Urice and Adler Update on US Government Lawlessness in Cultural Property Field

Derek Fincham has posted the latest version of Urice and Adler's working paper examining the lawlessness of the U.S. Executive branch's approach to cultural property issues. See http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/2011/03/urice-and-adler-on-disjunction-between.html The ACCG Baltimore test case is discussed in the article as an example of the disconnect between what the law says and the practices of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and US Customs.

Cultural Property and Antiquities Must Be Protected

Two Georgetown Law students have written this opinion piece for Georgetown Law Weekly. See http://www.gulawweekly.org/opinions/2011/3/29/cultural-property-and-antiquities-must-be-protected.html They state, Every time we turn on the news, members of Congress are railing about wasteful federal spending and the dire need to curb ineffective programs. Yet Monday, at a public meeting on the Hill about one of the most ineffective, and potentially illegal, federally-funded committees, not one Congressman, staff member, or reporter was present. [Note, there were at least two Congressional staff members present, but most of the audience were students of the field of cultural property law.] The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) was established in 1983 by the Cultural Property Implementation Act to advise the Department of State on which art and artifacts should be restricted on import due to looting. The goal was to reduce looting of art and archaeological sites by cutting off the U.S. market, in accordance with a 1970 international treaty. CPIA was meant to transcend activism to strike a balance between the free trade in antiquities and ethical preservation of the world’s cultural heritage. But since its enactment, CPAC has been horrifically derailed. CPAC board members are archaeologists, historians, and other experts who understand the value of cultural heritage and are clearly interested in the United States’ ethical treatment of international cultural property. It is a sorry and sour comment on the Department of State when CPAC’s own members, so dedicated to its mission, resign and call for the committee’s dissolution. Several former committee members, including a member who resigned just 21 days ago, told horror stories of inefficiency, secrecy, and outright illegality. For example, a former Chairman recalled a member sleeping through meetings, the Department of State blatantly ignoring CPAC’s votes and recommendations, and being denied access to the Committee’s own research and documents. As a result, the Department of State creates over inclusive trade restrictions that deny acquisitions to U.S. collectors and museums. Those works of art and archaeological artifacts, many with immeasurable monetary and educational value, simply go elsewhere, often to European markets with more precise but less restrictive import bans. The net effect? Turning away major investments during a recession, while wasting government money on a committee the Department of State ignores anyway. It may not be a “sexy” issue like health care or gay marriage, but protecting art and cultural property is an important goal, especially in light of the recent spread of armed conflict in some of the world’s most archaeologically rich Middle East regions. CPAC protects nothing but the Department of State’s unethical acts. Deborah Newburg, 2L, is a staff writer for the Law Weekly. Amanda Blunt, 2L, is a guest writer for the Law Weekly. Both are members of Students Against Looting Valuable Antiquities (SALVAGE).

State Department in Contravention of the Law?

The CPRI has issued the following press release concerning its recent Capitol Hill Seminar, entitled, The Cultural Property Implementation Act: Is it Working? See State Department in Contravention of the Law? A related question is whether the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is listening or whether Assistant Secretary Anne Stock and her staff remain tone deaf as ever.

He's Back....

Just when we thought he was gone, Zahi Hawass has been reappointed Egyptian Minister of Antiquities. See http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/8906/Egypt/Politics-/Hawass-is-persuaded-back-into-Egypt-Minister-of-An.aspx Presumably the serious allegations of corruption made against the SCA in general and against Hawass personally will now be swept under the rug. More evidence that Egypt's revolution is at best cosmetic. And, no doubt elements within US law enforcement, who have also hitched their own stars to the AIA, to Hawass and their repatriation efforts will also help discourage any US effort to ascertain whether corrupt Egyptian government officials dipped into the millions of dollars the US taxpayer has spent on Egyptian archaeology.

The Cultural Property Implementation Act: Is it Working?

The Cultural Policy Research Institute has placed a summary I prepared about its recent Capitol Hill Seminar on its website: http://www.cprinst.org/Home/issues

The summary, reprinted below, suggests that the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' administration of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act has gone seriously off the rails:

The Cultural Policy Research Institute (CPRI) Presents
The Cultural Property Implementation Act:
Is it Working?

Monday, March 21, 2011
Russell Senate Office Building 485, Washington, D.C. 20002

Summary by Peter K. Tompa, CPRI Legal Officer and Board Member

On March 21, 2011, the CPRI hosted a seminar on Capitol Hill to discuss America’s policies on the importation of cultural goods. The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand helped make this event possible. The seminar achieved all its objectives: distinguished panelists, vibrant discussion, significant airing of the issues, open discussion of deep concerns about direction of both CPAC and stewardship by the Department of State, and forward-looking agenda for CPRI for other events of a like nature.

Background

In 1983, Congress passed the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) to enact the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property into U.S. law. Broadly speaking, the 1970 UNESCO Convention contemplates that governments will enter into agreements to enforce each other's cultural property laws. The U.S. Senate ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention subject to reservations intended to preserve the “independent judgment” of the United States as to when and how to impose import restrictions on cultural artifacts when requested by State Parties to the Convention. The CPIA set up a panel of experts, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, to assist the President in his decision-making. The President has delegated his authority to the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). U.S. Customs and Border Protection has complementary authority to promulgate import restrictions. Over the years, the ECA’s administration of the CPIA and Customs’ implementation of restrictions has been much criticized.

Initially, import restrictions were imposed on behalf of poor, third world countries, and on narrow ranges of artifacts. After almost three decades, however, import restrictions are now in place on behalf of wealthy EU members like Italy and Cyprus, superpowers like China, and on ever increasing categories of artifacts like ancient coins. Archaeologists and their supporters applaud these developments, but critics in the museum and art communities believe that the State Department has disregarded the criteria established by law and cloaked its operations in secrecy to hide an abuse of power. In this seminar, experts discussed whether the CPIA is working as intended.

Panelists

Kate Fitz Gibbon (KF) was a CPAC member from 2000 to 2003. She is now an attorney practicing law in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with a focus on cultural heritage issues, matters involving international and Native American arts, and law pertaining to art collection and museums.

James Fitzpatrick (JF) is a senior partner of Arnold & Porter LLP’s legislative practice group. He represented the interests of the antiquities trade during in the passage of the CPIA. He is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law School where he teaches a course on cultural property law.

Richard Leventhal (RL) is a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. His areas of research interest include Mesoamerica; Complex societies; archaeological theory and method; and the intellectual history of archaeology in the USA.

Jay Kislak (JK) chaired CPAC from 2003 to 2008. Mr. Kislak founded the Jay I. Kislak Foundation, a private nonprofit cultural institution engaged in collection, conservation, research, and interpretation of rare books, manuscripts, maps, and indigenous art and cultural artifacts of the Americas and other parts of the world.

Michael McCullough (MM) has extensive experience in customs law and international trade matters. He has counseled multi-national companies on the development and implementation of global policies and procedures related to U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations, international trade agreements, export controls, economic sanctions constraints, anti-corruption rules, U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulations, and other government agency requirements. He is a former VP for compliance issues at Sotheby’s Auction House.

Andrew Oliver (AO) has served as a curator at the Met, a field archaeologist excavating in Cyprus and Turkey, and as a program officer at the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Introduction

Arthur Houghton (AH), former CPAC member, former State Department and White House Staff member, former Getty curator, and current CPRI President introduced the program. He said that critics of the government’s policies on the import of cultural goods believe that the process had “become a train wreck,” and that the promise of the CPIA lay in ruins. Others, however, maintain a different view, believing that the act is working as intended and there is no need for change. He then introduced the distinguished panel.

Session One: Congressional Intent in Passing the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act

(RL) Heritage is important to identity. We are losing Heritage around the world due to looting. The CPIA has helped. When the act was promulgated in 1983, archaeological artifacts were being imported for sale. Such artifacts are still being imported, but with some restrictions. These restrictions are less onerous than the guidelines adopted by the AAMD and AAM. Those guidelines require that museums only accession artifacts with documentary histories dating back to 1970. By adopting those guidelines, museums have opened up a new era of long term loans.

(AO) There have been gains made against looting in countries like Italy. However, it must be recognized that once looted, the damage to an artifact’s context has already been done. AO recounts a visit with fellow museum professionals in S. Italy some years ago. His Italian colleagues lamented the fact that looters were protected by the Mafia. They suggested that locals needed to be engaged. Most looting in Italy relates to tombs found in farmer’s fields. They suggested that these should be excavated employing local people with funding from foreign museums and collectors. In return, the foreign museums and collectors would be awarded part of the finds. Unfortunately, this suggestion went nowhere with the Italian cultural bureaucracy. It’s clear the “perfect” has become the enemy of the “good.”

