What are the Antiquity "Source Nations" for the US Market?

Rick St Hilaire has been doing some digging around in US trade figures and come up with some interesting information which he published on his blog ("Top 20 Sources of U.S. Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological Imports" Tuesday, March 5, 2013). As he notes such figures

may prompt important cultural property discussions, including conversations about the definition of a "source nation" and whether traditional source countries such as Egypt and Italy should be characterized as "retentionist." The data certainly need to be studied in greater detail to gain more insight and understanding. 

Indeed. The data he was looking at come from "tariff and trade information supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission". It turns out that in terms of legal imports alone, last year the U.S. imported objects defined as "collections and collectors' pieces of zoological, botanical, mineralogical, anatomical, historical, archeological, paleontological, ethnographic or numismatic interest under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 9705" worth (customs valuation) a staggering 173.2 million dollars.  Among them those which may be "specifically classified as archaeological, historical, or ethnological [...] accounted for $37,378,500".  Thirty seven million dollars in one year alone. It is worth stressing that these figures do not cover the whole trade in such items, but just that part of it which goes through the legal channels. the illicit trade is not shown in these figures.

St Hilaire analyses these data in more detail and finds some surprising facts well worth highlighting. Switzerland led the list overall (23.3% of of the total customs value of all such imports), with the United Kingdom coming in second (19.9%).  Egypt, Italy and Spain accounted each for about 10%, Germany and France for about 5% and Greece, Israel, Congo and Turkey about 1-2% while the runners up with less than 1% contribution were Korea, Canada, Mali, Morocco, Ukraine, New Zealand, Austria, Australia, Sweden.

An attempt to show sources and destinations. Colour code: black - the ravenous US market,
imports by intensity indicated by the sequence of the spectrum
red-orange-yellow-green-blue. The rest of the world
(including most MOU countries) is pink.

So it turns out that in 2012 it was European nations (eight of them EU members) which accounted for ten of the top 20 sources of archaeological, historical, and ethnological material imported into the United States. Britain, with its laissez faire legislation is obviously slowly being drained dry to fulfil the needs of a foreign market in cultural property, including dugup antiquities.

Interestingly, it turns out that the selective approach of the US in "implementing" (I use the term loosely) the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the "Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" through their primitive 'Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act' manages not to affect the trade in the vast majority of the cultural objects currently in demand in the US market.

So here is a list of the countries with which the US has or has had bilateral cultural property agreements under CCPIA: Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, Canada (defunct), China, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua and Peru. Only the four underlined nations are among St Hilaire's top twenty exporters. This means that the US has signed MOUs with 13 nations not substantially involved in the trade in cultural property with the US, while leaving the trade with 16 of the nations that are (including those with the most substantial involvement)  completely unregulated under the CCPIA. Now, what is that about? What message does this give out about US commitment and sincerity?

I'd be interested to know how the figures look the other way, what are the US exports of their own (North American/US) cultural property (dugup antiquities, ethnographic cultural items more than 100 years old) to Europe, Asia, the near East and Africa. Presumably customs tariffs detail this too (though perhaps do not differentiate material of origin on US territory from dugups imported from the rest of the world being redistributed by the US market). Still, even some ballpark figures would be of interest.

Question two: what is being exported in such quantity from Congo (masks, figures?) and Ukraine (icons?)?