Good morning Ladies and Gentleman.

On behalf of the Ministry and Department of Arts and Culture, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to all the delegates attending these two very important workshops.

The main purpose of these workshops, that is, the one dealing with the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and the other dealing with the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, is to discuss the implications of ratifying these instruments and examine their relevance to our situation as a country and our national legislation. I think it is important to consider these issues even before there is an emergency situation which may lead to a crisis. Our President was spot-on when he said that we need to engage in 'Business Unusual' in everything that we do. The global environment can be quite rough out there and we, therefore, must be prepared, with foresight, to take appropriate measures to prevent any crises that may occur. Our failure to attend to these matters timeously can be very costly and if we analyse what is today happening in our country we probably realise the importance of this. Sometimes learning with hindsight may be too late.

It was decided to combine the two workshops because both are primarily concerned with the protection of cultural property and are mutually reinforcing. We hope that at the end of these two workshops delegates will be better equipped to understand and link national legislation with international policy.

Cultural objects are very critical in helping us to discover and understand the culture of a people. They can help provide clues about lifestyles, achievements and values of generations that lived before us. The protection of cultural objects or properties of communities is critical for the preservation of the memory of humanity. Whilst these may be located and identifiable within particular communities and nations, they are regarded as part of universal and global heritage. It is against this background that the protection of cultural property from illicit trafficking and pillaging and destruction in the event of armed conflict should be taken seriously.

The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, in particular, needs to be looked at in context. It was adopted in 1954 in the wake of massive destruction of the cultural heritage during the Second World War. This was the period when colonised people all over the world began asserting their sovereignty. On the contrary, in our country it is the time when apartheid was beginning to be implemented with vigour. Whilst the Hague Convention was clear on the roles and responsibilities of the colonising and occupying powers, there has been limited action taken to reinforce provisions of the Convention by the occupying countries. This is the reason why until today, some countries are still fighting for the return of their cultural objects. If truth be told, Europe has significant collection of African cultural treasures. The British Museum in the United Kingdom and the Africa Museum in Belgium, for example curate important African collections looted during the colonial era. The continued illegal possession of cultural objects by former colonial and occupying powers leave us with doubts about the efficacy of these, otherwise, important international instruments. These affect both developed and developing countries. We must try and find the answers as we deliberate in these workshops.

You are probably aware that South Africa only ratified these international instruments after 1994. The reasons are quite obvious – South Africa could not be a member of many of the international organisations because of the apartheid system. I need not go into that. But then this meant that we were disadvantaged in many areas of international exchange, especially relating to best practice and technical assistance.

Both the 1954 Hague Convention and the Second Protocol are primarily peacetime instruments aimed at protecting cultural property in case of war. The recent political conflicts in Asia, Middle East and our own Continent, where cultural properties were and continued to be destroyed, clearly demonstrate the relevance of these Conventions. I wish I had time to join you when you discuss case studies such as the Ethiopian Obesilk and the destruction of the Giant Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban in Afghanistan, because these examples better illustrate the importance and relevance of these instruments.

As we deliberate oAs we deliberate on these Conventions, we need to ask ourselves a number of questions, for example, article 6 of the 1954 Hague Convention states that "Cultural property may bear distinctive emblem so as to facilitate its recognition", whilst article 5 of the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention on Safeguarding of Cultural Property incorporates "the preparation of inventories, the planning of emergency measures for protection against fire or structural collapse, the preparation for the removal of cultural property or the provision for adequate in situ protection of such property and the designation of competent authorities for safeguarding cultural property". These are important not only for the purpose of compliance, but for ensuring adequate protection of our cultural properties.

However, the question is: Do we use those emblems in our key heritage institutions? Do we do regular inventories in our museums? What emergency measures do we have in place safeguard our cultural properties? These are not only for the purpose of wars, but for any accidental damage that could happen. Furthermore, between our SAHRA and NHC, which should we consider as an appropriate and competent authority? We need to respond to these questions for our sake as well as safeguarding this heritage. would also like to ask our officials to look into the financial implications of ratifying these conventions. Ratifying these instruments should not be for the sake of ratifying ? a nice-to-have, but should add value to the South African heritage estate. I am pleased that these workshops are also attended by participants from our security establishments, the South African Police Services and the National Defence Force. I guess you are aware that we will rely on you for the enforcement of both the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and the Second Protocol. It also means that in the eventuality of war, which I sincerely pray should not happen, our security forces will respect cultural properties anywhere around the globe.

I am also grateful that the Department of Foreign Affairs is represented in these workshops. Both Conventions acknowledge and recognise the importance of diplomacy. The Director General and I are very concerned about the lack of either understanding of the importance of cultural diplomacy in foreign relations or just sheer oversight. It seems that the multilateral section of Foreign Affairs is not paying due attention to these matters so that they can deal effectively with multilateral forums such as UNIDROIT and UNESCO. There is a need for a seamless collaboration between the Department of Arts and Culture and Foreign Affairs on cultural matters. It is through collaboration that we can correctly elevate, promote and place South African culture at the centre of our foreign policy.

The Department recently concluded a policy and legislative review exercise. One of the findings of the review is that the sanctions and fines in our laws are often small and ineffective. This means that people can consistently and deliberately violate our laws because the sanctions and penalties are low. Whilst the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention give explicit powers to courts and competent authorities, the Second Protocol goes further and provides a framework for prosecution and extradition. There is clearly a gap between the ideals of the Conventions and practical reality. It is only in few high profile cases where prosecution and extradition/repatriation happen.

As we deliberate on these Conventions, we need tAs we deliberate on these Conventions, we need to pose questions and reflect on how we can link domestic law and international law. We need to examine the terminology used, for example the UNIDROIT Convention uses the terminology "unlawful excavated or lawfully excavated" but we understand that unlawfully retained cultural objects are deemed stolen.

In our context, SAHRA is the legal mandated authority that deals with excavations. It issues permits for development and monitors the implementation of the National Heritage Resources Act and, therefore, I contend that SAHRA should be given more capacity and resources to preserve our national heritage estate. Commander Grace Motsepe from the South African Police Service will talk about the state of heritage crimes in South Africa. I believe that her presentation will provide participants with a context and statistics of offences in the cultural sector. The Department has increased security at some of our national museum because of incidents in some institutions. , once again thank all of you for availing yourself for the two workshops. You have a big task ahead of you. There are many and complex issues. I trust that you will do justice to the task at hand. I wish you every success in your workshops and fruitful deliberations

I thank you.

back to topP>