Dublin has described the attacks in Gaza as a “blatant” violation of international humanitarian law
Ireland will intervene on behalf of South Africa in its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over allegations of war crimes in Gaza, Foreign Minister Micheal Martin announced on Wednesday. The decision was made after legal and policy analysis and consultation with several partners, including Pretoria, Martin said in a statement. It is “clear” that Israel’s ongoing hostilities in Gaza constitute a “blatant violation of international humanitarian law on a mass scale,” he added, while also condemning the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. Nearly 32,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed in Israeli air and ground attacks in Gaza, according to health officials in the Palestinian enclave. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to destroy Palestinian militant group Hamas after its cross-border attack, which killed more than 1,100 people and saw hundreds of others taken hostage. Late last year, South Africa filed a legal action against West Jerusalem at the ICJ for allegedly committing “systematic” war crimes in Gaza and requested an immediate ceasefire. In January, the court ordered Israel to take steps to prevent genocide and improve humanitarian conditions for Gaza’s population. Earlier this month, Pretoria filed a request for additional emergency measures and the modification of the top UN court’s interim ruling, citing the threat of starvation for Gaza’s population. UN envoy accuses Israel of ‘genocide’ in GazaREAD MORE: UN envoy accuses Israel of ‘genocide’ in Gaza Announcing Ireland’s intervention, Foreign Minister Martin said that “half the population of Gaza faces imminent famine, and 100% of the population faces acute food insecurity.” He added that the “indiscriminate” use of explosive weapons in populated areas and the “collective punishment” of an entire population must stop. “The view of the international community is clear. Enough is enough. The UN Security Council has demanded an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages and the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale. The European Council has echoed this call,” the diplomat stated.
It was an easily targeted spot for slave traders and gold grabbers who covertly masqueraded as traders. Therefore, it features prominently in the African historical narrative of capital and human exploitation by Europeans. Dr. Judith Spicksley, a historian at the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation (WISE) at the University of Hull, in her seminal article ‘Pawns on the Gold Coast’, describes how early in the trade relationship, Europeans took gold pawns as security for debt. However, as unorthodox rules for slave operations weakened and the lust for more gold overshadowed the emergent supply, Europeans turned increasingly toward the use of human pawns. This is no different from other exploitative processes that led to the loss of precious resources on the continent. Africa’s secret weapon: Extracting this resource will help present the continent’s true potential to the world Read more Africa’s secret weapon: Extracting this resource will help present the continent’s true potential to the world Official evidence of the looting of Ashanti Gold began during the Anglo-Asante War of 1874, when Britain’s military invasion of the Kumasi empire, sitting on the largest gold reserves in the region, inflicted much damage. Armed with explosives and superior firearms, the British military went on a sordid quest for Ashanti’s Gold Royal regalia – like the Mponponsuo sword created 300 years ago by the Kingdom’s Okomfo (spiritual leader) Anokye, which led the list of looted items in 1874. Under the pretext of ending slavery, British military incursions and lopsided trade treaties enforced with superior military might on African leaders occurred. Leaders who resisted were exiled, like the Asantehene Agyeman Prempeh, who was exiled to Seychelles in 1874. The British established trading ports, ensuring Britain declared itself a legitimate ruler on foreign soil. The rulers of several African kingdoms acted as middlemen in these trades, often against their will, but had to consent for self-preservation. The spoils from these conquered kingdoms paid for these wars. In Asante, the Asantahene, ruler of the Ashanti people, signed the harsh Treaty of Fomena in July 1874 to end the war. A standout clause in the treaty between Queen Victoria and Kofi Karikari, King of Ashanti, was the payment of 50,000 ounces (over 1,400kg) of approved gold as indemnity for the expenses caused to the Queen of England by the war. Britain incurred costs from these wars at the expense of its opponents, destroying Africa’s biggest empires. 1874 wasn’t the only instance of looting. In 1896, ceremonial swords, cups, and other vital items measuring a palace’s royalty were stolen. In his 2020 book ‘The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution’, Dan Hicks, a British archaeologist, anthropologist, and professor at the University of Oxford, repudiates the presence of these artifacts in Western museums, which perpetuates a narrative of colonial superiority and cultural dominance while erasing the histories and voices of the communities from which they were stolen.
Although discussions about the restitution of African artifacts predate independence in most African countries, they intensified in the latter half of the 20th century. Archaeologist and Nigeria’s head of the Federal Department of Antiquities, Ekpo Eyo, sent circulars to several European embassies in 1972 about the repatriation of the Benin Bronzes (thousands of 14th- to 16th-century plaques and sculptures taken by the British from the African Kingdom of Benin in the late 19th century) and spurred official pronouncements like the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This convention offers a shared framework among state parties regarding actions required to prohibit and prevent cultural property import, export, and transfer. The convention emphasizes that the return and restitution of these cultural properties are the linchpin of the convention, which mandates safeguarding the identity of peoples and promoting peaceful societies to strengthen the spirit of solidarity and stifle the expansionary rise of black-market trades across the continent. ‘A violation of human rights’: Will the UK government get away with deporting asylum seekers to Africa? Read more ‘A violation of human rights’: Will the UK government get away with deporting asylum seekers to Africa? After 150 years, the Ashanti Gold artifacts are held in various museums around the world, including major museums in Europe and North America. The British Museum in London holds 32 of the 39 historical artifacts, while seven treasures are at the Fowler Museum of the University of California in Los Angeles. Other minor artifacts, which receive little attention, are held in museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Musee du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac in Paris, and other smaller regional museums or private collections. In restitution efforts for the Ashanti Gold artifacts, complex legal and logistical hurdles are at play. Firstly, there has to be established provenance through examining documentation, archives, and historical records, owing to the difficulty arising from the long years of history and multiple transfers. Variations in international laws governing the repatriation of cultural property also add to the myriad of challenges. Transporting the artifacts from current holders to their destination and settling associated legal disputes or financial concerns provides further complication. Collaboration among international partners toward this is essential for successfully repatriating these artifacts. In conclusion, this extensive discussion about restitution aims to deepen existing Euro-African diplomatic relationships. The emphasis on restitution primarily lies in its utility as a building block for reconciliation; it aims to rectify pre-colonial injustices, foster international dialogue, and advance the growing bilateral trade between countries on both continents. The Ghana restitution experience will provide the policy framework and lead the roundtable engagement for restitution claims from other countries in Africa. As noted earlier, this action will not only demonstrate contrition but also make the most declarative statement from the West and other collaborators regarding their penitence during this ruinous expedition in colonial Africa.