The State Department Cultural Heritage Center website has provided advance notice that the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet to consider renewals of current MOUs with Libya and Belize. See https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-july-26-27-2022
The
public may provide written comment in advance of the meeting and/or register to
speak in the virtual open session scheduled for July 26, 2022, at 2:00 p.m.
EDT. Both written comments and requests
to speak at the open session will be due July 19th.
Written
comments are to be posted on regulations.gov. An upcoming Federal Register notice should
provide details.
The
Libyan renewal should be controversial for several reasons. The MOU was originally rushed through after
allowing only 5 days for public comment.
At the time, Libya was a failed State with two competing governments
propped up by foreign interests.
Subsequently, without seeking input from CPAC, the State
Department morphed “emergency import restrictions” into a MOU with the faction headquartered
in Tripoli. Today, Libya remains a
failed state where the political stalemate often erupts into open combat. Each side is well armed with the help of their
authoritarian foreign sponsors. The
Tripoli faction is propped up by Turkey with the help of Syrian mercenaries. In contrast, the Benghazi faction is propped up
by Egypt and Russia with Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group providing extra
muscle. The place is so dangerous that no
US Embassy has operated there since the ambassador was murdered by terrorists. Does anyone really believe that artifacts
repatriated under this MOU will be safe in such an environment?
These
concerns about the safety of these artifacts are exacerbated because the
designated list is so all encompassing.
It covers archaeological material from 12,000 B.C. to 1750 A.D. and Ottoman
era ethnological material from 1551 A.D. through 1911 A.D.
This designated
list raises issues of concern to Jewish exile groups and coin collectors. Jewish groups are concerned that the MOU with
Libya recognizes the rights of that government to the cultural heritage of the country’s
displaced Jewish minority. While specific
references to Jewish cultural heritage were removed from revised import
restrictions associated with the MOU, such material is still implicitly covered
because there is no specific exemption as was the case with Morocco.
The
restrictions on coins are grossly overbroad.
See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/09/2018-14637/import-restrictions-imposed-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-from-libya
In particular, the restrictions empower
U.S. Customs to seize Greek silver and gold coins, Roman, Byzantine, and
Ottoman coins imported from legitimate markets in Europe on the assumption that
they are “Libyan” even though such coins circulated regionally and
internationally and not “exclusively” or even “primarily” in Libya.
By
contrast, the MOU with Belize, a Central American Democracy, is much less
controversial. The import restrictions
are also broad, applying to a wide variety of archeological material ranging in
date from approximately 9000 B.C. to at least 250 years old, including, but not
limited to, objects comprised of ceramic, stone, metal, shell, bone, glass, and
wood. The issue there will be whether
there will be any effort to expand current import restrictions to ethnographic
artifacts or coins.
Update (7/18/22): The Regulations.gov link from which to comment is now live. It may be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2022-0015-0001 For a direct link to the comment page, see https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/DOS-2022-0015-0001