tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post1694601147031093031..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Dialogue on Export LicencesPaul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-91876508738477128412012-05-29T23:30:57.979-07:002012-05-29T23:30:57.979-07:00Well, you are "wasting everybody's time&q...Well, you are "wasting everybody's time" if you cannot formulate your questions with any semblance of precision. In your legal Latin course I presume they taught you the difference between "in" et "ex". I'm writing here in response to your sniping CPO blog post about <b>ex</b>port licences, you are twisting it round to "<b>im</b>port controls". <br /><br />As for <i>"...I only said the US should not put export controls on Chinese artifacts...</i>, I was asking about the US instituting an export licensing system like that of most other countries. <br /><br />The only way I can answer your question is if you define your vague term "repatriation" <br /><br />Since we have (and the US has acceded to) the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the position can be no more, and no less than what its Article 3 states. <br /><br />"The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit". Of course for that to be useful, you actually have to apply those provisions, which the USA manifestly has FAILED to do, applying its habitual isolationist and ("it does not apply to US") exclusionism.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-80018753055486160812012-05-29T15:36:25.068-07:002012-05-29T15:36:25.068-07:00I suspect I'm probably wasting my time respond...I suspect I'm probably wasting my time responding, but yet again you take things totally out of context. I only said the US should not put export controls on Chinese artifacts. Import controls to assist other countries may be appropriate in limited circumstances, but those imposed by the US State Department and US Customs on Chinese cultural artifacts are grossly overbroad, and arguably inconsistent with the Congressional grant of authority. They certainly make little sense “to protect archaeology” if all they do is to redirect the trade in cultural artifacts back to China. <br /><br />As for your own comments, they make it seem like you are for repatriation in all circumstances. I suspect that may not be the case, but I am unclear what your actual position is. <br /><br />Is it all artifacts of foreign origin without demonstrable provenance and/or export permits presumed stolen? Please explain your own position clearly for all to assess.<br /><br />It's only fair that given your incessant lecturing, we are clear where you yourself stand.Cultural Property Observerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962noreply@blogger.com