Chinese Art and Antiques Saved from Tariffs

The Trump Administration has abandoned plans to place up to 25% tariffs on Chinese art, antiques and historical coins.  The office of US Trade Representative was evidently swayed by arguments that collateral damage to US small businesses and cultural exchange with our allies in the United Kingdom, the EU and Asia, particularly Japan from tariffs outweighed any benefits.  If anything, such tariffs would play into Chinese Government efforts to redirect Chinese art back to China for the benefit of wealthy collectors and auction houses associated with the Chinese government.  Now, if only the State Department would rethink the proposed renewal of the cultural property MOU with China, which raises many of the same issues.

Real Turn Around or Business as Usual?

It would be nice to think that Deborah Lehr and her well-funded Antiquities Coalition have had a real change of heart about how the antiquities market encourages cultural exchange and the preservation of artifacts, but given the group's consistent efforts to portray collectors as witting or unwitting accomplices of terrorists and cultural racketeers one has to really wonder if any change is just for the moment and for business purposes related to her international consulting firm.  Only time will tell.

Tons of Cash

Ten tons or some 2 million "cash coins" were recently excavated in China.   For import restrictions under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act to apply, the item of "archaeological interest" must also be of  "cultural significance." With numbers like that, one wonders why there are any import restrictions on Chinese cash coins at all.  China allows its own citizens to collect such cash coins freely.  So why can't Americans freely import them from abroad as well?

Lament of a Cosmopolitan Arab

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, the general manager of Al Arabiya TV, has lamented that the Arab World's penchant to willfully destroy the evidence of past civilizations suggests that its pre-Islamic antiquities are better off in the West.   UNESCO, the sectarian government of Iraq, the odious Assad regime, the Egyptian generals and the archaeological lobby will no doubt disagree.  Yet, CPO sees parallels to China.  There was a time not too long ago when fanatics devoted to Mao's Cultural Revolution purposefully destroyed an untold number of cultural treasures and hounded those with knowledge about them sometimes to death. Now, the Chinese have regained their appreciation of their past, and luckily they can turn to America for access to both artifacts that have been treasured here as well as knowledge about them.  Hopefully, that can happen in the Arab world too, but only if UNESCO and its allies don't get in the way.

All in for Sisi

Anyone who thinks the Antiquities Coalition is only about protecting Egyptian antiquities would do well to read Antiquities Coalition Chair Deborah Lehr's Huffington Post piece promoting General Sisi's efforts to establish business ties with Communist China.  It raises an obvious question.  Is the Antiquities Coalition about archaeology, promoting business deals with the Egyptian and Chinese governments, or both?  More transparency would be welcome.  The Antiquities Coalition entered into its own MOU with the Egyptian Government back in March, but its exact terms have yet to be revealed. 

In any event, perhaps the Egyptians could learn something from the Chinese and their promotion of collecting common ancient artifacts like coins.  Why not let people get back in touch with their past through collecting?  If the Antiquities Coalition is to be believed, looting certainly has not declined since Egypt cracked down on collecting in the 1980's. Indeed, associating antiquities with State ownership has done little more than turn artifacts into targets of rage during periods of civil unrest.

You Can't Take it With You, and Your Descendants Can't Keep It Either

If tomb robbing is wrong, isn't it all the worse when the State then adds insult to injury by taking the contents that have been recovered from the decedent's family?

Yet, where is the outrage from the archaeological community?  Or, do they actually support State over family ownership of grave goods?

Sucking Sound

China, land of the free?  For coin collectors, perhaps.  China has a booming internal market in all sorts of coins, ancient and modern.  And now, Chinese coin experts are coming to America, presumably looking for historical coins to bring back to their homeland.  CPO supports this form of cultural exchange, but wonders why the Archaeological Institute of America and the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center have worked so hard to preclude Americans from importing the exact, same coins Chinese collectors enjoy, and now Chinese dealers are now freely exporting back into China.