(JF) If you use the words of the CPIA as a baseline, the process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods has gone off track. The statute was a compromise. It was not meant to close down the trade in antiquities. The US has a tradition of free trade in art. CPAC was meant to help moderate demands for embargos on art by helping to evaluate foreign requests for import restrictions. The “concerted international response requirement” was a compromise measure that opened the way for the CPIA to become law. It was meant to ensure that the U.S. would not act alone. Otherwise, the trade would be moved elsewhere with no impact on looting. The House had originally proposed legislation where the US would act alone. However, the bill as passed included the “concerted international response” provision that requires cooperation amongst art importing countries. Looting remains a severe problem, but the question is how best to address it.

First Question and Answer Period

(RL) The CPIA was a product of compromise. RL can’t speak to secrecy issues because he has never been a member of CPAC. However, he believes that the statute is working as intended.

(AO) The museum community was forced into accepting a 1970 provenance date for accessions, and has done so with much reluctance.

Session Two: How the Cultural Property Advisory Committee has Operated in Practice

(JF) The CPIA was meant to provide a rifle-like response to the problems of looting. Instead, State has used it like a shotgun. The CPIA was only to allow restriction of artifacts of “cultural significance.” Now, however, State equates “archaeological significance” with “cultural significance.” The “concerted international response” requirement has also been read out of the statute. As a result, the market in such materials has just been shifted elsewhere. China is a ridiculous case. We have closed our markets to ancient Chinese art when the biggest market for such material is in China itself. State has failed to administer the statute fairly.

(KF) “Sunshine Week” was just celebrated to promote government transparency. State makes its decisions behind closed doors. This has allowed State bureaucrats to consistently evade the CPIA’s statutory requirements. The secrecy has also allowed staff to control information flowing to CPAC. The CPIA requires foreign states to make self help efforts, but only the most minimal efforts—like putting signs up in airports—are required. Over the years, the statutory thresholds seem to get lower as the restrictions have gotten ever broader. Now, even coins have been restricted. Sometimes, State does not even bother to go through the niceties of seeking CPAC review. For example, “emergency” restrictions on artifacts from Mali were changed to “regular restrictions” though there are different standards for each, and there was no effort to consult with CPAC.

(RL) From the outside, it seems that the law has been followed. This is not a trade issue, but a foreign affairs issue. MOU’s foster respect for other cultures that translates into respect for our own. Source countries do their best to enforce their cultural property laws. In Egypt, we recently saw demonstrators locking arms together to protect the Egyptian Museum from looters. Not every source country protects cultural property the same way, but we do have 120 signatories to the UNESCO Convention. Switzerland enters into MOU’s like we do, but they do not have to be renewed every five (5) years. Italy and Cyprus have strong criminal laws. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have strong customs laws. These are sufficient for the concerted international response requirement. As the result of MOU’s, Italy has agreed to change its loan period to four (4) years. Coins are the same as other archaeological artifacts and should be restricted. The aim of the CPIA is not just to save objects, but to save context and heritage.

(JK) JK has served on a number of government commissions, but CPAC has been the most secretive. CPAC has not been well served by State Department staff. One slept 20% of the time during CPAC meetings, but most are intelligent. The problem is that they foster secrecy. JK does not understand why newspaper articles included in briefing materials were routinely marked as “confidential.” State Department bureaucracy is maddening. While JK was visiting a source country, he was not allowed to confer with a State Department staffer or bring her to meet archaeologists at a dig he was involved with. JK was really “ticked off” with what happened on Cypriot coins. There was a special vote held. CPAC voted against adding them to the MOU with Cyprus, but State Department staff totally ignored the recommendation and proceeded to act on their own. JK added that State made sure that CPAC is “stacked” with members who principally reflect the archaeological view. For instance, when JK was chairman, both museum slots were held by individuals with either an archaeological background or from an archaeological museum. Given the composition of CPAC that favored the archaeological view, JK was surprised that the vote was to exclude coins from restrictions. Based on that experience, JK decided not to accept another term as CPAC chair. Why have a CPAC if staff feels it can overrule CPAC’s recommendations that don’t suit it?

