Wood Quay, I remember my own brother going to the city dump and coming back with coins and a sword from the Viking period. That was the scale of the destruction. We cannot undo that. In passing this legislation, we should not be hypocrites either. We should make a bigger step to protect what we have.

It is welcome news that there is some progress on Moore Street. There was a danger that the street, which is part of our built heritage, would be destroyed. Maybe there is a greater understanding of the benefit of history to future generations, especially given the considerable interest last year in the history of the events of 1916. People understood their importance and wanted to be associated with them. We can build on that in regard to our history. The same was true when we were commemorating the Famine of 1845 to 1850. When we should never bulldoze history.

As I said, we should have an audit. We should also ask the other signatories to audit what is held in their libraries and museums. Many of the pillaged books that were in monasteries in Ireland ended up in the British libraries and were used as the covers for books. The hardback covers were made up of old manuscripts or parchment from the works of monks throughout Ireland who transcribed and decorated religious works and also medical books. They ended up being squashed together with glue and made into the hardback covers of many of the books in some of the most famous libraries in England. Former imperial powers would probably understand better than most what they have done in war. I hope that, in signing up to this instrument, as they have, they understand the consequences of the wars they wage.

Occurrences such as the blanket bombing in Yemen, for example, can have consequences if there are heritage sites in the affected areas. We have seen what is happening in Iraq and Syria. We saw what happened in Afghanistan, where various groups set out specifically to target the historical artefacts to try to change the outlook of the world. The same was also true when the crusaders roamed Europe and the Middle East. There is much that is still contained in libraries here that should be considered in this regard.

We should remind the English in particular that they pillaged not only Ireland but also other countries during different wars. There are materials in British museums which were taken as loot or the spoils of war during 1916 and afterwards and which should be returned to Ireland, and not on loan. We got the Fianna flag back last year. The British ambassador was very accommodating in getting the English Queen to allow us to have that flag, which was confiscated by the British, back on loan for a few months. That has now been extended to a lifetime loan. It should be granted back to us in perpetuity, but a loan is better than nothing. It is part of our heritage. The same goes for Roger Casement's trunk. It was taken when his house was raided. It had nothing to do with his trial for treason, but it has never been returned to his family. It is on display in the British Imperial War Museum. It never belonged to them and should be returned. There are other museums in this country which have materials from other periods and wars. Those institutions should consider what do with the materials in question.

I support the Bill’s intent and, hopefully, it will have the desired effect. It can only have that effect if countries partaking in a war are willing to abide by it, however. That is one of the biggest problems with many of these international covenants. In the case of the destruction of cultural properties, the biggest transgressors do not care less what convention is in place. How do we impress upon them the need to protect the history of the world? Those are the major cultural properties that need to be protected under this legislation. If a transgressor specifically targets the archaeological or built heritage of a country, what are the sanctions? Who will make the complaint against the transgressors and who will impose sanctions in the middle of or are after a war? Sometimes, it is too late and the damage is done. Hopefully, there should not be a need to have to be recourse to this legislation but I am also enough of a realist to accept that there could be.

I remind Members that in war the priority must be to protect civilians and get them out of harm's way. Often, the protection of cultural property comes second to this. That is a pity, but the priority we set is that life is more sacred than property. The world is worse off when things are lost as a result of such events. Thankfully, in the modern age we have, at the very least, photographs, films, records of the dimensions of buildings, etc. Some 200 years ago, when destruction was wrought upon the built heritage of a country, there might have been nothing left after a week or two. As there were no photographs, buildings, etc., were destroyed and gone for ever more.

I wish the Bill well and support it.

See this speech in context