Image More Important than Substance?

This is quite revealing.  Egypt's own protection of its cultural heritage at home is a complete mess, but it's so protective of its image, that it's pressured the Chinese to demolish a knock-off of the Sphinx that has been used as a movie backdrop.  Will Egyptian Cultural authorities also demand that any MOU with the US contain a stipulation that the Luxor Hotel and Casino be demolished as well?

China MOU Raises Value of Chinese Auction House Linked to the PLA

Only weeks after the US State Department announced a renewal of its MOU with China, Poly Group, the parent of  a major Chinese auction house associated with the People's Liberation Army, has announced a successful IPO to help fund its expansion into the Hong Kong market.  Coincidentally or not, critics of the MOU have noted that recently looted material from China is exported to Hong Kong in quantity for reimport into China for the benefit of wealthy, connected Chinese collectors.  Now, Poly will presumably be able to tap into this business further.   More evidence, if any was needed, that the MOU with China does nothing to protect Chinese heritage but quite a bit to provide Chinese auction houses and collectors with a competitive advantage against their American competitors.  Yet, the US State Department and the Archaeological Institute of America continue to claim that the MOU helps protect Chinese cultural artifacts.  Naiveté or something much worse?

Chinese and Bulgarian MOUs: Export Certificates for Cultural Goods Promised; But Are They Illusory?

The State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center have released copies of the recent revised MOU with China and the new agreement with Bulgaria.   In return for an embargo on the import of undocumented artifacts from third countries, China and Bulgaria appear to promise to make export certificates available for such items exported directly from those two UNESCO State parties.

Specifically, in its MOU with the United States, China promises:

"With respect to Chinese cultural objects that meet the following four conditions: a.) legally exported as part of a private collection of Chinese heirlooms, b) legally transferred among owners, c) purchased and imported by residents of China, and d) declared upon import to China and registered with relevant authorities, the Government of the People's Republic of China shall seek legislative action that permits their re-export."

See Art. II, Sec. 8.

Moreover, in its MOU with the United States, Bulgaria promises:

"Regarding export permits, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria shall (1) gather and track certificates on the number of such permits requested and issued for both temporary and permanent export of cultural property pursuant to existing laws and regulations; and (2) ensure the process of applying for such permits of export and temporary export is accessible and clear."

See Art. II, Sec. 5.

But how does this square with information that China has recently banned the export of any artifact produced before 1911 and that Bulgaria has only issued export permits for temporary exhibitions abroad, most notably for a controversial exhibition of artifacts called, "the Grandeur of Bulgaria," exhibited at the European Parliament?  (Of course, as a practical matter, no export permits are required for the movement of Bulgarian cultural artifacts throughout the rest of the EU.)

More to the point, are these MOU provisions for "cosmetic purposes" only?  And, if so, is the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center misleading Congress and the public about the true nature of these MOUs?

More Reaction to Extension of China MOU

Kate FitzGibbon, a past CPAC member appointed by President Clinton, has reacted to  news of the extension on behalf of the Committee for Cultural Policy.  Her blog on the subject is aptly titled: "Cultural Property Hypocrisy:  State Department Renews China Import Restrictions."   It begs the question whether the State Department actually considered whether extension of the MOU made sense given China's booming internal market and abject failure to comply with its own undertakings under the original MOU.  Or, is this just more evidence that the entire CPAC process is a farce of the sort common in dictatorships like the People's Republic of China, but supposedly not here.

Poly Rules

The New York Times comments on Poly Group's rise to Number Three Auction House in the World. While American auction houses, museums and collectors can no longer easily import Chinese artifacts from abroad due to import restrictions on cultural goods, Poly has no such worries.  Indeed, the politically connected generals of the People's Liberation Army that run Poly don't have much to fear from Chinese regulators either.  As Chinese art experts have observed,

"[I]t is Poly’s relationship with the state and the reach of its affiliated businesses that have fostered its ascension in the art world, experts say. They claim that, because of Poly’s ties to elites in the Chinese government, it enjoys greater freedom in moving cultural relics in and out of the country and more leeway from the tax bureau. Poly also can be more dismissive of recent efforts, led by the trade association, with the of commerce and culture ministries, to reform the Chinese art market, the experts say.