(AH) AH recognized Bob Korver (BK) in the audience. BK served as a trade representative on CPAC from 2003-2011. He is an expert in coins. He resigned twenty (20) days ago because he refuses to help add the veneer of legitimacy to the State Department’s illegal acts. When he began his service, he and other members received a letter from KF that expressed concerns about the lack of State Department transparency. At the time, BK did not realize that KF was an “optimist.” The lack of transparency allows staff to regularly break the law. CPAC members are not allowed to see past CPAC reports to allow them to gauge how past CPAC members addressed the issues. Nor are CPAC members allowed to review their own reports to ensure that they accurately reflect CPAC’s deliberations. RL posits that from “the outside” everything looks fine, but BK believes from the inside it “stinks.” The CPIA is not being given effect. Staff is supposed to help facilitate CPAC making recommendations, but Staff treats CPAC as a rubber stamp for what staff wants to accomplish. There have also been efforts to pack CPAC with archaeological supporters. For example, while BK was a CPAC member one of the public slots was held by a representative of ICOM, an organization that is aligned with archaeological interests. BK disagrees with JK about the quality of staff work. Before CPAC votes, staff would only provide CPAC with truncated versions of the findings CPAC must make. Secrecy is used to hide staff activism. This is an old problem. Not much has changed since Stephen Vincent’s article first exposed such staff activism. [See Steven Vincent, “Stealth Fighter: The Secret War of Maria Kouroupas,” Art & Auction 63 (March 2002).] BK believes that CPAC should be moved to the Department of Commerce.


Second Question and Answer Period

JF addressed a question about an action to recover a judgment in a terrorism lawsuit by going against Iranian cuneiform tablets held by the University of Chicago. JF believes such actions have a negative impact on loans. He cited as an additional example the refusal of Russia to loan paintings even though they had been immunized by the Department of State.

AO commented that although he considers coins to be archaeological artifacts, he refused to send a letter to CPAC advocating their inclusion in the Cypriot MOU because that would only benefit the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation collection.

Peter Tompa (PT) notes that an exhibit currently at the Smithsonian entitled, “Cyprus, Crossroads of Civilization,” features unprovenanced ancient coins from the Bank of Cyprus collection.

In response to a question whether import restrictions are “anti-American,” RL states that we need to remember that different countries can have different perceptions of property than we do. RL believes that he CPIA is working well; the MOU’s benefit both the U.S. and the other country.

KF notes that there are no restrictions on US “cultural property” save for Native American artifacts.

Session Three: Customs Enforcement—Fidelity to the Law?

(MM) Customs has a difficult task enforcing the CPIA because there are no clear guidelines. The trade sought such clear guidelines in the past, but nothing came of it. MM believes Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is generally fair. On the other hand, its sister agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is overly aggressive when it comes to these matters. There is confusion between normal customs procedures and the requirements of the CPIA. The CPIA restricts items based on their find spot, while Customs procedure is concerned with country of origin, which is typically associated with country of manufacture. Cultural property may also fall under three (3) distinct tariff numbers. As stated, on the “cargo side,” CBP is generally fair; however, ICE’s default rule is to seize first and ask questions later.

Final Question and Answer Period

KF mentioned the case of an entire auction being stopped by Customs two days before close. She also indicated that the FBI has begun to visit auction houses demanding provenance information for archaeological artifacts. MM acknowledged this has become an issue that causes substantial hardship to business. MM indicate there are always people that don’t get the word about restrictions, but that there is little actual smuggling going on.

RL asserted that smuggling antiquities is associated with smuggling drugs and weapons.

JF indicated that development in third world countries is probably more responsible for the destruction of heritage than looting. RL acknowledged that there is an interrelationship between poverty and illicit excavations. He noted that the Penn Cultural Center is addressing this issue.

AH indicated that archaeologists could do much more to promote cultural heritage in the countries in which they excavate but they are fearful of losing excavation permits. AH also asks how effective the CPIA can be if 90% of the archaeological material sold is done so in a source country like China.

BK responds to a question about the potential use of the CPIA to defeat a claim to a shipwreck. He indicates shipwrecks are not the thrust of the CPIA.

KF follows with the observation that import restrictions have become so broad that they have tainted the idea.

