ACCG Secures Heavily Redacted FOIA Release of Materials Related to "Invitation Only" Roundtable to Sign Controversial MOU with Saudi-Supported Faction in Yemen

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has secured heavily redacted materials in response to its FOIA request  relating to a controversial "invitation only" roundtable organized by the Antiquities Coalition, a mysteriously well-funded archaeological advocacy group with ties to Middle Eastern dictatorships. The ACCG has appealed the State Department's decision to redact the materials, but what was produced demonstrates that the Biden-Harris State Department has gone even further than prior administrations in favoring archaeological advocacy groups and cutting out other interested stake holders representing trade, collector, museum, and religious and ethnic minority interests.  All this advocacy on behalf of a foreign governments also begs the question why these archaeological advocacy groups apparently do not feel a need to register under either the Lobbying Disclosure Act or Foreign Agents Registration Act.

US imposes grossly overbroad emergency import restrictions on behalf of Ukraine and new import restrictions for Yemen without a public hearing

At the behest of the State Department, US Customs has imposed grossly overbroad emergency import restrictions on behalf of Ukraine.  It has also issued revised import restrictions on behalf of  "the Republic of Yemen" without a public hearing or full statutory Cultural Property Advisory Committee review. Both sets of import restrictions again demonstrate that the Biden-Harris State Department places a  premium on expediency over legality and the interests of American collectors and the small and micro businesses of the trade in cultural goods.  

The Ukrainian emergency import restrictions cover archaeological material from the Paleolithic period (c. 1.4 million years ago) through 1774 AD and ethnological material from 200 AD to 1917.  The restrictions on widely collected coins  and medallions are exceptionally broad:

1. Coins —In gold, silver, bronze, copper, and lead. Some coin types minted in or commonly found in archaeological contexts in Ukraine in various periods are listed below.

a. Ancient Greek cities in Ukraine, including Olbia, Panticapaeum, Chersonesus, and Tyras, minted coins of various weights and metals. Cast currency in dolphin, sturgeon, and arrowhead forms was also produced in this period. See Zograph, A. Ancient Coinage, Part II, Ancient Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. (Oxford, 1977). Approximate date: 600-47 B.C.E.

b. In the Roman period, Panticapaeum continued to mint coins, and other Roman imperial coins were also used. See MacDonald, D. An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, Classical Numismatic Studies 5. (Lancaster, 2005). Approximate date: 47 B.C.E.-500 C.E.

c. Coins minted in the Kyivan Rus period include gold and silver zlatnyks with a portrait of the ruler and the trident (tryzub) symbol. Hexagonal cast ingots (hryvnia) were also produced. Bohemian deniers and dirhams of Islamic states were also used in the Medieval period. Pierced coins and exfoliated (flaked) coins, including half-coins and forgeries, were common. Approximate date: 880-1240 C.E.

d. Coins in use during the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods include, but are not limited to, Mongolian dirhams, Lithuanian denars, Polish ducats, Crimean Khanate akces, Austro-Hungarian talers, Ottoman coins, and Russian rubles. Approximate date: 1240-1774 C.E.

2. Medallions —Usually featuring relief images, known since the Early Iron Age, with gold, silver, and bronze phaleras used during the Roman period. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

Such import restrictions authorize the detention, seizure and repatriation of  coin types made in what is today Ukraine or occupied Crimea that circulated in quantity elsewhere as well as issues made elsewhere that primarily circulated well outside of present day Ukraine.  Early modern issues of the surrounding nation states of Austria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia are included.   As with ancient Roman Imperial coins, such coin types that are widely and legally sold  in legitimate markets in Europe are now in danger of confiscation on entry into the US unless the importer can "prove" they were out of Ukraine as of the September 10, 2024 effective date of the regulations.  

These concerns were raised in written and oral comments  made on behalf of the American Numismatic Association, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, and the International Association of Professional Numismatists, but they were ignored.  Additionally, by issuing "emergency import restrictions"  rather than entering into a cultural property MOU, the State Department avoided having to consider "less drastic measures" raised in these comments.  Such "less drastic measures" like the creation of a Portable Antiquities Scheme and a web based system for issuing export permits would have been particularly appropriate here since Ukraine allows a large internal market for the cultural goods that are now embargoed as well as the purchase and sale of metal detectors.  