'It’s a privileged institution that is more powerful than what we would consider some of the lesser state agencies,” said Tai Ming Cheung, director of the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego, and an expert on Chinese state companies.'"

The current Chinese MOU must be renewed in January or it will lapse.  At a public session awhile back, CPAC received plenty of evidence that the current MOU does nothing but promote the interests of politically connected Chinese business interests at the expense of American collectors, museums and auction houses.   But will CPAC and the State Department decision-maker listen?  Or will the U.S. Cultural bureaucracy's knee-jerk repatriationist stance carry the day once more?

Rescue Archaeology?

This article appears to suggest what has been characterized by American archaeologists  and their allies in the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center as looting in China may actually be rescue archaeology of a sort.  Presumably, this is as the article suggests illegal under China's draconian laws that declare even artifacts found on private property to be property of the State.  However, if the "looters" do not save the objects from being ground into dust by construction equipment, who will?

Maritime Archaeology or Imperialism?

The Wall Street Journal reports on China's use of maritime archaeology to help project its power over disputed waters.  More evidence, if any was needed, that the PRC-- like other authoritarian states through history-- mainly values archaeology as a means of justifying its own nationalistic claims.  Perhaps, the US State Department Cultural Heritage Center and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs should take into account this reality before renewing the MOU with China.  But will they? Or, will the farce that the MOU  with China just furthers archaeology and cultural exchange be allowed to continue?

Chinese Art Market Rife with Fakes

Chinese citizens are rightly proud of their ancient culture.  And even my friends in the archaeological world will no doubt agree that collecting antiquities is better than smashing them, as was done during the dark days of Mao's Cultural Revolution.  Yet, the rush of Chinese collectors has led to a host of problems, most notable the production of fakes.  I hope Chinese authorities are able to sort this out in such a way that does not dampen the enthusiasm of Chinese citizens for their own history.  Collecting and enjoying artifacts is far better than smashing them or warehousing them in my opinion.

Market Dominance

AFP reports that connected Chinese auction houses have achieved market dominance over their foreign rivals in selling Chinese antiquities:

"Western giants Christie's and Sotheby's are increasingly focused on China but barred from selling the hottest item -- antiques -- by laws aimed at protecting cultural heritage.

Meanwhile Chinese rivals Poly and Guardian have seen tremendous growth thanks to their greater freedom to act within the country, and their political ties." 

The net effect of self-imposed US restrictions is simply to turn the market over to Mainland Chinese auctioneers and dealers.  And again it must be asked: How can restrictions on the entry of ancient Chinese art into the relatively small US market have any impact on any looting within China itself when the much larger and rapidly expanding Chinese art market is allowed to sell the same ancient Chinese art without restrictions in Hong Kong?

Renewal of China MOU in Diplomatic Trouble?

China's refusal to extradite Edward Snowden, who has been charged with espionage for his leaking of sensitive information gained while working as a contractor for the NSA, raises the question whether the US State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center should renew the current MOU with China.  This particular MOU is probably the most dubious of any of them.   Given China's own huge internal market in Chinese artifacts of the sort restricted under the current agreement, its net effect has only been to give Chinese commercial interests a leg up on their foreign, particularly American competition.  American archaeologists and museums may conduct useful collaborative efforts with their Chinese counterparts, but these will presumably continue without any MOU based on their own merits.   Import restrictions on the ability of Americans to import cultural goods are only supposed to be  imposed with due regard for the significant procedural and substantive constraints found in the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.  To the extent these statutory constraints have been ignored as a diplomatic gesture to China, China's own actions suggest that the US should reevaluate this MOU and other forms of diplomatic cooperation.  In short, if China won't repatriate Snowden to the US, why should the US repatriate undocumented Chinese artifacts to China?