PT closed that session with thanks to the panel and with the expectation that CPRI will host similar events in the future.

Oral Argument in ACCG Test Case

The transcript of the oral argument on the Government's Motion to Dismiss the ACCG test case can be found here:
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Baltimore_Hearing_Transcript_Available.aspx

Oral argument is unusual these days on such motions, so I'm grateful the Court made time to question the parties about the case. A decision should be forthcoming in the not too distant future.

Egypt, Libya and Tunisia: UNESCO to the Rescue?

UNESCO is belatedly celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the 1970 UNESCO Convention with a conference in the City of Lights, Paris. See http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/ And what better way to show UNESCO is still relevant than to address the crisis in the Middle East?

The cultural bureaucrats are rightly concerned about the effect of unrest in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya on those nations' cultural patrimony, but one can only hope there is more emphasis on nipping the problem at the source rather than on taking advantage of situation to further an anti-collecting agenda. "Emergency import restrictions" that effectively shift the burden of proof onto the holder virtually guarantee seizures of perfectly legitimate artifacts that don't have detailed collection histories. Good police work combined with more effective efforts to record what is missing is a better, far less controversial approach.

Government Moves on Mummy Mask

In a series of court filings, the US Government has confirmed the Saint Louis Museum of Art's suspicions that it seeks forfeiture of the Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask as "stolen" Egyptian cultural property. See
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_98d72244-9976-5b8a-a73d-5c211c6a771b.html

One wonders why the Obama Justice Department is so keen on representing the interests of the Egyptian Government (as espoused by repatriation happy former Antiquities Minister Hawass) rather than letting the Egyptians themselves file suit against the museum if they really think they have a valid claim.

Meanwhile, there is no indication that the Obama Justice Department (or anyone else for that matter) is keen on investigating whether the U.S. taxpayer was ripped off by sticky-fingered Egyptian officials with regard to the millions upon millions spent in supporting Egyptian archaeology. See
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/03/egyptian-authorities-investigate-hawass.html

In my opinion, scarce prosecutorial resources should used for that first.

Some Pieces Recovered From Egyptian Museum Break In

There is finally some GOOD news out of Egypt; Egyptian police have recovered some artifacts stolen from the Egyptian museum. See
http://www.talkingpyramids.com/12-museum-pieces-recovered-snare/

If accurate, the report undercuts competing claims that the looting: (a) was an inside job by corrupt museum workers or police; or (b) the work of sophisticated criminals stealing artifacts "to order" for wealthy collectors from abroad.

Rather, the suspects seem to be unsophisticated locals who had hoped to take advantage of the unrest to "make a king's ransom" in cash.

Egyptian Authorities Investigate Hawass; Why No Investigation by American Authorities?

Al-Masry-Al-Youm, an Egyptian Newspaper, details allegations against former Antiquities Minister Hawass that are being investigated by Egyptian authorities. See
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/351660

The allegations are summarized as follows:

Abdel Rahman al-Aidy, chairman of the Central Administration of Middle Egypt Antiquities, and Nour Eddin Abd al-Samad, director general of the Department of Archaeological Sites, had submitted notifications to Egypt’s prosecution, accusing Hawass, the primary official responsible for Egypt’s antiquities since 2002, of covering up thefts of archaeological sites, wasting public funds, and signing an agreement with an American association that threatened the national security of Egypt by allowing the association to conduct studies on certain ancient Egyptian kings.

The source also explains Hawass' denials of the allegations:

Hawass denied that the thefts of archaeological warehouses in Zagazig took place during his term, and said that they occurred under former Antiquities Supreme Council Secretary General Abdel Halim Nour Eddin.

He also said that thefts of antiquities or archaeological sites are the responsibility of the antiquities police, inspectors and heads of sectors. He pointed out that the role of the secretary general is regulatory, managerial, and in charge of following-up on the work of the council and reporting any negligence.

He denied signing an agreement with the American Geographical Society (National Geographic). Rather, he claimed that it was protocol whereby Egypt received a cat scan machine worth US $5 million for Egyptian scientists to conduct research on the mummy of Tutankhamun, in return for National Geographic to film the scientific work. At the time, National Geographic was to pay an additional US$60,000 to the treasury of the Supreme Council of Antiquities.