In one positive move that cynics will link to the election year, the new Yemeni restrictions on ethnological material explicitly exclude Jewish ceremonial and ritual objects and manuscripts.  JIMENA, B'nai B'rith and Global Heritage Alliance have argued that such materials should exempted from cultural property MOUs with repressive Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) governments which have forced their Jewish populations into exile.  

Addendum (9/16/24):  What the administrative state "gives" with one hand, it "takes" with the other.  A further review of the Ukrainian restrictions linked above demonstrates that they explicitly include Jewish and Christian ceremonial and ritual objects.  Of course, Ukraine is no  Yemen, but such restrictions could still lead to trouble for Christians or Jews of Ukrainian decent bringing such material into the US for religious purposes.  

US State Department Approves "Emergency Import Restrictions" on Behalf of Yemen's Saudi Backed Government

The U.S. State Department has approved more import restrictions, this time with Yemen's Saudi backed government which stands accused of complicity in human rights abuses and the intentional bombing and shelling of Yemeni cultural sites.

Effective Feb. 5, 2020, import restrictions have been imposed on a wide variety of Yemeni archaeological and ethnological artifacts, including coins and books and manuscripts, which would cover religious artifacts of Yemen's displaced Jewish population.

The list of coins is extensive.  It includes:

9. Coins—A reference book for ancient, pre-Islamic material in Yemen is M. Huth, Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms: Ancient Arabian Coins from the Collection of Martin Huth, New York, 2010, pp. 68-152. A reference book for Islamic coinage to A.D. 1750 is S. Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, Santa Rosa, 2011, pp. 116-127. Some of the best-known types are described below:

a. Ancient—In gold, silver, and bronze/copper, with units ranging from tetradrachms down to various fractional levels.

i. Earliest coins from Yemen are imitations of silver tetradrachms from Athens; feature a bust of Athena on the obverse and an owl on the reverse. The style of these imitations is distinctive, and they are usually marked with Arabian monograms or graffiti. Approximate date: 500 B.C. and later.

ii. Minaeans produced schematic imitations of the Athenian coinage; these coins have angular shapes, often triangular. Style is distinctive with monograms with Arabian letters. Approximate date: 200 B.C.

iii. Sabaeans struck distinctive local imitations of Athenian tetradrachms, with or without monograms, often with the curved symbol of Almaqah to the right of the owl, and of smaller units than previously. In the 1st century A.D., the head of Athena is replaced with a male bust resembling Augustus; owl on the reverse continues, as do monograms and the curved symbol. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., a beardless male head appears on the coins with the curved symbol, and a facing bucranium (a bull's head) appears on the reverse with the curved symbol and monograms. Approximate date: 400 B.C.-A.D. 300.

iv. Himyarite coins feature beardless male heads on the obverse coupled with bearded male heads on the reverse. Various South Arabian monograms appear on the coins. Rulers include Yuhabirr, Karib'il Yehun`im Wattar, Amdan Yuhaqbid, Amdan Bayan, Tha'ran Ya`ub, Shamnar Yuhan`am, and unknown kings. Approximate date: 110 B.C.-A.D. 200.

v. Qatabians produced imitations of Athenian coins also in 2nd-4th century B.C., with or without monograms; distinctive style. From the 2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., head of Athena is replaced with male ruler portraits, including those of Yad'ab Dhubyan Yuhargib, Dhub, Hawfi`Amm Yuhan`am III, Shahr Yagul, Waraw'il Ghaylan, Shahr Hilal, Yad`ab Yanaf, and various unknown rulers. Reverses of early types have the owl, while later types have a second portrait on the reverse. Approximate date: 400 B.C.-A.D. 200.

vi. Bronze coins from Hadramawt have radiate male portraits in a circle on the obverse and a standing bull on the reverse; Arabian symbols appear. Approximate date: A.D. 200-400.

vii. Various South Arabian types imitate Athenian coins, Hellenistic Alexander tetradrachms with a head of Herakles on the obverse and Zeus seated on the reverse, and Ptolemaic coins with a cornucopia on the reverse. Style is distinctive; designs are accompanied by Arabian monograms.

b. Islamic Period—In gold, silver, and bronze, and including anonymous mints in Yemen, and coins of unknown rulers attributed to Yemen. Non-exclusive mints are the primary manufacturers of the listed coins, but there may be other production mints.

i. `Abbasid coins struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints San`a, Zabid, `Adan, Dhamar, `Aththar, and Baysh mints. Approximate date: A.D. 786-974.

