SHEET 14 - THE ILLICIT TRADE IN CULTURAL PROPERTY
DOES THE LURE OF profit
threaten our right to enjoy the cultural heritage of our community and our sense of
belonging? As in other kinds of trade, only
respect for voluntary, fair codes of conduct will bind buyers and sellers to ethical
behaviour.
A STORY
In the spring of 1985, Canada Customs officers in Vancouver seized two
shipments of South American artifacts on alleged violations of the Customs Act and the
Cultural Property Export and Import Act. The
items had originated in Peru and travelled circuitously through Bolivia and Germany,
ultimately destined for the United States. There
were 83 items in all – painted ceramic vessels, textiles, and feathered objects - all
of them believed to have been looted from unexcavated tombs and graves along the Peruvian
coast. The earliest dated back to the first
millennium B.C., and all were from pre-Incan and pre-Hispanic cultures. The survival of the highly perishable textiles and
feathers was due to the unusually cool, dry conditions in the area where the tombs were
located.
The Government of Peru formally requested the return of the material,
and Canada honoured that request under the terms of our Cultural Property Export and
Import Act. The Act had been legislated in
compliance with the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This is an example of a UNESCO Convention leading
directly to Canadian legislation. Now
recognized as a leader in the fight against illicit traffic in cultural property by the
international community, Canada chairs UNESCO's Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting
the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of
Illicit Appropriation.
UNESCO’S ROLE
The UNESCO Convention defines cultural
property as property that is, on religious or secular
grounds, of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science. Cultural property therefore includes everything
from works of art to archaeological artifacts, military objects to archival material,
ethnographic material to decorative arts and scientific instruments.
"The illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of
cultural property," the Convention states, "is one of the main causes of the
impoverishment of the countries of ownership of such cultural property."
Removing such property from its place of origin is also a loss for
humanity at large. Taken from its cultural
and geographic context, cultural property may be stripped of its meaning, and its
significance lost to human knowledge. It is
also a violation of Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms
"the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, and to enjoy
the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
THE ELGIN MARBLES
PHENEMENON
Looting
archaeological sites, stealing artworks from museums and ethnological objects from
rural areas have become frequent events the world over.
This is nothing new, of course. Looting
of tombs is recorded from the time of the Egyptian pharaohs. Conquering armies and colonial powers throughout
history have brought home artifacts from around the world.
The most famous, perhaps, are the so-called "Elgin marbles" taken
from the Parthenon in Athens to grace the British Museum in I802. The reason the phenomenon is so worrying today is
the extent to which it has grown over the last few decades.
According to Interpol, the pillage of cultural objects, and the trade in
these objects, now ranks with drugs and arms as one of the three most serious illicit
international trading activities. The trade
is valued at approximately $4.5 billion annually.
The underlying cause of
this trade is the rapid growth in the art market. Cultural
property of all kinds has been the subject of intense speculation, especially when an
object is considered rare, as investors attempt to make large profits in a short time. There is growing demand in the countries that are
home to the world's largest art markets, especially the United States. This demand drives the activities of looters and
intermediaries of all types around the world. Poverty
and weak state systems in many of the countries that are sources of cultural property
clear the way for looting and smuggling.
The goal of the 1970 UNESCO Convention is to reinforce international
solidarity in the fight against the traffic in cultural property by setting up a system of
co-operation between states as well as ethical standards on the movement of cultural
property. Any state that is party to the
Convention and whose heritage is endangered by looting of archaeological or ethnographic
objects can call upon other states that are party to the Convention to seize illicitly
traded objects and return them. To date,
eighty-eight countries have ratified the Convention, including, in recent years, the
United States and France. These, however, are
the only countries with substantial art markets to join.
It is now a matter of urgency that the countries that have not yet ratified
the Convention, particularly the major art market countries, do so.
The UNESCO Convention of
1970 has no retroactive effect; it only enters into effect on the day of its official
ratification. To correct this limitation, the
International Institute for the Unification of Private Law adopted the UNIDROIT Convention
on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects in 1995- Perhaps its most important
clause is the principle that anyone in possession of a stolen item must in all cases
restore it. This rule forces buyers to check
that the goods have come onto the market legally; otherwise, they will have to be
returned. It also applies to all goods,
whether they were stolen last week or a century ago.
Canada is now in the process of considering ratification of the UNIDROI-1-
Convention. UNESCO is pushing all states to
sign on.
The UNIDROIT Convention
also provides for claims for restitution of sacred or communally important cultural
objects belonging to indigenous communities within the contracting states. Acceptance of this principle would have
significant consequences in Canada, where thousands of sacred and cultural artifacts of
native communities are held by museums across the country.
The issue of "repatriation" of these cultural objects is currently
a major issue in Canada, and there has already been a good deal of movement on it. The recent treaty negotiated with the Nisga'a
people of British Columbia, for example, requires Canadian museums to return more than 250
Nisga'a artifacts bought or stolen from the community over the past century. Many other native communities are negotiating
directly with museums for the return of important cultural property.
Unfortunately, the
return of cultural property to native communities in Canada, and of the seized Peruvian
artifacts mentioned at the outset, are minor victories in relation to the current scope of
illicit trafficking worldwide. National
governments and international organizations like UNESCO have a major role to play in
combating this trade, but individuals must also become better informed about it and take
action to stop it at its source.
THE RESTITUTION OF cultural property taken
illicitly from its place of origin can serve to restore a sense of meaning and dignity to
the people of the society and, in this way, contribute to building a culture of peace.
RESOURCES:
The
International Council of Museums Web page on "Fighting Against the Illicit Traffic of
Cultural Property" - http://www.icom.org/museumday.html
Legal Protection for Cultural Heritage
http://www.unesco.org/culture/legalprotection/theft/html-eng/index-en.htm
Movable Cultural Property Program (Department of Canadian Heritage)
www.pch.gc.ca/arts/heritage/mcp-e.htm