French Parliament Shows Little Commitment to Resolving the Memory Issue

The French National Assembly’s framework law on the restitution of cultural property looted during the colonial period (1830-1962) reduces the possibility of reconciliation with Algeria, as colonialist lobbying inserted provisions blocking Algeria from restituting key stolen items by the French occupation army.

The law, ratified on Monday, April 13, does not include any highly symbolic items, such as the sword of Emir Abdelkader, the hero of the Algerian resistance, or the cannon of Baba Merzoug, also known as “La Consulaire” (Lucky Father), which was confiscated during the French invasion of Algeria in 1830 and is currently on display in the port of Brest, according to the French newspaper Le Monde in its Wednesday edition.

Conversely, other items, such as the Emir’s caftan, manuscripts, banners, and the key to the city of Laghouat (southern Algeria), could be recovered. While these items are of considerable importance, their impact on calming the historical memory conflict with Algeria remains unlikely as long as the French side continues its intransigence in finding a final and fundamental solution to the memory issue, which continues to cast a shadow over bilateral relations.

The text ignores entire collections of looted artefacts from Algeria, similar to those subjected to “illegal seizure.” According to the French newspaper, the law stipulates highly regulated procedures for lifting protection on property belonging to the “public domain.” The newspaper also reported that the Algerian looted items housed in the Condé Museum in Chantilly are excluded from any possible return, based on legal considerations that remain unconvincing to the Algerian side.

In 1843, the French occupation army looted the tent of Emir Abdelkader, which housed a complete library containing 37 manuscripts, five swords, two cannons, three rifles, two pistols, a dagger, boots, spurs, gold-embroidered bags, jewellery, chests, and textiles.

The reason Algeria cannot recover its looted property under the new law is the exclusion of military assets, based on the logic of the jungle: “war booty cannot be considered illegitimate.”

This applies, for example, to 38 bronze cannons seized during the conquest of Algiers, some of which adorn the entrance to the Invalides Museum in Paris, and seven pieces of artillery (four cannons and three howitzers) from the 1842 conquest of Tlemcen (western Algeria), most of which date back to the Ottoman era. Also excluded were the sword of Emir Abdelkader and the cannon of Baba Merzoug, with which the French consul, Jean Le Vacher, was executed in 1683, highlighting the colonialist bias of those who enacted this law.

Hasni Guitouni, a researcher in colonial history at the University of Exeter in the UK, believes that the justifications offered by the French side for exempting certain Algerian looted goods, based on the ratified framework law, remain legally unfounded. He argues that what the French colonial army did was an act of theft and plunder of the property and resources of a defenceless people.

Guitouni told Echorouk, “The French army was the one that looted and stole, and the victims were the Algerian people. The law was carefully crafted to prevent Algeria from restituting its stolen property.”

The researcher explained that “a third of the loot went to French soldiers according to internal arrangements, while soldiers and officers of the occupying army resold it in the markets to merchants and businessmen.”

The historian rejected the French characterisation of these looted items as “war booty,” arguing that the war was not between two regular armies, but rather between the French army and the unarmed Algerian people. Therefore, he asserted, the act was invalid under international law, given the existence of a state on one side and a people on the other. He pointed out that the French army under Napoleon III had also looted and placed plundered goods in French museums, rendering the current justifications meaningless. He concluded that the provisions of the new law were merely an attempt to refuse the restitution of these stolen items.

The historian Hasni Ghitouni concluded that France deliberately exploited a loophole in the law to prevent the restitution of what the colonial army had stolen, even though it was “fully aware that we cannot apply international law to a war that is illegal in the first place.”