经济学人下载:乌克兰的文化战争 历史的教训

Culture wars in Ukraine
乌克兰的文化战争

History lessons
历史的教训

The conflict in Ukraine spreads to its museums
发生在乌克兰的冲突波及至其博物馆

“HE WHO controls the past controls the future.” Orwell's dictum now faces a new test. Shortly before Russia annexed Crimea, the Bakhchisaray museum, north of Sevastopol, lent some valuable artefacts to an exhibition in the Netherlands. The question as to which country these (and other objects from Crimean museums) should return is creating a diplomatic conundrum.
“谁控制过去谁就控制未来。”奥威尔的这则格言现如今正面临新的考验。在俄罗斯抢占克里米亚前不久，北塞瓦斯托波尔的巴赫奇萨赖博物馆给荷兰的一个展会出借了相当一批珍贵的文物。问题是，这些国家（和克里米亚博物馆的其他出借对象）返还文物变成了一个外交难题。

“Let yourself be overwhelmed by the gold of Crimea,” boasts the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam. Never before has Ukraine lent so many mostly Crimean treasures. The Black Sea peninsula is filled with gems left by invaders over the centuries. The exhibition includes a Scythian gold helmet from 400 BC, pottery from Greek colonisers and a lacquered Chinese box that came along the Silk Road. “We have given our very best objects,” sighs Valentina Mordvintseva, a curator at the Crimean branch of the Institute of Archaeology. She fears she may not see them again.
“都淹没在克里米亚的黄金之下吧，”阿姆斯特丹的阿拉德皮尔逊博物馆夸口。乌克兰从未出借过如此多的宝物，并且多数是来自克里米亚。黑海半岛遍地都是几个世纪以来入侵者留下的宝物。展出的物品有公元前400年的斯基泰人的金色头盔、希腊殖民者的陶器和通过丝绸之路传来的漆器。“我们已给出了我们最好的物品，”Valentina Mordvintseva—这位来自考古学研究所克里米亚分所的管理者叹息道。她担心自己可能再也见不到他们了。

Who is the rightful owner? On legal grounds, Kiev has the upper hand because the Allard Pierson signed a loan agreement with the Ukrainian state. And as the Netherlands does not recognise Russia's annexation, Ukraine still owns the property. Yet the Dutch also signed contracts directly with the lending museums. And, says Inge van der Vlies, a professor at the University of Amsterdam, there is an ethical case for returning the objects to them. But there is no guarantee that Russia might not pinch the pieces the moment they arrive.
谁才是真正的主人？法律上来说，基辅（乌克兰共和国首都）有更具优势，因为阿拉德皮尔逊与乌克兰签署了贷款协议。并且荷兰并不承认俄罗斯的抢占，乌克兰仍然拥有所有权。然而，荷兰也与贷款博物馆直接签署了合同。同时，阿姆斯特丹大学的Inge van der Vlies教授表示，这是一个有关归还物品的道德案件。但也不能保证，俄罗斯在他们抢占之时不会接手这些合同。

The Dutch foreign minister, Frans Timmermans, does not wish to meddle but he also wants to avoid being seen to accept a new form of art looting. This may be impossible; whether the gold returns to Crimea or to Kiev, each side will accuse the Dutch of pilfering.
荷兰外长堤孟思并不希望插手，但他也不想他这种沉默被看做是对这种新形势的艺术掠夺的认可。无论金子最终归还于克里米亚或是基辅，每一方都将指责荷兰的偷窃行为，这或许不可能发生。

A UNESCO resolution warns of the “massive transfer of priceless cultural objects from Crimean museums to the Russian capital”. But a rogue Russia is hardly going to be deterred by reminders to stick to its obligations under international law relating to cultural property.
联合国教科文组织（UNESCO）颁布的一项决议对“大规模的将物价的珍宝从克里米亚博物馆转运至俄罗斯首都”一事提出了警告。但是这个决议几乎不能制止一个无赖般的俄罗斯，使其在涉及文化财产的国际法律之下履行其义务。