ii. Coins of the Amirs of San`a, struck in gold, at the mint of San`a. Approximate date: A.D. 909-911.

iii. Rassid (1st period) coins struck in gold and silver at Sa`da, San`a, Tukhla', and `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 898-1014.

iv. Coins of the Amirs of Yemen, struck in silver, at an uncertain mint. Approximate date: A.D. 1000-1100.

v. Coins of the Amirs of `Aththar, struck in gold, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 957-988.

vi. Tarafid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate date: A.D. 991-1004.

vii. Ziyadid coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mint Zabid. Approximate date: A.D. 955-1050s.

viii. Khawlanid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of San`a. Approximate date: A.D. 1046-1047.

ix. Najjahid coins, struck in gold, at the mints Zabid and Dathina. Approximate date: A.D. 1021-1158.

x. Sulayhid coins, struck in gold and debased silver, at non-exclusive mints Zabid, `Aththar, `Adan, Dhu Jibla. Approximate date: A.D. 1047-1137.

xi. Zuray'id coins, struck in gold, at the mints of `Adan and Dhu Jibla. Approximate date: A.D. 1111-1174.

xii. Coins of Mahdid of Zabid, struck in silver, at the mint of Zabid. Approximate date: A.D. 1159-1174.

xiii. Rassid (2nd period) coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mints Zufar, San`a, Sa`da, Huth, Dhirwah, Kahlan, Muda', `Ayyan, Bukur, al-Jahili, and Dhamar. Approximate date: A.D. 1185-1390.

xiv. Ayyubid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, `Adan, Ta`izz, San`a, al-Dumluwa, Bukur, and Mayban. Approximate date: A.D. 1174-1236.

xv. Rasulid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints `Adan, Zabid, al-Mahjam, Ta`izz, San`a, Tha'bat, and Hajja. Approximate date: A.D. 1229-1439.

xvi. Tahirid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Adan. Approximate date: A.D. 1517-1538.

xvii. Rassid (3rd period) coins, struck in silver and bronze, at the mints of San`a, Zafir, and Thula. Approximate date: A.D. 1506-1572.

xviii. Ottoman coins, struck in gold, silver and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, San`a, `Adan, Kawkaban, Ta`izz, Sa`da, al-Mukha, and Malhaz. Approximate date: A.D. 1520-1750.

(Ironically, both Martin Huth and Stephen Album's firm have expressed concerns about import restrictions on coins to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in the past.  Yet, here their scholarly works on these coins are being cited as a basis for the restrictions!)

What's All the Fuss About?

The archaeological lobby supporting import restrictions have pitched them as  a "consumer protection" measure designed to keep U.S. collectors from buying recently looted material.   Yet, they must know that import restrictions are controversial to the trade and collectors because, as construed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they embargo all undocumented items of types on designated lists imported after the effective date of the regulations, not just items illegally exported from a UNESCO State party after the effective date of import restrictions as required under Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), 19 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2604, 2606, 2610. Such regulatory actions have converted CPIA import restrictions into embargoes of all objects of restricted types rather  than targeted, prospective import restrictions that do not impact the purchase of artifacts from the legitimate marketplace abroad.

Import restrictions have been particularly hard on coin collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade because most collector's coins (which typically are of limited value) lack detailed provenance histories necessary for legal import. This has greatly damaged the legitimate trade in such items with fellow collectors, especially from within the E.U.

Jewish groups will feel particularly aggrieved by the State Department's treatment of their concerns.  As has been the case with other MOU's made by the Obama and Trump State Departments on behalf of other authoritarian MENA regimes, import restrictions on behalf of Yemen contain no explicit exemption for artifacts once owned by Yemen's displaced Jewish population.  That means the restrictions on books , manuscripts and other archaeological and ethnological artifacts also apply to Torahs and other personal property (like jewelry) that had to be abandoned when Yemeni Jews were forced from the country.  As these groups see it, this is tantamount to U.S. State Department recognition  of the rights of Yemen and other authoritarian Arab regimes to their  personal and communal religious property.

 There also is the obvious question about whether these import restrictions will really promote "cultural property protection."  Pursuant to the CPIA, any artifacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection seize will be sent to Yemen, a country involved in a multi-party civil war, and be given over to the custody of a  government which itself has been accused of complicity in bombing cultural sites.

Finally, there is an important issue of process.  The short comment period allowed before the CPAC meeting to address Yemen's request (which encompassed important Jewish Holidays) raised suspicions at the time whether the decision was already a "done deal."  Certainly, there was plenty of evidence of lobbying by the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group with ties to authoritarian MENA regimes, on Yemen's behalf.  Moreover, just recently, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan seems to have confirmed what Cultural Property Observer has long feared- that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as a mere rubber stamp for agreements already worked out in advance among  the archaeological lobby and the State Department and source country bureaucracies.  Hopefully, going forward, CPAC's new Chairman and its new members will do their utmost to instead ensure CPAC sticks to its mandate to offer the State Department decision maker useful advice on whether or not to agree to a MOU based on inputs from all stake holders-- not just those associated with the archaeological lobby who already have strong relationships with the State Department Cultural Heritage Center.

Certainly, CPAC and Trump Administration political appointees need to ask themselves whether the State Department is providing a good example to MENA governments about what good governance and democracy mean.  They also need to consider how the actions of the State Department are impacting ethnic and religious minorities, American small business owners, museum professionals and collectors, all of whom will be voting in the upcoming Presidential election.

Summary of CPAC Meeting on Requests from Yemen and Morocco

On October 29, 2019, the US Cultural Property Committee (CPAC) held an open session on proposed MOU’s with Morocco and Yemen.  Video conferencing was used for speakers in diverse locations to provide oral comments to CPAC members meeting at the State Department.

The following individuals were meeting at the State Department: (1) Andrew Cohen, CPAC’s ED; (2) Jeremy Sabloff, CPAC’s Chair (Santa Fe Institute- Museum Representative); (3) Rosemary Joyce (Berkley- Anthropology Representative); Karol Wight (Corning Glass Museum-Museum Representative: (4) James Reap (University of Georgia Historic Preservation-Public Representative);  (5) Dorit Strauss (Art and Insurance Advisory Services- Expert in the International Sale of Cultural Property); and (6) Stefan Passantino (Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP-Public Representative).  There were other State Department staff in the room and apparently other CPAC members listening remotely.

Andrew Cohen gave a short overview about the purpose of the proceeding.  Jeremy Sabloff then indicated that CPAC had received 185 public comments (mostly relating to Jewish religious artifacts), and that due to time constraints comments of public speakers would be limited to 4 minutes (rather than the usual 5).

Stefan Passantino asked Carole Basri (American Filmmaker and Lawyer of Iraqi Jewish Decent) if she would be satisfied with an exemption for Jewish artifacts.   She says a carve out is important, but the problem is that while Jewish artifacts have not been explicitly named in recent designated lists, Jewish artifacts still fall under more general categories.  She also indicated that it is often difficult to tell Jewish artifacts from similar looking Islamic ones.  She notes that Jewish Torahs are in effect private property lent to Synagogues for communal use.  MOUs have in the past have recognized MENA governments’ rights to such private property.

Glenn Corbett (Council of American Overseas Research Centers) has worked to document and preserve the contents of Yemeni museums.  He believes that his Yemeni government colleagues share CAORC’s concerns and truly do want to protect Yemeni cultural patrimony.

Mr. Epstein- Indicates that Torah scrolls are personal property that must be protected.  This property must not be awarded to the anti-Semitic Yemeni regime.

Kate FitzGibbon (Committee for Cultural Policy and Global Heritage Alliance) expressed concern about the short amount of time allowed for speakers along with the short two week long comment period.  She notes that the CPIA has certain criteria that should be met before a MOU is approved.  The State Department’s public summary of the Moroccan MOU request was produced AFTER the close of the public written comment period and did not identify the type of import restrictions or describe the objects for which import restrictions are being sought. Nor did the public summary describe any looting taking place today.   Ms. FitzGibbon appreciates that the CPAC is considering a carve-out for Jewish artifacts, but the issue would not arise if the Cultural Property Implementation Act were applied as written as restrictions would then be placed on far fewer categories of artifacts.  She also indicates there needs to be current looting to trigger the CPIA and that it not clear such looting is taken place in Morocco.  She also notes that Moroccan law is a bit unclear.  She notes that Dr. Sabloff (who also lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico) should recall a local shop that sold Moroccan cultural artifacts that were legally imported, but which would likely be covered under an all-encompassing MOU.

