Swiss Legislation on Illicit Antiquities trade

From Swissinfo.ch:

Long seen as a hub of global art trafficking, Switzerland’s image is improving five years after a law on the international transfer of art objects came into force. Alongside the United States, France and Britain, Switzerland is one of the principle trading centres for art.

But until 2005 there was no law or national regulation governing this lucrative sector, which accounted for SFr1.39 billion ($1.21 billion) of imports and SFr1.4 billion of exports in 2009. This situation encouraged traffickers and unscrupulous art collectors.

In June 2005, lawmakers passed regulations governing the import of cultural property into Switzerland, its transit, export and repatriation. It includes measures against illicit transfer, as well, including due diligence for traders and auctioning businesses. [...] Switzerland is now a model for other countries in the way it tackles the issue, according to Jean-Frédéric Jauslin, the head of the Culture Office.[...] Yet the art scene was at first fiercely opposed to regulation of the market, believing that this could destroy business. They worried in vain: in 2009 Switzerland climbed from fifth to fourth in the ranking of global art centres.

the rest here.

It is notable that the model here is both legislation as well as a public information campaign about the damage done by looting. "The art scene was at first fiercely opposed to regulation of the market, believing that this could destroy business" sound familiar? Maybe the ACCG should visit Switzerland. The piece continues with a section on the kind of bilateral agreements that are so 'controversial' in 'certain' collecting circles over the other side of the Atlantic:

“The fight against plundering and cultural-goods trafficking should know no boundaries,” commented Giovanni Nistri, commander of the Italian cultural heritage protection brigade, who was invited to Gandria by the Culture Office to stress the importance of transnational cooperation in this area. In fact, Switzerland has concluded five bilateral accords: with Italy and Peru in 2006, with Greece in 2007, and with Colombia and Egypt in 2010. Thanks to these accords, cultural goods considered to have a high national-heritage value enjoy extra protection and can be the subject of judicial cooperation.

The authors of the piece following the lead set by the Swiss culture office stress the nature and importance of the threat:

Tempted by the prospect of rapid gains, smugglers and criminal organisations will stop at nothing. Many emerging nations and developing countries are the first victims of this type of commerce yet scarcely have the means to fight it and protect their treasures. The plunderers, on the other hand, often have sophisticated tools at their disposal, such as satellites, enabling them to locate sites likely to conceal archaeological treasure. The criminals can also count on corruption to be able to transfer the objects with ease. Cambodia, Colombia, Italy and Mali in particular suffer systematic plundering of their archaeological sites. In Cambodia, what is available for purchase is said to exceed demand, and in the south of the peninsula, some 100,000 antique tombs have been plundered in recent years. The fruits of these illegal raids often end up for sale on the internet – a “free” market and the ideal platform for selling goods quickly and slipping things through the net. Despite all efforts and the international fight against art trafficking, plundering has massively increased in recent decades. At the Culture Office and Unesco there is no hesitation in speaking of “the risk to our cultural heritage which is threatened with destruction”.

Let us compare that with the efforts of the dealers in artefacts through the internet in the US who are strenuous in their efforts to protect the no-questions-asked trade which shields the passage of these illicit antiquities onto the market. I think a valid question here is whether groups like the ACCG could be formed in Switzerland to fight for a wholly no-questions-asked market there, and how would public opinion treat them if they were?