While all this is well and good, shouldn't US investigators also look into whether US taxpayer dollars or payments made by US museums for exhibitions and the like were spent to support Egyptian archaeology as intended rather than diverted for personal gain of Mubarak cronies?

USAID has spent $100 million on Luxor alone in partnership with the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute! See
http://egypt.usaid.gov/en/Programs/Pages/antiquities.aspx These are not insubstantial sums, particularly when there are far more pressing government programs benefiting the world's poor being cut. At the very least given what has come out about corruption in Egypt, the US taxpayer deserves some assurance that these monies were well spent.

State Department Still Lacks Transparency Despite Obama Promises

It's "Sunshine Week," an annual event meant to promote government transparency. Unfortunately, the cultural bureaucrats in the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs have yet to act upon President Obama's promises for more open government. If anything, based on what they have said at oral argument in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA appeal, they believe the issue of how import restrictions on cultural goods are made is none of the public's business. I guess their only defense is that they are in good company; other agencies have also failed in this regard as well. See
http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2011/03/sunshine-week-begins-with-a-thud.html

Donnie George Passes Away

Donnie George, the former director of the Iraq Museum, has passed away. See
http://www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts/2011/03/donny-george-youkhanna-rip.html
He was a somewhat controversial figure; hero to archaeologists, but he was also subject to criticism for his past service for Saddam Hussein's government and views on collectors. Sadly, although he lived long enough to see peace come to Iraq, the country was not safe enough for him to return to the land from which he was exiled, and, if anything, the fate of both his beloved Iraqi archaeology and Assyrian Christian community remain in doubt.

Archaeologists Seek to Sink Indonesian Treasure Exhibit

For years, archaeologists have taken the position at CPAC hearings that Americans have no right to lecture foreign countries about how their legal systems treat cultural property. Apparently, however, this does not extend to places like Indonesia, which allows commercial treasure hunters to exploit wrecks as long as they also record their findings.
See
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/smithsonian-shipwreck-exhibit.html?ref=hp Archaeologists hope the exhibit will be cancelled because the Indonesian government partnered with commercial treasure hunters rather than funding some university to do the work.

The exhibit itself should be interesting. The artifacts provide a testament to the extensive international trade in Chinese goods during the Tang period. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/arts/08iht-singshow08.html?_r=1 I for one hope it makes it to the Smithsonian.

U. Penn Does Egypt's Work For It

Kudos to the University of Pennsylvania Cultural Heritage Center for publishing this list of items missing from the Egyptian Museum and certain archaeological sites. See
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/Resources/Documents/Missing%20Egyptian%20Antiquities.pdf

Why the SCA-- turmoil or not-- could not put together its own such list for wide distribution is beyond me.

Addendum (3/15/11): Dorothy King (PhDiva) reports that the SCA has finally published its own list. See http://www.sca-egypt.org/eng/pdfs/Objects%20Missing%20from%20the%20Egyptian%20Museum_2011-03-15.pdf I haven't looked at it closely enough to determine whether it was just cribbed from the U. Penn list. In any case, better late than never.

The Cultural Policy Implementation Act: Is it Working?

Cultural Policy Research Institute
215 W. San Francisco St. Suite 202C Santa Fe, NM 87501
cprinst@gmail.com
http://www.cprinst.org/
505-412-2209

The Cultural Policy Research Institute Presents
The Cultural Property Implementation Act:
Is it Working?

Monday, March 21, 2011
Russell Senate Office Building RM 485, Washington, D.C.
Coffee and Pastries at 9:00 am Program 9:30 – 11:30 am

Introduction: Why this Seminar? 5 Minutes
Speaker: Arthur Houghton (CPRI President; former Museum Representative CPAC)

Session One: Congressional Intent in Passing the
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act 30 Minutes
Speakers: Mark Feldman (former attorney, Department of State), James Fitzpatrick (Retired Partner, Arnold & Porter, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University), Dr. Richard M. Leventhal (Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania), Andrew Oliver (former Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Museum Program).

Session Two: How the Cultural Property Advisory Committee has Operated in Practice 30 Minutes
Speakers: Jay Kislak (Past CPAC Chairman), James Fitzpatrick (Retired Partner, Arnold & Porter, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University), Kate Fitz Gibbon (former Trade Representative CPAC, CPRI Executive Director), Dr. Richard M. Leventhal (Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania).

