CPAC Meeting on New Agreements or Emergency Restrictions for Lebanon and Mongolia and Renewal for El Salvador

 Here is what I said more or less during today's CPAC hearing: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on behalf of IAPN and the micro businesses of the numismatic trade and the collectors they service.

1.   CPAC should reject any cultural property MOU or emergency import restrictions with Lebanon. US Customs should not be made the “culture cop” for a government dominated by Hezbollah, a terrorist group and proxy for Iran’s dictatorial regime.  Additionally, no decision should be made to repatriate artifacts to Lebanon when Israel and Hezbollah are gearing up for a full scale war.  Repatriated antiquities are in danger of being destroyed or sold to fund Hezbollah’s jihad against America and Israel.

2.   While the State department has claimed and I quote “Agreements create import restrictions that stop trafficked cultural property from entering the United States while encouraging the legal exchange of cultural property for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes”  that is untrue. They are actually applied far more broadly as embargoes that “claw back” common items like coins that are available for sale and export from legal markets abroad, particularly in Europe.  Once a coin type is “listed,” US Customs can assert its authority to detain, seize, and forfeit similar coins under the assumption they “belong” to the particular country for which import restrictions have been granted. 

3.   There is no factual basis for such an assumption for coins minted or found in El Salvador, Lebanon or Mongolia.  Until recently, these countries were parts of much larger Empires.  One simply cannot assume that such coins are only found there, a key requirement of the CPIA. IAPN has provided scholarly evidence demonstrating that coins struck in Lebanon circulated regionally and even internationally.  Notably, “Shekels of Tyre” that were accepted to pay the Temple tax are often found in Israel. Scholars believe some may have been made to order for King Herod or that they may even have been struck in Israel. CPAC must avoid blessing overbroad designated lists that do not comply with CPIA requirements.  Fact based decision-making must prevail.  Thank you for listening.   

Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024 to Discuss New MOUs with Lebanon and Mongolia and a Renewal With El Salvador

The State Department’s website has given advanced notice of a Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to discuss new cultural property Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Lebanon and Mongolia and a renewal with El Salvador.

The proposed MOU with Lebanon should be highly controversial. The UNESCO Convention assumes that nation states are the “best stewards” of cultural heritage and MOUs authorize US Customs to repatriate cultural goods seized under them to their care.  But Lebanon is a failing state.  The power there is not in the weak and corrupt government, but Hezbollah (“the Party of God”), a heavily armed Shiite militia group that acts as the Iranian regime’s proxy force against Israel and the United States.  The United States Government has designated  Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and right now, it has been raining down rockets on Northern Israel,  forcing residents to flee.   Israel, of course, has retaliated, shelling and bombing  parts of Lebanon intensively in an effort to root out Hezbollah terrorists and their allies.

How then can a MOU with Lebanon even be considered?  Repatriating objects to failed states that have become war zones is not a recipe for their “protection” under any circumstance.  Moreover, the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center and its  "partner organization," the Antiquities Coalition, have claimed that "looted antiquities" are a significant terrorist funding source.  RAND Corporation and others dispute such claims, but given that “narrative” shouldn’t the State Department also be concerned that Hezbollah will resell whatever may be returned for funds?

The public session will take place September 24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT).

 Public comments will be due no later than September 16, 2024. 

Proposed new MOUs with Lebanon and Mongolia that will likely again cover collectors coins that circulated regionally or internationally making it difficult to import them from legitimate markets in Europe again underscores the need for HR 7865.  More here: https://accguild.org/HR-7865

Addendum (8/19/24):  Regulations.gov is now accepting comments for these MOUs.  Here is a direct link to comment:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0028-0001

Alternatively, go to Regulations.gov and then search for DOS-2024-0028.  

What should you say?  Of course, it is much better to speak in your own words, but here is a template for coin collectors:

CPAC should reject any MOU with Lebanon.  Any such MOU would not help "protect" cultural heritage.  Rather, repatriating artifacts would be disastrous for their continued preservation.  Lebanon is a failed state dominated by Hezbollah, a terrorist group and Iranian proxy at war with Israel and the United States.  There is no money to properly preserve artifacts and there is a real danger they will be either destroyed in a conflict or sold to fund Hezbollah's terrorist activities.  

Additionally, there is no reason to apply import restrictions to coins for Lebanon, Mongolia or El Salvador.  For most of their history, these countries were but small parts of much larger Empires, meaning all or most all coins that circulated there also circulated in much greater quantities elsewhere.  One simply cannot assume that coins of a particular type were found there, a prerequisite for them being restricted under the governing statute.    

Not as Clear as it May Seem

Actor Nicholas Cage has agreed to repatriate another Bataar skull back to Mongolia.  So, the goverment has won by default again, despite the fact that the government's case may not be as strong as it seems from press reports. Meanwhile, CPO has heard a rumor that Mongolia has quietly sold another repatriated Bataar to a wealthy individual in the Middle East.  If true, it would further undercut claims that have been made in the past to Courts and the public that Bataar Fossils have not been made available for sale.

Another Bataar Skull to Be Repatriated, but Was it "Stolen?"

The Feds have made another fossil dealer an offer he could not refuse--  give us your Tyrannosaurs Bataar Skull, plead guilty to smuggling, pay a fine and almost all will be forgiven.  The problem with all of this is that serious questions remain about claims that such fossils are "stolen" from Mongolia, i.e., does Mongolia have a law that vests absolute title of all such fossils in the Mongolian state that is actively enforced at home?

Bones of Contention

Paige Williams has written a fair and balanced article for the New Yorker about Eric Prokopi and the seizure and repatriation of his dinosaur reconstruction to Mongolia.  My only quibbles are that the article glosses over open sales of  dinosaur bones within Mongolia itself  as well as the fact that current Mongolian law on the subject does not appear to be quite as clear as the Government has claimed. 

Motion to Dismiss in T-Rex Bataar Forfeiture Action

Here is a link to a motion to dismiss my firm, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, filed in conjunction with Michael McCullough LLC.  The motion seeks to gain the return of a fossilized T-Rex Bataar skeleton to its rightful owner, a Florida small businessman who spent considerable time, effort, money and expertise in preparing and mounting the composite specimen for sale: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9sH3ETMwSWiNWVNTkxCakp0bnM/edit

One needs a Google account to review it.

As we observe,

It may or may not be time to regulate fossil collecting like antiquities collecting, but surely any such regulatory effort should only be accomplished prospectively through the legislative or administrative process rather than retroactively through a forfeiture action prompted by a media frenzy and foreign politics. The Government should not be allowed to seize property based upon obscure foreign laws or unwritten interpretations of “country of origin” or valuation rules for fossils. Moreover, the Government has not alleged sufficient facts to establish a reasonable basis to believe that it could meet its burden to prove that the Display Piece was “stolen.” For all these reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed.