The V&A should acknowledge the circumstances in which its Ethiopian artefacts were acquired by returning them unconditionally, says Douglas Currie

I am writing to take issue with the views of the V&A director, Tristram Hunt, as quoted by Mark Brown in his article concerning Ethiopian artefacts held by the museum (Ethiopian treasures could be on their way home after V&A offers long-term loan, 4 April).

Among the reasons given by Mr Hunt for not allowing a “simple return” of items to their countries of origin is what he calls the “philosophical case for cosmopolitanism in museum collections”. I take this to mean that museums should play a role in promoting other cultures.

This argument would be valid if it worked both ways. I would be curious to know how many African museums hold British artefacts acquired against the wishes of their original owners.

He then implies that an obstacle to returning items is the opposition of the British public. I am curious to know the basis for this assertion. My sense is that most people are indifferent to the idea of returning items, though when asked would be likely to see the justice of the case.

My third point of contention is his proposal that development aid money should be diverted to support for conservation in the countries of origin. This strikes me as doubly penalising those countries, having first plundered their treasures, then taking aid away from its proper use as a condition for returning what is rightfully theirs.

Would it not be better to acknowledge the circumstances in which the artefacts were acquired by returning them unconditionally, while at the same time making financial reparations for the damage done? This might be followed by reciprocal arrangements for two-way long-term loans, leading to genuine cosmopolitanism. Does that seem unreasonable?

Douglas Currie

Edinburgh

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters