Attacks on companies that do business in Russia continue despite Kiev shutting down its list of ‘international war sponsors
A Ukrainian group in Germany is pressuring retailers in the country to remove Milka chocolate from their shelves because its international producer continues to do business in Russia. Kiev and NGOs supporting its cause had tried to shame foreign companies into cutting ties with Moscow through a list of ‘international sponsors of war’. The Ukrainian government shut it down last week, saying it was having a negative impact on support. American multinational food giant Mondelez, which Ukraine blacklisted last May, was targeted on Monday by Vitsche, a Berlin-based Ukrainian pressure group. It called on retailers Rewe and Edeka to boycott its products, particularly Milka brand chocolate. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), it said, “morals should have a place in business.” ‘Investors don’t morally care’ – CEO explains why Oreo’s remain in Russia Read more ‘Investors don’t morally care’ – CEO explains why Oreo’s remain in Russia According to the news outlet RND, which reviewed a letter that Vitsche sent to German retailers, the Ukrainian group was reacting to remarks made by Mondelez International CEO Dirk Van de Put in an interview last month. The CEO said the company’s investors do not appear to have moral qualms about staying in Russia. ”If you have an important Russian business, the hit on the company would be huge, and that becomes a different discussion,” he told the Financial Times. Like many other Western companies, Mondelez publicly condemned Moscow for its role in the Ukraine conflict, but declined to pull out of Russia. Mondelez has advertised Milka as making Easter “more tender,” so the letter was also connected to the holiday celebrated by Catholics this weekend. The Ukrainian activists are also planning a rally on Saturday against what they call “false pacifism.” READ MORE: Russian diamond sanctions creating ‘mayhem’ in EU – The Times Vitsche is aligned with Kiev’s official messaging on many issues. Both the Ukrainian envoy in Berlin and the NGO have slammed a proposal in Germany to treat as refugees Russians who fled their home country in 2022 after Moscow announced a partial military mobilization.
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.