Royal Diplomacy: The Asantehene’s Role in Securing the Return of Ghana’s Artefacts

In what was a full circle moment, amidst pomp and pageantry, artefacts taken over 150 years ago from modern-day Ghana by the UK were on display at the celebration of the silver jubilee of Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the Asantehene (King of the Asantes).

The British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museums returned 32 gold and silver items taken from the court of the Asante King (Asantehene) on an at least 3-year renewable basis.

Legislation prevents major UK museums from giving back items to places of origin and there is a lack of political will from either of the major parties to change this. Against this backdrop, the engineering of the return of the artefacts from the UK to Ghana is significant in sidestepping political and legal pain points inherent in a climate that has become marked by heated arguments about cultural history and reparations.

Even if the basis for the return of the items as a loan rather than a permanent return to its rightful owners has drawn ire, finding a way around the issue of ceding ownership, proved to be a clever if incomplete way of ensuring that Ghanaians have access to artefacts which they consider important, at an occasion of historical and cultural significance.

The real ingenuity however lay in the role of the Otumfuo in achieving this feat. The return of the items was underpinned by a deal brokered by the museums and Otumfuo Osei Tutu II with Mr Agyeman-Duah acting as chief negotiator/advisor. This successful spearheading of negotiation by a non-state actor at a non-governmental level is noteworthy considering the low success rates of both informal and formal notices at the governmental level for the return of cultural artefacts. While there is precedent for British museums agreeing to loan deals at the non-governmental level, this deal is still noteworthy, as calls for loans do not always lead to fruition.

The case of the Greek Elgin Marbles (Parthenon) demonstrates this.  In this instance, the Greek President’s suggestions for a loan arrangement regarding the marbles have not yielded success. Moreover, despite his promise to pick up the issue of the Elgin Marbles upon re-election, the political standoff between him and Rishi Sunak, Britain’s Prime Minister in London demonstrates how easily political tension and publicity can entrench positions and lead to stalemate. The negotiation for the return of artefacts to Ghana however managed to bypass all this and achieve a constructive outcome. Considering that Ghana’s formal governmental notice dates back to 1974 and recent negotiations involving the Ghanaian government were unsuccessful, the brokering of this deal is notable.

The deal’s significance is not only a likely important first step in achieving a permanent solution, it highlights how a non-governmental stakeholder (royalty) is wielding influence beyond the orbit of what is normally thought possible in modern-day international relations. In this case, the Asantehene’s prowess in clinching the deal illuminates his stature as a statesman and an increasing canniness in leveraging this on the foreign stage.

Having reportedly used his visit to the UK at King Charles’s coronation last year to start negotiations for the return of the artefacts, he exhibited tact and a sense of timing which are hallmarks of diplomacy. There is no novelty in monarchies engaging in benign diplomacy to project an image, exude soft power and even smooth things over in preparation for tough political negotiations by governments. Yet, in this case, it appears the Asantehene delved into the meaty parts of international negotiations.

Additionally, it is evident that the stature of the Otumfuo as an actor who might honour his word and the availability of the Manhyia Palace or other venues that could serve as suitable places for storage, care or display was instrumental in the clinching of the deal. The delayed return of artefacts to Nigeria by a Cambridge Museum due to concerns about whether they were going to be on full display suggests that these are considerations that affect returns. While these might be deemed paternalistic, neo-colonialist or simply bizarre for those who take the position that the items are being returned to their rightful owners, not meeting these conditions arguably simply deprive people from possessing or enjoying the items even if for a brief period. In the case at hand, the recognition of these facts and the provision of a mechanism to address them, point to the Otumfuo’s ability to act as a savvy negotiator who has both the profile and backing to secure serious buy-in.

To this end, the display of the artefacts in their place of origin, at the Asantehene’s silver jubilee and the 150th anniversary of the Anglo-Asante war that preceded the looting of the Asante state for the artefacts is of huge symbolic significance. At a time of cultural pride when the strength and wealth of the kingdom as well as the stature of its leader was celebrated, it enabled the story of an era of shame and disgrace to be turned to one of pride.

If the taking of these items was sometimes “a very political act” in an era where the Asantes posed a formidable resistance to the British in West Africa in the 19th Century, then the return of the items which have been described as “part of the soul” of the people carries political echoes of its own.

Ultimately, the return and display of the items is a befitting celebration of a leader who made it possible through a masterclass in diplomacy. It also sheds light on the evolving role and increasing influence of the Asantehene while begging the question of whether non-governmental actors such as royalty can and should do more in breaking political impasses.

Editor’s Note: Esenam Agubretu is a policy and public affairs professional. She writes on topics including public policy, political and international affairs, strategic communications and reputation management.