Benjamin Gladstone is a doctoral student.  He is appalled by reports that the US government is considering signing away the cultural heritage of Yemeni and Moroccan Jewry to the governments of those countries.  He is particularly concerned not only about Torah scrolls but grave goods as well.  Yemeni Jews were discriminated against.  Jewish orphans were subject to forced conversions to Islam.  Whether one was an orphan was determined by whether the father was living.  Lots of children were forcibly removed from Jewish widows, and then tortured into accepting Islam.   Young Jewish women who were “orphaned” were also forced to marry Yemeni Muslims.  For many years, the State of Israel sought to preserve the grave of a Jewish holy man in Yemen.  The Yemeni government sought to erase any trace of the grave by erecting a school over it.

Sarah Levin (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and Africa (JIMENA)) speaks for displaced Jews from Yemen, Morocco and elsewhere in the region.  Her group has contacted Secretary of State Pompeo and House Foreign Relations Chair Eliot Engel to express concerns about the US recognizing the rights of MENA governments to Jewish cultural artifacts when Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the region. Jews are not allowed access to Jewish cultural artifacts that remain in the region because they were not allowed to remove them when they fled.

Katie Paul (ATHAR Project) shows screen shots of Yemeni and Moroccan cultural artifacts available for sale on Facebook pages for groups within the region.  She maintains that some of these groups are very large and also have members in the US.  The images show a range of objects including statuary, Torah scrolls and coins.

Mr. Sissan (Spelling?)  Indicates that Jewish people saw themselves as foreigners in MENA countries and logically MENA countries should not be entitled to their cultural artifacts.

Peter Tompa (International Association of Professional Numismatists) states that CPAC needs to look before it leaps to approve yet another round of MOUs with authoritarian MENA governments.  The Yemeni MOU is very troubling because Yemen is complicit along with its Saudi allies in the intentional destruction of cultural sites, including the Dhamar Museum.  A few images of what purport to be looted material on Facebook is insufficient to establish that Morocco’s cultural patrimony is in jeopardy. CPAC should work to ameliorate damage done to coin collecting by ensuring that any import restrictions are only applied prospectively to coins proven to be illicitly exported from the State Party that received import restrictions after the effective date of any regulations.  Current procedures do not comport with the CPIA because they effectuate an embargo on all coins imported after the effective date of any regulations. 

 

Kate FitzGibbon notes that a number of the images on Facebook shown by Ms. Paul may be fakes.  

Ms. Paul indicates she vetted some with experts and that fakes are often used to hide real objects.

Carole Basri asks the Committee to review her Fordham law review article about Jewish cultural heritage. She notes MENA governments treat Jewish archival material poorly.  In one instance, some such material was almost incinerated.

Rosemary Joyce wants Ms. Basri and others to know that the Red List (which has Jewish artifacts on it) is not the same as the designated list. 

Carole Basri argues that any Jewish material that US Customs seizes should be given to Jewish groups in the US and not returned to MENA countries.

Look Hard Before You Leap

Here is what I planned to say during today's CPAC meeting.  My actual comments were somewhat abbreviated:

          I am here to ask that you look hard before you leap to approve yet another round of MOUs with authoritarian MENA governments.  Yemen is a particularly troubling case with an ongoing civil war.  The Hadi government has been propped up by Saudi Arabia.  It is undisputed that Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners are complicit in intentionally destroying cultural sites, including bombing the Dhamar museum.  The other major party, the Houthis, are Iranian proxies.  The Hadi Government has accused the Houthi of doing most of the looting in the country, but if that is true wouldn’t that also mean any looted material is going to Iran, not here?  In any case, the net result of any MOU with Yemen will be repatriating artifacts (that may or not have been in Yemen for decades) back to a war zone.  A MOU with Morocco raises a different issue—is the patrimony of Morocco really in jeopardy or is this just a case where another MENA government has been promised the same treatment as its neighbor, Algeria.  The information that has been provided about a shadowy seizure in France, a few images of what purport to be Moroccan cultural items on Facebook, and even an article that links treasure hunting to sorcery fall well below the quantum of evidence required.

            As to coins, let me make the following points.

·        There are large numbers of coin collectors and numismatic firms in the US.  Very few collectors do so to “invest.”  Most collect out of love of history, as an expression of their own cultural identity, or out of interest in other cultures.  All firms that specialize in ancient coins in the US are small businesses.