More Breaking News: Time for Malefactor Source Countries to Take Some Heat

Arthur Houghton, former State Department diplomat, White House official, museum curator and CPAC member, is again in the news.   Last week, Houghton exposed Government surveillance of the CPO blog.  This week there are far bigger fish to fry, in particular malefactor source countries.  Arthur states,

"Peter, I have completed my discussions in Washington with political figures associated with the Congress and can report that there is considerable interest in ensuring that Americans are not disadvantaged by the practices of other countries with regard to cultural property matters, but also that countries that willfully destroy their own past, either by allowing their domestic markets to flourish -- or -- far worse in everyone's view -- by permitting and even encouraging public and private development that destroys their past history and their archaeological sites. China is, of course, the prime example, but the destruction of the Mayan temple in Belize, and the long distant but comparable case of the Bamiyan Buddhas was also mentioned several times. One asked what would be more effective -- modifying the Convention on Cultural Property to exact sanctions against states that violated the precepts of the Convention, or enacting legislation that would have the same effect and that, even if unilateral, could motivate other countries (the EU say) to do the same thing.

The idea would be to have a world in which our archaeological friends would get exactly what they want, enough punishment for malefactor source countries to ensure that they began taking care of their own history.  Any existing MOU with a malefactor country would be made null and void and would remain so unless and until the country involved could demonstrate compliance with the Convention.  Other acquiring countries would be encourage to do the same.

The essence of the idea is, of course the concept of "willful misbehavior". We all recognize that many source countries have adequate laws but inadequate enforcement and oversight, and do what they can to ensure that development policies do not do damage to their antiquity sites. Every effort should be made to help these countries protect their patrimony, consistent with their own laws.  But there are the others, the malefactors, and as my contacts believe, they should suffer the consequences of their actions.

"Can you see any reason why anyone would disagree?" one asked. I thought for a minute and then replied. "not one." He then went on to suggest that a study group be formed that would look at the matter and propose recommendations for action. He asked if I knew of people who might join such a study group. "Yes," I said, "I believe I can find one or two." 

Please feel free to publish this information and comment on it as you wish.

With warm best wishes,

Arthur"

Comment:  I myself think its high time to focus some attention on malefactor source countries.   All the archaeological community's selective outrage against collectors has had the effect of diverting attention from poor stewardship of cultural resources in countries like Greece, Italy, and China.   Under the circumstances, Houghton's initiative should be welcomed by everyone who truly cares about cultural heritage. 

Addendum:  AH asked me to add this definition of "Malefactor Source Countries":

"Malefactor Source Countries are those that a) have unregulated markets in antiquities that motivate the looting of archaeological sites or material; b) engage in public development (roads, buildings) that destroy archaeological sites or material; or c) have laws that allow or encourage private development that has the effect of destroying archaeological sites or material."

A list of these should be posted.  I nominate China as exhibit A.

ACCG Contests Forfeiture Action

The ACCG has filed a claim of interest to a group of coins minted in China and Cyprus that were seized by US Customs back in 2009.  By filing this pleading, the ACCG has placed the the government on notice that it intends to contest the forfeiture proceeding in Court.   The ACCG now has twenty-one (21) days to respond to the government's forfeiture complaint. 

Chinese Hackers Don't Dissuade US State Department

Merely a week after CPAC met to consider the proposed renewal of the MOU with the PRC, the news broke about an extensive PRC program to  hack into US defense industry computer systems in an effort to steal US military secrets.

China is aggressively seeking an advantage against the US when it comes to defense preparedness.  But so too is it with respect to the maintenance of a strong antiquities market.  The difference is that the Defense Department is seeking to stymie Chinese ambitions, but our own State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and its Cultural Heritage Center seem all to willing to encourage a vibrant Chinese market at the expense of American interests-- all supposedly in the name of archaeology.