By Tarinee Gupta

Abstract

Cultural heritage has become a powerful tool in global politics, shaping diplomacy, national identity, and international influence. Nations leverage historical artifacts, language, and historical narratives to assert sovereignty, reclaim lost treasures, and justify political actions. The repatriation of looted artifacts, such as the Benin Bronzes and Parthenon Marbles, is not just about justice but also about diplomatic power. Museums influence political narratives, while historical revisionism strengthens national identity, as seen in Russia’s use of history in Ukraine and China’s reclamation of its past. UNESCO’s role in contested heritage claims raises ethical questions, and digital repatriation presents new challenges. The destruction of cultural sites in conflicts, language as soft power, and religious heritage disputes further demonstrate how history is weaponized. As cultural diplomacy and historical disputes shape global politics, the battle over history is ultimately a struggle to control the present and shape the future.

Introduction

Cultural heritage has moved from passive preservation to an active instrument of global influence. Nations utilize artifacts, historical narratives, and linguistic policies to assert sovereignty, strengthen international ties, and justify political and military actions. The repatriation of looted artifacts demonstrates this shift; countries like India have prioritized the recovery of cultural treasures as an aspect of national pride and foreign policy​. India’s proactive efforts to repatriate looted artifacts underscore a strategic integration of cultural heritage into national pride and foreign policy. A notable example is the 2014 return of the 12th-century bronze Nataraja idol from the United States, symbolizing India’s commitment to reclaiming its cultural treasures.  Furthering this initiative, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2021 visit to the U.S., 157 antiquities, spanning from the 2nd century BCE to the 18th century CE, were handed over, reflecting enhanced Indo-U.S. collaboration against cultural property trafficking.  These endeavors not only restore India’s cultural assets but also serve as diplomatic instruments, reinforcing its global image and addressing historical injustices. Museum diplomacy further outlines how cultural institutions advance political agendas, with nations leveraging heritage as diplomacy to bolster their international standing. Historical revisionism allows governments to manipulate history, stabilize ideological narratives and justify territorial claims. Conflicts over religious heritage sites and the destruction of cultural landmarks are strategic tools for controlling collective memory and erasing identities. Such actions serve political and ideological goals by redefining historical narratives and asserting dominance. 

For example, during the recent conflict in Gaza, several heritage sites, including the 800-year-old Pasha Palace and the 700-year-old Hamam al-Samara bathhouse, were destroyed, leading to major cultural losses. Similarly, in Nagpur, India, violent clashes erupted between Hindu and Muslim communities over the tomb of 17th-century Muslim ruler Aurangzeb, which demonstrated how disputes over religious sites can fuel communal tensions. Such acts aim to erase the cultural and religious symbols of communities, basically rewriting history and diminishing the identity of the affected groups. As cultural diplomacy gains importance and historical disputes continue to influence geopolitics, the struggle over heritage is not just about the past, instead it is about shaping the present and defining the future.

Repatriation of Looted Artifacts: A Battle for Sovereignty and Power

​The repatriation of looted artifacts stands at the core of cultural geopolitics, because it functions as a powerful assertion of sovereignty, a symbolic reclamation of identity, and a tool of diplomatic leverage. Demands for the return of cultural treasures are not merely about rectifying historical injustices—they serve to renegotiate power dynamics between former colonial powers and postcolonial states.  with nations seeking the return of treasures taken during colonial times. The Benin Bronzes, seized by British forces in 1897, are currently the focus of ongoing negotiations between Nigeria and Western museums. Recently, the Netherlands agreed to return 119 of these artifacts to Nigeria, marking a significant step in restitution efforts.  Similarly, Greece has also sought the return of the Parthenon Marbles from the British Museum, stating that their removal by Lord Elgin was an act of cultural theft.  These disputes surpass historical justice; They represent national sovereignty and serve as diplomatic tools, with governments using repatriation demands for political negotiations.

China has also pursued the return of artifacts lost during the Opium Wars and the looting of the Old Summer Palace.  The Chinese government views these efforts as part of a broader strategy to reinforce national identity and counter Western dominance in global cultural narratives.  These instances highlight that repatriation is not simply about historical correction but also a diplomatic maneuver in international relations, enabling states to reclaim moral authority on the global stage.​

The issue of repatriation is further complicated by legal and ethical debates. Many Western museums argue that they possess the resources and expertise to preserve artifacts more effectively than the countries of origin, citing risks of damage, theft, or inadequate conservation in developing nations. However, critics contend that such reasoning is paternalistic and reinforces neo-colonial power structures. Repatriation debates thus reflect broader geopolitical struggles, where cultural heritage becomes a contested site between former colonial powers and postcolonial states seeking restitution and recognition.​

Museum Diplomacy and the Politics of Cultural Institutions

Museums, often seen as neutral cultural institutions, play an active role in shaping global power dynamics. The British Museum, the Louvre, and the Smithsonian wield significant influence over how history is presented. By controlling access to artifacts, these institutions contribute to soft power—the ability to shape global narratives without direct coercion.

China has responded to Western museum dominance by investing in its own cultural institutions and initiating projects like the Palace Museum in Beijing. This effort is part of a larger strategy to establish China as a global cultural powerhouse, paralleling its economic and military rise. Similarly, Gulf nations such as the UAE have leveraged museums, such as the Louvre Abu Dhabi, to position themselves as cultural hubs and strengthen their diplomatic ties with the West.

Museum diplomacy extends beyond artifact collections. Traveling exhibitions, cultural exchange programs, and international collaborations enable countries to promote their narratives globally. By curating narratives and fostering intercultural ties, nations use these tools to project soft power, enhance global standing, and negotiate identity on their own terms. Such initiatives often precede or accompany formal diplomacy, making culture a key player in geopolitical dialogue. The Smithsonian Institution, for instance, has partnered with various African nations like Nigeria to facilitate temporary returns of artifacts while maintaining long-term stewardship agreements. These initiatives show how museums play a key role in international relations, bridging cultural divides while also supporting national interests. However, the question remains: Do these diplomatic efforts truly foster cultural exchange, or do they simply uphold existing power structures in knowledge and ownership?

Historical Revisionism and the Weaponization of the Past

Governments have long manipulated history to serve political objectives. Russia, for example, has justified its invasion of Ukraine by invoking historical narratives that frame Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russian civilization. Similarly, China’s reinterpretation of its history, emphasizing its centuries-old centrality in global affairs supports its claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea.

​In 2020, Turkey’s decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia from a museum back into a mosque was widely interpreted as a political move aimed at reinforcing national identity and signaling a shift towards cultural nationalism. This action displayed how historical narratives and cultural sites are utilized to support contemporary political agendas. The reconversion was perceived as a symbolic assertion of Turkey’s sovereignty and a departure from its secular foundations, reflecting a broader trend of leveraging symbolised warfare for political purposes. ​

Japan’s portrayal of World War II in textbooks has fueled tensions with China and South Korea, where memories of Japanese imperialism remain sensitive. Beyond education, digital platforms play an important role in historical revisionism. Beyond education, digital platforms have become powerful tools for historical revisionism. In the Philippines, social media has reshaped perceptions of the Marcos era, while content glorifying figures like Hitler has surged online. As governments and online platforms shape historical narratives, the past is increasingly used as a tool to justify present-day policies and influence public opinion.

UNESCO and the Ethics of Repatriation

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) plays a crucial role in mediating heritage disputes and setting international norms for cultural preservation. However, UNESCO’s efforts are often entangled in geopolitical rivalries. For example, Palestine’s successful bid to have UNESCO recognize the Old City of Hebron as a Palestinian heritage site in 2017 sparked controversy, with Israel and the United States withdrawing from the organization in protest.

The ethics of repatriation also raise questions about who truly owns history. Western museums justify holding artifacts as global heritage stewards, while source nations see their return as essential to cultural identity and sovereignty. Digital repatriation, framed as a compromise, often reinforces Western control over heritage narratives rather than addressing historical injustices. This debate reveals how cultural diplomacy operates as both a tool for reconciliation and a means of consolidating power, as efforts to mediate disputes often reflect existing geopolitical hierarchies rather than dismantling them. UNESCO’s role in heritage restitution underscores the complexities of navigating legal, political, and ethical frameworks, raising the question of whether these initiatives foster genuine historical justice or merely reinforce dominant narratives under the guise of diplomacy. 

While UNESCO presents itself as a neutral mediator, it often becomes a battleground for international diplomacy, where cultural heritage is entangled in soft power strategies and geopolitical bargaining. Member states frequently use UNESCO’s platforms, such as the World Heritage Committee, to advance national interests or gain symbolic capital, which can undermine the organization’s impartiality and the broader goal of equitable restitution. This dynamic raises important questions about whether heritage restitution truly challenges the structures of colonial power or simply reframes them in the language of diplomacy, ultimately preserving the same global hierarchies it claims to undo.

Conclusion: Cultural Heritage as a Political Tool

The growing entanglement of cultural heritage with global politics reveals that history is not just about the past, it is a powerful tool for shaping the present and influencing the future. Whether through the repatriation of artifacts, museum diplomacy, historical revisionism, or cultural restrictions, nations strategically use heritage to assert dominance, challenge existing power structures, and reinforce national identities. This politicization of history raises critical questions about ownership, representation, and accountability. As states continue to weaponize cultural heritage for diplomatic leverage and ideological control, the fight over history is no longer just about preservation, it is about power, legitimacy, and the narratives that will define global relations for generations to come.

About the Author: Tarinee is a second-year B.A. LL.B. student. She’s drawn to the intersection of law, politics, and global affairs, with a soft spot for the stories and strategies that don’t always make headlines—but should.

Image Source: Elgin Marbles: What artefacts have the British Museum been urged to return? | The Independent