Now, the onus is on Peru to act
Now, the onus is on Peru to act
Monday, March 3, 2008
The escalation of the ongoing Yale-Peru dispute following the publication of former Peruvian First Lady Elaine Karp de Toledo’s New York Times column last week is yielding no winners. But the transnational friction it generated does present an opportunity for both sides to step up — with the onus on Peru — and finalize a deal before compromise is delayed once more.
In her scathing piece last week against Yale and Peru’s current administrations, Karp de Toledo argued that the University is continuing to “den[y] Peru the right to its cultural patrimony.” Tellingly, she wrote, “Fortunately, a final agreement has been delayed.”
Fortunately for whom?
In short, no one but Karp de Toledo and her husband, former President Alejandro Toledo. When the two raise ruckus — and stories championing their self-proclaimed support of indigenous people flood Peru’s newspapers — their influence increases. (And under Peruvian law, Toledo can run for a second term after sitting out for one.)
That is not to say the right-versus-wrong question should be ignored. After reviewing the agreements, the News has concluded that Yale was right to agree during the recent round of negotiations to return most of the artifacts to Peru and cede title to the others (although they would remain for some time in New Haven). Original contracts and letters between the two parties do not indicate that even the explorer himself, Hiram Bingham III, would agree with the University’s earlier position that Peru never expected Yale to give anything back. And given the tenuous foundation of Yale’s legal argument (save for the statute-of-limitations point), it is the University’s moral duty to return the “trophies,” as the News referred to them in January 1913.
Yale, however, has already agreed to this much. Blocking the resolution now appear to be outspoken political dissidents, like Karp de Toledo, who argue for an immediate and unequiovcal return of all of the artifacts. These activists would prefer that no agreement be reached than that one be struck with the Western bully they consider Yale.
The only silver lining is the possibility that Karp de Toledo’s column is sparking what it did not intend: a sense of urgency for both parties to return to the table and resolve differences before all sense of amicability is lost. National Institute of Culture Director Cecilia Bakula’s presence on campus today indicates this may be the case.
Either way, what is at least certain is that Yale has done its part. For the first time, the burden is almost entirely on Peru’s government and people to take the next step forward and salvage the agreement struck in September.
The Memorandum of Understanding outlined then provides for the return of most of the artifacts. It calls for museums and joint projects in the spirit of international cooperation. And it allows Yale to symbolically transfer ownership without setting a precedent that — for better or for worse — it will not be able to honor in similar disputes with other nations that may arise in the future.
It so happens that the Olympics are fast approaching. And it so happens that the agreement Karp de Toledo attacked in her column provides the neutrality and cooperative spirit that Beijing will provide the international community of athletes this summer.
So let the agreement live to see the lighting of the torch — and the vanquishing of this needlessly drawn-out dispute.
Peru, it’s up to you.
Comments
None 4 years, 2 months ago
YALE STOLE THE ITEMS FROM THE PERUVIAN PEOPLE. WHICH IS WHAT THE FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES HAVE DONE FOR THE PAST SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. SUCH PEOPLE WHO AS THOSE ATTEND OR ARE PART OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS AS YALE, FOLLOW ONLY ONE CREED, I HAVE THE BIGGEST MILITARY, SO I CAN GO ANY PLACE I WISH, AND TAKE WHATEVER I WANT. THEN I MAKE THE LAWS, SO IT IS LEGAL. THEN THEY SIT IN THE FRONT ROW OF THEIR CHURCH ON SUDAY MORNING AND FEEL SO RIGHTOUS, WHILE THEIR ECONOMIC SLAVES TOIL AWAY FOR MEAGER WAGES. YALE SHOULD NOT ONLY RETURN THE ITEMS TAKEN, BUT BUILD A NEW BUILDING AT MACHU PICCHU TO DISPALY THE ITEMS, FOR ALL TO ENJOY.
AS MY WIFE SAID TO ME ONE DAY,(SHE IS A REAL PERUVIAN LADY). THEY CAME AND TOOK EVERYTHING FROM US( THE SPANISH), THEY TOOK EVERYTHING, THEY LEFT US WITH NOTHING. THEY TOOK OUR LANDS,OUR RELIGION, FORCED OUR CHILDREN TO SPEAK THIER LANGUAGE. HOW CAN SUCH PEOPLE LIVE WITHOUT A HEART?
YALE, GIVE THEM BACK THIER STUFF!!
None 4 years, 2 months ago
@RM: Yale should give back the artifacts, but putting a modern building at Macchu Picchu would a worse offense to Incan culture than the artifacts' initial robbery.
None 4 years, 2 months ago
This was a silly editorial. Yale stole these artifacts -- that has become clear. Anything short of immediate return of total ownership is pathetic. "The ball is in Peru's court"?
If I go to your dorm room and steal your tv, is the ball ever in your court to negotiate its partial release on weekends?
Stay focused young Yalies, don't go all blue in the head. It does not matter where in the process this dispute is, Yale is wrong and disgustingly so.
That Levin has played along with this is a black mark on his presidency. That the YDN writes an editorial like this one makes one think that your journalistic future is confined to Fox News where you will be able to skew even the most obvious failures in favor of the home team.
I have written simply (not confusing you with legalistic international law issues) because sometimes Yalies get an overwhelming sense of self-importance. Yale stole something, and apparently believes it is okay because the people it stole from are poorer, darker, and less powerful. (Honestly, has it made a single argument that does not fit within this paradigm?)
While law is seldom on the side of such people, in this case it clearly is. American journalism, on the other hand, has a proud history of being on such people's sides, though in this case your editorial is not.
Don't get confused because time has passed. The central issue is the same -- Yale stole these items.
None 4 years, 2 months ago
With this editorial, your paper perfectly illustrates the superior--and yes, colonial--attitude that Karp-Toledo argues Yale has been acting in.
When one party continues to recognize the right of another to possess the artifacts that were taken from its nation, the onus can only be upon that party to act. It is up to Yale to correct this injustice.
None 4 years, 2 months ago
I agree with the previous comment. Yale Daily News's editorial is completely biased. As a respectable institution Yale should clean up its act and return the stolen artifacts immediately. Why insist on keeping something that irrefutably does not belong to Yale? That is not honorable and does not speak well of the institution. Yale should be taking all the steps necessary, and showing good will, to remove this stain from its history and the YDN's should not be spinning the facts to mislead its readers. This is not a big political issue that moves masses and wins elections in Peru, as YDN's recent articles intend to portray. If you inherit stolen property, the ethical course of action is to return the items. You should not be negotiating which items you get to keep, putting conditions to a partial return, and then claiming the ball is on the other guy's court.
None 4 years, 2 months ago
The editorial does not seem to reflect an attitude of superiority. The fact is that Yale simply won't return the artifacts. They haven't for nearly a century, yet the agreement more or less achieves the same thing. There are lots of shades of gray here, and the editorial seems to balance all of them well-pragmatism, morality and self-interested dissent.
None 4 years, 2 months ago
I'm confused about how you can be covering this as a news story (almost every week) and also have an editorial opinion about the matter...
None 4 years, 2 months ago
@Trumbull '08: News and editorials are supposed to be separate departments of the paper. The YDN makes a lot of mistakes, but I'm going to hope that this is how it's actually structured and that articles are not edited to reflect a bias. That said, this piece was really poorly done, especially bringing in the Olympics reference at the end out of absolutely nowhere.
None 4 years, 2 months ago
These artifacts belong to Peru, period. If we had a contract in the first place, it's expired. We've studied them, etc. Why do they need to be here anymore? The people of Peru need them back in their land. It's part of their heritage!
Or login with:
OpenID