·        Private collectors and dealers support much academic research into coins.  For example, a German collector and a curator at the American Numismatic Society collaborated to produce, “Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms,” an extensive study which includes research into the coinage of ancient Yemen.  A clamp down on collecting will inevitably lead to less scholarship.

·        While what became the CPIA was being negotiated, one of the State Department’s top lawyers assured Congress that “it would be hard to imagine a case” where coins would be restricted.   In 2007, however, the State Department imposed import restrictions on Cypriot coins, against CPAC’s recommendations, and then misled the public and Congress about it in official government reports.  What also should be troubling is that the decision maker, Assistant Secretary Dina Powell, did so AFTER she had accepted a job with Goldman Sachs where she was recruited by and worked for the spouse of the Antiquities Coalition’s founder.  Since that time, additional import restrictions have been imposed on coins from Algeria, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Libya and Syria. 

·        The cumulative impact of import restrictions has been very problematical for collectors since outside of some valuable Greek coins, most coins simply lack the document trail necessary for legal import under the “safe harbor” provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 2606.

·        It is probably too late to change history, but even at this late date, the problems facing coin collectors could be ameliorated if CPAC works with Customs to ensure the CPIA is applied as written.

o   The CPIA only authorizes the government to impose import restrictions on coins and other artifacts first discovered within and subject to the export control of either Morocco or Yemen. (19 U.S.C. § 2601). Furthermore, seizure is only appropriate for items on the designated list exported from the State Party after the effective date of regulations.  (19 U.S.C. § 2606).  Unfortunately, the State Department and Customs view this authority far more broadly.  In particular, designated lists have been prepared based on where coins are made and sometimes found, not where they are actually found and hence are subject to export control.  Furthermore, restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations, but rather are enforced against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions.

o   The State Department will no doubt point to a 4^th Circuit case as support for its procedures, but it is important to recognize this decision was ultimately predicated on the view that the Court should not interfere with what it considered to be a “foreign policy matter.” That of course has no bearing on CPAC recommending that State and Customs do the right thing and ensure any restrictions that may be advocated are properly phrased to only apply to coins illicitly removed after the effective date of regulations.  As referenced in our papers, Congress mandated a similar formulation under Syrian import restrictions.  Thank you. 

Slim Public Support for MOU's with Yemen and Morocco

The docket for the upcoming CPAC meeting on proposed MOU's with Morocco and Yemen indicates that 170 comments were received about one or both of these MOU's.  The vast majority of comments came in response to an appeal from JIMENA (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East & North Africa) against State Department efforts to recognize the rights of authoritarian MENA countries to the religious and cultural artifacts of their displaced Jewish populations.

Coin collector-numismatic trade comments were way down (to approximately 10) from 100's in the past, no doubt due to frustration about the likelihood of numismatic logic moving the State Department, as well as the fact that the obscure coin types found in these countries are mainly of interest to specialists. 

Archaeologists and archaeological advocacy groups were only represented with approximately 10 comments as well, which should again confirm that there is very little actual public support for these MOU's.

Oddly, the "Antiquities Coalition" which has worked with the Yemeni Government on this MOU apparently failed to submit any public comments.  Is it possible the Coalition has already received assurances that the MOU's are a "done deal?"

Short Comment Period for Proposed MOU's with Morocco and Yemen

The State Department's Cultural Heritage Center is only allowing a mere two weeks for written comment on proposed MOU's with Morocco and Yemen.  For the applicable Federal Register Notice along with a direct link for comments see here .

In what must be an unprecedented move, the State Department only provided public notice about the CPAC hearing the same day it published Yemen's Article 9 request.  While summaries of the requests are promised, none have yet been provided, making intelligent comment even more difficult.

Yemen's request should be controversial.  Yemen is involved in a three way civil war.  Its government and its Saudi allies stand accused of intentionally targeting cultural sites, including bombing the Dhamar Museum into dust. This raises questions whether the Yemeni government has "unclean hands" and whether artifacts should be repatriated to a war zone.  There are also other moral issues related to whether the United States Government should recognize Yemeni government rights to artifacts of displaced Jewish and Christian populations.  Under the circumstances, one has to wonder whether the short comment period is designed to keep potentially embarrassing comments about the merits of the Yemeni request to a minimum.

Addendum (10-7-19):  Additional information, including a Public Summary of the Yemeni request, can be found here.