While political parties jostle for control of the new Dutch coalition government, optimism grows that groundbreaking proposals to return items stolen from former Dutch colonies may yet be set in law. 

Could this new model for Dutch state collections nudge the UK government into re-visiting Britain’s stance on restitution?

Shortly after the last Dutch coalition government resigned but before the recent general election, Ingrid van Engelshoven, Minister for Education, Culture and Science, announced government support for proposals leading to the return of looted objects from state-owned collections. It followed recommendations made by a government-appointed Advisory Committee set up in 2019 to establish a national policy framework for colonial collections. 

If taken forward and approved by the incoming coalition government, this legislation would make the Netherlands the first country in Europe to approve a central mechanism for returning stolen artefacts from its former colonies.

At its core is a recognition of injustice and a requirement for government to put in place a mechanism for returning looted objects to their countries of origin.

“There is no place in the Dutch State Collection for cultural heritage objects that were acquired through theft,” said Ingrid van Engelshoven in a statement.  “If a country wants them back, we will give them back”.

This apparent shift towards an ethical rather than a legal solution to the restitution dilemma is ground-breaking for the state museums sector. It follows discussions held by the Advisory Committee with representatives of former Dutch colonial countries, who impressed on the Committee the need to acknowledge historical injustices. But just as important have been the changes in ethics within the Dutch museums sector itself. Curators directly in touch with colleagues in former Dutch colonies were feeling uncomfortable about the stolen objects in their collections and felt it was time to do something about it.   

The same ethical considerations are already bread and butter to many in Britain’s regional and university collections. Restitution has attracted strong vocal support from those who’ve attended recent Museums Association conferences. While, over at the Pitt Rivers, Horniman and Manchester Museums they’ve been busy making it happen. The engagements these and other museums have initiated with source communities and local diaspora, have brought them a deeper understanding of individual and shared interests, and led to the return of cultural artefacts. 

If there is to be a policy change that brings the UK’s national collections in line with the rest of the museums sector, they’ll need to accept the same ethical priorities now proposed for the Netherlands.

Like there, it’s legislation that determines what Britain’s national collections can and cannot do. However, the Dutch plan to replace these legal constraints by appointing a central independent assessment committee.  Their role is to evaluate each request for repatriation ‘independently, expertly and transparently’.  Such a move would be a hard pill for UK national museums to swallow. But in this post-colonial era, it would also help redefine the role of our national collections, many of which were built to display the spoils of British imperialism. 

Recent outbursts from government ministers about how we should restrain from change (“retain and explain”) and, in the words of the DCMS “defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down”, suggest there are still bridges to cross before the British government accepts the ethical case for restitution. However, this position is becoming less tenable.

Later this year, the Institute of Art & Law will present their recommendations for new museum protocols on handling restitution claims. They’ll be looking closely at the Dutch and other initiatives underway across the Channel.

The Dutch are prioritising only those objects stolen from former Dutch colonies and now in state collections. These objects will be returned unconditionally. But if the object was stolen from a colony of another country or if it is of particular cultural, historic or religious significance to another country, members of the assessment committee will decide its future, weighing up the interests of the different parties. Their decision criteria are uncertain.

This distinction between objects stolen from Dutch colonies and those stolen from elsewhere is perplexing, though probably politically-motivated. Alexander Herman, Assistant Director at the Institute of Art & Law, believes they’ve taken this route because the country is “seeking reconciliation with its former colonies”.  Though it will still be hard for claimants to understand the logic.

Dutch restitution expert and author of Treasures in Trusted Hands, Dr Jos van Beurden, is concerned about two further unresolved issues in the new proposals. 

“For the Dutch government, restitution is a state-to-state matter,” says van Beurden. “This neglects the interests of minorities, or royal courts and of religious groups in those former colonies”.

He voices a legitimate concern. Most successful restitutions made by UK museums were made directly to the descendants of those indigenous communities from where they'd been removed.  Not to the state capital, nor to the state’s national museum. Boundary and political changes will further complicate the opportunity for smaller communities to meet this test. 

Regional and university museums in the UK have shown much greater willingness to recognise the rights of smaller communities to claim back their own cultural heritage. In fact, it’s very often the continuing strength of this relationship that survives between the indigenous community and the object they’re claiming back that is the main reason why repatriation is agreed. The state itself plays little if any role in a decision to repatriate. 

Provenance research is a further issue that remains unresolved, according to Dr van Beurden. “Everybody is emphasising the need for more provenance research and I fully endorse it,” he explains. But he’s concerned it also has its limitations. “We have to face the issue that the present rhythm of provenance research is too slow for the large number of dubiously acquired museum objects”.