First Question & Answer Period – All Above. 10 Minutes

Session Three: Customs Enforcement - Fidelity to the Law? 15 Minutes
Speakers: Michael McCullough (former Vice President, Sotheby’s, attorney in private practice), US Customs Representative (TBA).

Session Four: Prescriptions for the Future - What More is Needed? Speakers: All 30 Minutes

Final Question & Answer Period – All Speakers. Remaining Time

CPRI wishes to thank the Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand for making this Capitol Hill program possible.
Questions? Contact CPRI at cprinst@gmail.com

Why this Program? In 1983, Congress passed the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) to enact the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property into U.S. law. Broadly speaking, the 1970 UNESCO Convention contemplates that governments will enter into agreements to enforce each other's cultural property laws. The U.S. Senate ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention subject to reservations intended to preserve the “independent judgment” of the United States as to when and how to impose import restrictions on cultural artifacts when requested by State Parties to the Convention. The CPIA set up a panel of experts, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, to assist the President in his decision-making. The President has delegated his authority to the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). U.S. Customs and Border Protection has complementary authority to promulgate import restrictions. Over the years, the ECA’s administration of the CPIA and Customs’ implementation of restrictions has been much criticized.

Senators Moynihan and Dole were instrumental in securing passage of the CPIA. They worked hard to ensure that the CPIA was the product of compromise. To gain support of the museum and arts community, limitations were placed on the executive’s ability to enter into agreements with other countries to impose import restrictions. A provision requiring U.S. restrictions to be part of a “concerted international response” was added to ensure the effectiveness of restrictions.

Initially, import restrictions were imposed on behalf of poor, third world countries, and on narrow ranges of artifacts. After almost three decades, however, import restrictions are now in place on behalf of wealthy EU members like Italy and Cyprus, superpowers like China, and on ever increasing categories of artifacts like ancient coins. Archeologists and their supporters applaud these developments, but critics in the museum and art communities believe that the State Department has disregarded the criteria established by law and cloaked its operations in secrecy to hide an abuse of power. In this seminar, experts in the field will discuss whether the CPIA is working as intended.

What is the Cultural Policy Research Institute?

CPRI is a 501(3)(c) nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing public education and understanding of the issues that underlie the ownership and disposition of cultural property.

CPRI conducts research into the legal, administrative, political and ethical issues that shape the continuing debate about the acquisition, display, conservation and publication of cultural artifacts.

CPRI strongly encourages cooperative means to preserve the world’s cultural heritage for future generations, including means to protect cultural sites of all types from damage or destruction by conflict, looting, development or neglect.

CPRI disseminates information on cultural policy issues through its website, http://www.cprinst.org/

Greeks Find Famed Altar

Greek archaeologists hope Greek railroad authorities let them investigate the remains of the famed Altar of the Twelve Gods rather than rebury it under a railway line. See
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite4_1_17/02/2011_379147

The fact that such an important site instead will likely be quickly reburied to hurry along the project once again shows countries like Greece may make grandiose claims about the importance of their cultural patrimony to justify repatriation and import restrictions, but archaeology is the first to go by the wayside when a country's own economic interests are considered.

Hawass Confirms Resignation

In what some might consider a self-serving staged interview on his own blog, Zahi Hawass has confirmed that he has resigned as Minister of Antiquities. See
http://www.drhawass.com/blog/why-dr-hawass-resigned

Meanwhile, those archaeologists who view Hawass as a "hero of archaeology" apparently hope no one looks too deeply into allegations of corruption at the SCA; for them the ONLY issue is reports of looting of archaeological sites.

Hawass: In or Out?

First, Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass offered conflicting reports of what was or what was not stolen from the Egyptian museum and archaeological sites. Now, there are conflicting reports of Hawass' resignation.

The New York Times reported yesterday that Hawass had resigned in another government reshuffle. See http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/egyptian-antiquities-chief-resigns/?scp=2&sq=Hawass&st=cse

Now, however, Egyptian sources state that Hawass has not resigned; instead he is threatening to resign to protest the army's and police's failure to protect Egyptian archaeological sites. See http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/6964/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/%D9%90Egypts-minister-of-antiquities-threatens-to-resig.aspx

Is this another Hawass publicity stunt? Is he hoping for his supporters to beg him to stay? If he goes, does he want the public to think it is only because he is putting the protection of Egypt's cultural heritage first? Who knows.

