The State Department Cultural Heritage Center has provided advance notice of a proposed MOU with Ukraine and renewals of current MOUs with Ecuador and Jordan. According to this preliminary notice, written comments and requests to speak at the June 4, 2024, CPAC hearing must be received on or before May 28, 2024.
Sympathy for the Ukrainian people and their struggle against
Russian imperialism makes it difficult to oppose any MOU, but the State
Department must still honor the CPIA’s statutory requirements in processing the
request.
The CPIA closely defines archaeological and ethnological objects
that may be subject to restrictions. A
threshold consideration for objects to be considered “archaeological or
ethnological material” of Ukraine is that they were “first discovered within” Ukrainian
territory and “subject to” Ukrainian export control.
This raises a serious question as to coins and other
artifacts from the sites of ancient Greek Black Sea colonies that are now in occupied
Crimea. While Ukraine still maintains that Crimea remains
part of that country, the reality is that Russia, which has occupied the peninsula
since 2014, is unlikely to give up its conquest.
Of course, there are other issues, particularly related to
coins, including whether common types are of “cultural significance” and
whether it is proper to assume that they were found on current Ukrainian
territory when they were types that circulated regionally or even
internationally.
Overbroad designated lists enforced as embargos are a major concern for collectors. Although the State Department and their "partner" archaeological advocacy groups claim that import restrictions are directed at current looting of archaeological sites, their impact is much broader. In fact, they have allowed foreign governments to "claw back" coins and other cultural goods legally sold and available for export on open markets in Europe. State and Customs then conduct elaborate "repatriation ceremonies" where they claim they are returning "stolen property." The reality most often is simply that some unfortunate collector was unable to provide provenance information that just does not exist for most low value items like coins. Of course, all this goes against the fundamental Anglo-American view that the burden of proof always is on the government to prove guilt, but it is expediency in the name of "soft power" that prevails here.
The issue of an overbroad designated list certainly already applies to
the current import restrictions with Jordan.
Those import restrictions include coins that circulated regionally.
The Jordanian MOU and its related import restrictions
should also raise different questions because the very same types of coins (and pottery) that
are now restricted to American citizens are openly available for sale there.
At least, the current designated list with Ecuador does not include
coins. That makes sense because Spanish
Colonial and Republican era coinage that circulated in Ecuador fails to fit the definition of either “archaeological” or “ethnological” objects.
Nevertheless, the designated list for Ecuador remains overly broad, including colonial era art that stretches the definition of “ethnological objects.”
The legislative history makes clear that the CPIA’s drafters believed that "ethnological objects" must be the products of what was at the time referred to as “primitive cultures.”
Update: April 26, 2024- The regulations.gov link to comment on the proposed MOU with Ukraine and renewals with Ecuador and Jordan is now live and can be found HERE.
Update: May 6, 2025- The State Department Cultural Heritage Center has confirmed fears that Ukraine is asking for very broad based import restrictions in a blog post dated April 30, 2024. The request includes archaeological objects (including coins) created as recently as 1774 and ethnographic artifacts created as recently as 1917. More here.
No comments:
Post a Comment