|
|
 |
|
|
The Problem of
Pillage
From the Senate Report No. 97-564 on Implementing
Legislation for the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing
the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Cultural Property
"The increasing demand in recent
years for archaeological and ethnological materials and antiquities has
spurred, in most experts' opinions, a great increase in the international
exchange of such materials. But unlike other commodities, increased or
new production of these articles cannot rise to meet the demand. Instead,
the increased supply results from the sales of known artifacts and those
newly recovered from archaeological sites. The unique origin and character
of these articles raises serious trade issues distinct from the normal
concerns of the reciprocal trade agreements program or U.S. trade law.
No detailed data exist that provide
reliable insights into either the precise nature or magnitude of trade
in cultural property. As one expert points out. "It is easy to understand
why we have little information. Much about the art trade simply is not
knowable." Bator. An Essay on the International Trade in Art 34 Stan. L.
Rev. 275, 291 (1982). Professor Bator suggests that this is because of
the vast number of undiscovered or unidentified objects; the lack of resources
among many nations to develop their cultural resources; and the secret
nature of much of the trade. Nevertheless, the testimony to the committee
on S. 1723 confirmed the evidence given in various Congressional fora in
recent years and in many learned articles: the demand for cultural artifacts
has resulted in the irremedial destruction of archaeological sites and
articles, depriving the situs countries of their cultural patrimony and
the world of important knowledge of its past. Further, because the United
States is a principal market for articles of archaeological or ethnological
interests and of art objects, the discovery here of stolen or illegally
exported artifacts in some cases severely strains our relations with the
countries of origin, which often include close allies. As stated by the
Department of State in commenting on S. 1723:
The legislation is important
to our foreign relations, including our international cultural relations.
The expanding worldwide trade in objects of archaeological and ethnological
interest has led to wholesale depredations in some countries, resulting
in the mutilation of ceremonial centers and archaeological complexes of
ancient civilizations and the removal of stone sculptures and reliefs.
In addition, art objects have been stolen in increasing quantities from
museums, churches, and collections. The governments which have been victimized
have been disturbed at the outflow of these objects to foreign lands, and
the appearance in the United States of objects has often given rise to
outcries and urgent requests for return by other countries. The United
States considers that on grounds of principle, good foreign relations,
and concern for the preservation of the cultural heritage of mankind, it
should render assistance in these situations.
Witnesses before the committee also
pointed out that the interest of the United States in this matter extends
beyond our import market and our interest in fostering the careful study
of foreign cultures. In recent years, the increasing interest in native
American, Hawaiian, and Alaskan artifacts concomitantly has spurred the
pillaging of U.S. historic sites. The destruction of such sites and the
disappearance of the historic records evidenced by the articles found in
them has given rise to a profound national interest in joining other countries
to control the trafficking of such articles in international commerce."
|
|
