Peter Tompa has published for him Rick Witschonke's neo-colonialist suggestion that the US place a collectors' ultimatum before the Greek government before heeding their request to curb the import of illegally- exported artefacts. He calls it a A Rational Proposal for the Hellenic Republic. In doing so, Tompa reminds readers that
The 1970 UNESCO Convention is not self-executing. The US has retained its "independent judgment" as to whether and to what extent to give effect to Greece's export restrictions. The US can condition any assistance it gives to Greece.
One might ask then what is the point of the US being a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention? What is the point of agreeing to be party to a convention which indicates that you will aid fellow member states in the fight against the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property if you then declare you will only do it in certain specific cases (or to put it another way, refuse to honour the commitment expressed by the Convention)? To what extent is the American people actually committed to fighting the illicit antiquity trade as a whole?
UPDATE: (26/11/10) Now coin dealer Dave Welsh has cross-posted Witschonke's text taken from Tompa's site, presumably at the author's request. He introduces it as follows:
Here is a very thoughtful, well considered proposal from a collector with outstanding credentials, including ties to the archaeology and museum communities. It is well worth reading whatever one's perspective may be, and certainly deserves to be preserved in list archives.Indeed it does. It shows precisely where the problem lies with US collectors of dugup artefacts imported from other countries attempting at all costs (but somebody else's cost) to avoid the bother of ascertaining that they are on the US market legitimately. Welsh appends the following comment:
One of the strongest objections the pro-collecting advocacy has raised to the manner in which the US State Department manages implementation of US response to the 1970 UNESCO Convention is that very little, if any, effective action is being taken to induce requesting nations to improve their antiquities laws and the enforcement of those laws. Simply passively accepting whatever a requesting nation submits, without critical examination of the requesting nation's approach, tends to perpetuate problems and also contravenes the intent (perhaps also the letter) of the US CPIA, the law which implements the 1970 UNESCO Convention.So I ask again what is the point of the US being a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property if the only means of implementation are directed towards something else and the USA does not actually intend adopting any kind of "permanent general policy toward accepting responsibility for enforcing export control laws of other nations"? What actual commitment is there to the respecting of cultural property export control laws of other nations in the USA today?
It is important to realize that the intent of the CPIA was that import restrictions would be a temporary solution only to be adopted in special situations, not a permanent general policy toward accepting responsibility for enforcing export control laws of other nations. The law intended that the US should take effective action to induce requesting nations to solve their own problems, including defects in their antiquities laws and the
enforcement of those laws. Import restrictions were intended to "buy time" for such solutions to be devised and implemented.
Considering the size of the US antiquities market, I think this is a question which deserves a proper answer. Doesn't it?
.
.jpg)
3 comments:
I am pleased to see that Paul has now linked to the full text of my CPAC comments on the Greek MOU. I would encourage interested parties to read the actual text, and then form their own opinions of its merit. My letter makes the following points:
1. Looting continues to be a major problem in Greece, in spite of aggressive sanctions.
2. There already exist in Greek law provisions for fair rewards to innocent finders of antiquities, but these provisions are rarely implemented.
3. The English TA/PAS system of providing rewards to finders has, over the past 13 years, shown conclusively that more finds are reported if fair rewards are provided.
4. Under CCPIA, the US has both the right and the obligation to require that countries applying for MOUs do everything within their power to limit looting as a condition of granting the MOU (Paul has apparently missed this provision in his reading of CCPIA).
5. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask Greece to enforce the relevant provisions of its own law as a condition of granting the MOU.
Rick Witschonke
Yes I am sure readers can read the whole text and decide for themselves.
I'd point out though that this comment seems to be appended to the wrong post on my blog. Readers can refer to my views on what the letter contains here: http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/11/reflections-on-yet-another-cpac-written.html.
No, no it is NOT reasonable to place an ULTIMATUM on a fellow member state before the US will even consider fulfilling its commitments according to its membership of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.
Not at all "reasonable".
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/11/us-and-1970-unesco-convention-question.html
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/11/us-and-unesco-convention.html
And WHEN, I asked but you avoid discussing it of course, will the US be applying the measures you suggest it should impose on others to the protection of its OWN archaeological heritage? Where is the US TA/PAS system?
Are you and your fellow coineys going to answer that one?
The 1970 UNESCO Convention in question - as its title makes clear - is not about "looting" or "recording finds".
So its "Implementation" Act cannot be either, can it?
I asked where one can find in the wording of the act itself the wording which should be there if your interpretation of its purpose is correct. You do not answer.
So what you are suggesting is in fact what in coiney-legal parlance is contmptuously referred to as "extra-legal"
"3. The English TA/PAS system of providing rewards to finders has, over the past 13 years, shown conclusively that more finds are reported if fair rewards are provided." Bollocks. There is NO REWARD FOR REPORTING THINGS TO THE PAS. More finds are reported to the PAS (without a reward) each year than finds reported to either the English Treasure Unit or the Scottish one (with a reward). Its obviously therefore not just the reward that is the key factor -despite what you lot want all-too-simplistically to make out for your own ends. That's what galls me, the intellectual dishonesty of all the US coiney wingeing and "justifications".
Nevertheless the reward system does NOT lead to increased preservation of the in-situ archaeological record,. In fact many (including some UK policy makers) would argue quite the opposite. Read David Gill's forthcoming text.
"4. Under CCPIA, the US has both the right and the obligation to require that countries applying for MOUs do everything within their power to limit looting as a condition of granting the MOU (Paul has apparently missed this provision in his reading of CCPIA)."
Yes I have, please show us all where it says this.
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/11/us-and-1970-unesco-convention-question.html
The USA has as many "rights" as the rest of us, no MORE no less. This is blatant bald-faced American imperialism. You have the OBLIGATION to stop importing illegally exported cultural property from all states party to the convention (and if you had any common decency, all countries whether they are in or out of it). If you don't like it, get out of the Convention you signed and do not intend to honour. It's the decent thing to do.
Post a Comment