Hawass and the Egyptian Museum Gift Shop

The "Talking Pyramids" blog reports on former Antiquities Minister Hawass' efforts to steer a lucrative contract for the Egyptian Museum book shop to a company for which he was a director. The report details his efforts to undercut a competitor, violation of contracting procedures and refusal to follow a court order. See
http://www.talkingpyramids.com/zahi-hawass-museum-gift-shop/ At a minimum, the report, which admittedly is based on the account of the competitor for the franchise, suggests a troubling conflict of interest.

In any event, all this again suggests to me that US Federal Prosecutors should look into what actually happened to the millions of US tax dollars and franchise fees that were supposed to go to support Egyptian archaeology. If corruption was indeed rampant at the Mubarak era SCA as has been alleged, one has to also conclude it likely that substantial monies intended for archaeology actually were used for private gain.

Hawass Resigns

The New York Times reports that Egyptian Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass has resigned his post, along with Egypt's Prime Minister, after listing for the first time dozens of sites that have been looted during the unrest related to Egypt's popular revolt. See
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/egyptian-antiquities-chief-resigns/?scp=2&sq=Hawass&st=cse

In resigning, Hawass attacked former colleagues who had criticised him.

Hawass' list of looted sites includes storerooms associated with the Met's digs in Dahshur, near Cairo. See http://www.drhawass.com/blog/status-egyptian-antiquities-today-3-march-2011

The Met's Director issued a statement calling on Egyptian authorities to do a better job in protecting archaeological sites in the country.

Hawass, the face of Egyptian archaeology, has been a controversial figure. On one hand, he helped popularize it and ensure that more Egyptian archaeologists worked on Egyptian sites. On the other hand, his heavy-handed repatriation efforts did not exactly promote cultural exchange, and even Egyptian archaeologists finally turned against him due to his dictatorial and credit stealing ways.

It is unclear whether Hawass' resignation will end any investigations of his alleged misconduct in office or instead encourage them further.

Hawass Watch: Will He Stay or Will He Go?

In a marked shift from previous statements, Egyptian Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass has indicated that the government is not able to protect Egypt's ancient monuments and he is considering resigning from his post. See
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/egypt-antiquities-chief-says-he-may-quit/

Just recently, Hawass had stated on his blog,

Throughout this ordeal, there have been people who have been completely dishonest, and have tried, through their statements, to make the situation worse, in some cases by accusing me (in vague terms) of various inappropriate or even illegal behaviors. Of course, as even these people themselves know, none of these accusations has any basis in reality. When I was first appointed Minister of Antiquities Affairs, I thought my tenure might be very short, given the political situation. I did not care; I was only glad that the antiquities service had finally been given independence, and would no longer be under the Ministry of Culture. However, these attacks have convinced me that it is important for me to stay, so that I can continue to do everything in my power to protect Egypt's cultural heritage. I have written to Egypt's attorney general, asking him to look into some of the false accusations that have been made against me. I believe that addressing these issues will help stabilize the Ministry of Antiquities Affairs.

See http://www.drhawass.com/blog/uplifting-news

One of the comments to the New York Times report suggests Hawass' latest statements are really just a ploy to encourage his supporters in the archaeological community to beg him to stay. It will be interesting to see if Western archaeologists take the bait.

Odyssey Marine Exploration Financial Results

Odyssey Marine has announced its financial results for 2010. See
http://www.tradershuddle.com/20110228175267/globenewswire/Odyssey-Marine-Exploration-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-2010-Financial-Results.html

Anyone who thinks deep sea treasure hunting makes for easy money should note that Odyssey's operating expenses exceeded its revenues by millions of dollars. I'm sure the costs of the Black Swan litigation has not helped Odyssey's bottom line, either.

The archaeological community has been very hostile to Odyssey's business model. On the other hand, should wrecks really be left to rot while we wait for cash-strapped governments to fund multi-million dollar deep sea archaeological explorations?

It seems to me that the private-public partnerships that Odyssey has entered into with the United Kingdom are better suited to achieving the proper balance between commercial exploitation and archaeological study. Say what you will, but there is real exploration going on now, rather than some day that will likely never come.