US Senate Finally Ratifies 1954 Hague Convention

Patty Gerstenblith, the President of the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, sent out the following announcement:

The Archaeological Institute of America, the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield announce that the United States Senate voted on September 25 to give its advice and consent to ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
The United States now joins 121 other nations in becoming a party to this historic treaty which establishes the principles for protecting cultural sites, monuments and collections during both armed conflict and military occupation. By taking this significant step, the United States demonstrates its commitment to the preservation of the world’s cultural, artistic, religious and historic legacy.

The Library of Congress "Thomas" search engine (http://thomas.loc.gov/) indicates that the 1954 Hague Convention was acceded to with the following "understandings:"

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),-

720SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO UNDERSTANDINGS AND A DECLARATION

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc. 106-1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the declaration of section 3.-720

SECTION 2. UNDERSTANDINGS

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification:

(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that ``special protection,'' as defined in Chapter II of the Convention, codifies customary international law in that it, first, prohibits the use of any cultural property to shield any legitimate military targets from attack and, second, allows all property to be attacked using any lawful and proportionate means, if required by military necessity and notwithstanding possible collateral damage to such property.

(2) It is the understanding of the United States of America that any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action or other activities covered by this Convention shall only be judged on the basis of that person's assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.

(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by the Convention apply only to conventional weapons, and are without prejudice to the rules of international law governing other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons.

(4) It is the understanding of the United States of America that, as is true for all civilian objects, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural objects rests with the Party controlling that property, to ensure that it is properly identified and that it is not used for an unlawful purpose.

-720SECTION 3. DECLARATION

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following declaration:With the exception of the provisions that obligate the United States to impose sanctions on persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This Convention does not confer private rights enforceable in United States courts.

It is my own understanding that the United States Military already largely followed the Convention anyway. Presumably, the Senate's "understandings" reflect current US military views on how the Convention should be applied in practice.

While the Senate's ratification is thus probably largely symbolic, the Lawyers' Committee, the AIA, the U.S. Committee for the Blue Shield and others still deserve credit for encouraging action on an instrument that has been languishing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1999. Still, one must recognize that the 1954 Hague Convention has been spectacularly unsuccessful in preventing damage to cultural property in places like the Balkans and most recently, Georgia. Only the real commitment of national authorities, military commanders, and the troops on the ground can ensure cultural property is indeed protected as much as possible given the exigencies of war.

LCCHP Program on the Fate of Cultural Property in Times of Armed Conflict -- Interesting, but Incomplete

What do you get when you go to a program sponsored by an interest group founded by a well known lawyer for the archaeological community, a law firm that specializes in restitution of Nazi spoils and a well known and respected historical preservation group? Answer: a well done, but incomplete view of cultural property issues and conflicts from WW II to the Second Gulf War.

The underlying theme of the program put together by the Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation was one of contrasts. Unlike our nation's heroic preservation efforts in WW II, Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration dropped the ball in protecting Iraq's cultural artifacts in Gulf War II. We, therefore, need to make preservation of cultural property in conflict a high priority. In particular, the US must accede to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property.

Certainly such a narrative has some popular appeal, but I am not sure it is entirely accurate. To the sponsor's credit, they did invite several panelists associated with the military who did question aspects of it. Sure, the "monument men" (and women) of WW II did a good job of gathering artifacts looted by the Nazis, but they were very few in number (only about 50), particularly given the immense size of the invading force and the territory they needed to cover. Moreover, the WW II military benefited from being able to draft knowledgeable people, particularly from the museum world. In contrast, today's military is much smaller and there does not seem to be many academics willing to volunteer to serve as modern "monuments men" or women.

The military panelists were somewhat less forthright on issues of targeting. Sure, they highlighted the fact that US forces did their utmost to avoid targeting cultural treasures in Gulf War II. On the other hand, they failed to acknowledge that WW II is filled with examples of priceless cultural treasures being bombed to oblivion. Monte Cassino and Dresden are only two such architectural and artistic treasures that have been forever changed as a result. Thus, in my opinion, our armed force's record in WW II is simply not as good as was advertised nor is the record of our forces in Gulf War II anywhere as bad as is often portrayed.

While all this is well and good, the program predictably glossed over any fact that might call into question the archaeological community's support for the cultural nationalism of source countries. Thus, no one dared suggest that the looting of the Iraq Museum may have been at least in part motivated by the Shia majority's desire to strike at the Baathist regime's blatant use of the symbolism of Iraq's past to justify its tyrannical rule. Moreover, while one panelist spoke eloquently of the destruction of Croat and Bosnian cultural monuments in the Balkans in the 1990's, no one connected these depredations to the hyper-nationalism of the Serbian government. One instance recounted was particularly vicious. Serbian militia blew up a historic mosque in Foca, Bosnia and used the rubble to cover a mass grave of Bosnian Muslim victims from the town. The intent was clear. Ethnic cleansing topped off with cultural cleansing. With such facts, it is hard to ignore the way governments use and abuse artifacts of the past for their own political purposes. Yet, the program managed to do just that.