The tide of cultural relics repatriation is rising, led by the United States and the United Kingdom. Behind this trend lies China’s growing influence and international standing—respect is earned not through moral appeals alone, but through national strength. Without a powerful nation, even the most legitimate claims may be dismissed.

Consider recent developments. On September 23, the Chinese embassy in the UK hosted a handover ceremony, marking the return of 12 cultural artifacts seized by London’s Metropolitan Police during criminal investigations. These were not museum holdings, but items confiscated as part of law enforcement operations. Both China and the UK are parties to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The State Administration of Cultural Heritage coordinated with the embassy in London to complete the formal reception.

A week earlier, from September 16 to 17, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement returned 58 items in Washington, while the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office returned six in New York. Among them were a stone carving of a bodhisattva from Cave 17 of the Tiantai Mountain grottoes, ancient terracotta figurines, dinosaur skeletons, fish fossils, and dinosaur eggs—all seized during anti-smuggling operations. The State Administration of Cultural Heritage worked with Chinese diplomatic missions in the U.S. to pursue and receive these items.

Earlier this year, France revised its “Law on the Return of Illegally Occupied Cultural Property,” streamlining the process for restitution. Previously cumbersome procedures have been simplified: eligible cases can now proceed through administrative channels without requiring individual legislation for each artifact. During parliamentary debate, one lawmaker cited Victor Hugo’s 1861 statement urging France to repent and return ill-gotten gains to China, declaring that the moment had finally arrived. The law applies to artifacts looted between November 20, 1815, and April 23, 1972—the period encompassing the sacking of the Old Summer Palace, the invasion by the Eight-Nation Alliance, and the loss of Dunhuang manuscripts. In theory, China can now invoke this legal framework to reclaim such items.

When viewed collectively, the shift in global attitudes is unmistakable. In the past, repatriation efforts often met resistance based on legal technicalities—“it’s not allowed” was a common rebuttal. Now, Britain returns, the U.S. returns, France revises its laws, and Italy has already returned 7,896 items in a single gesture. This is not due to sudden moral awakenings. It reflects a recalibration in international dynamics: China now holds more leverage, compelling other nations to adapt their approaches. While cultural custodians and diplomats deserve credit, their success rests on a foundation of national power. Without a strong state, even well-grounded claims risk being ignored.

How vast were China’s losses? Between the Opium Wars and the founding of the People’s Republic of China, over 10 million artifacts left the country—more than 1 million of which are classified as first- or second-tier cultural treasures. According to UNESCO, Chinese cultural relics are held in over 200 institutions across 47 countries, totaling approximately 1.64 million pieces; private collections may number ten times that figure. Systematic looting occurred during the Second Opium War, the Eight-Nation Alliance invasion, and Japan’s wartime occupation. Figures like Aurel Stein and Paul Pelliot illicitly removed manuscripts from Dunhuang and Central Asian sites. Additionally, warlord-led excavations, theft by custodians, low-cost acquisitions, and illegal smuggling contributed to countless losses.

In its first year, the new PRC received 11 surviving volumes of the Yongle Encyclopedia from the Soviet Union; another 52 were returned in 1954. In 1955, the German Democratic Republic returned three volumes of the Yongle Encyclopedia and ten banners from the Boxer Uprising. Premier Zhou Enlai personally received them. Western nations only began formal returns much later. The U.S. did not return 14 smuggled artifacts—including a Northern Qi Buddha statue and a Qing dynasty porcelain vase—until 2011. Notably, China’s GDP surpassed Japan’s in 2010, making it the world’s second-largest economy. Since then, France returned the rat and rabbit heads from the Old Summer Palace in 2013 and 2015, along with Qin dynasty gold ornaments. Switzerland returned Han dynasty terracotta figures in 2014 and five more in 2023. Italy made the largest government-to-government restitution in 2019, returning 7,896 items. Other nations—including Turkey, Australia, Egypt, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, and Argentina—have also taken steps.

This pattern underscores a pragmatic reality in international relations: when a nation is weak, others dictate the rules. When it grows strong, those rules may be reshaped. Repatriation of cultural heritage is merely the surface manifestation of deeper shifts in respect, influence, and global voice.

These effects extend beyond cultural property. In April, Taiwan’s leader Lai Qingde attempted a visit to Eswatini. However, Seychelles, Mauritius, and Madagascar refused permission for his aircraft to transit their airspace, upholding the one-China principle and refusing to recognize Taiwan’s official status or documents. In August, Kenya, Morocco, Uganda, and South Africa tightened entry requirements, rejecting Taiwanese travel documents at border checks and either denying entry or revoking visas. Last year, South Korea updated its electronic immigration system to label Taiwan as part of China.

All of these developments signal a clear truth: when a nation grows strong, the international community begins to take its red lines seriously. The same principle applies to cultural restitution—and to the Taiwan issue. As China continues to rise as a major global power, more countries will seek engagement, understanding, and recognition. The current wave of repatriated artifacts may be just the beginning.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1877362612717584/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.