Why citizens’ rights suffer under the spread of bilateral agreements
Deals between countries to protect cultural property are not all that they seem
The United States has just signed off on its latest cultural property bilateral agreement, this one with India. These Memoranda of Understanding seek to protect cultural patrimony and confound crime – at least that’s what the headline is. In reality, they serve a less publicised purpose: oiling the wheels of international diplomacy and geopolitical influence. In doing so, the rights of innocent private citizens are subsumed to what is questionably viewed as the wider interest.
Note the conditions of this latest MoU, as reported by Indian media outlet uktarsh.com:
“Under the Cultural Property Agreement the USA government will return to India any Indian artefacts which have been mentioned in the Designated list of the USA government as per the Cultural Property Agreement.”
What is on that Designated List?
- Identified archaeological material from 1.7 million years ago to 1770 Common Era (CE); and
- Identified ethnological material, such as religious, civic, and royal architectural material, religious material and ceremonial items, and manuscripts, from the 2nd century BCE (Before the Common Era) to 1947 CE.
India banned the export of archaeological objects under its Antiquities and Treasures Act, 1972, which was updated in 1976. Further restrictions came into force under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Import-Export Policy 2015-2020.
India also ratified its state membership of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on cultural property on January 24, 1977.
Anything found to have been exported illegally under these laws would understandably be subject to recall. Official statements and media reports relating to the MoU refer to it in terms of reclaiming only illicit material smuggled out of India. The US Embassy in India confirmed this in its official statement: “Cultural property agreements prevent the illegal trade of cultural property and simplify the process by which looted and stolen antiquities may be returned to their country of origin. The United States has been unwavering in its commitment to protect and preserve cultural heritage worldwide and to restrict trafficking in cultural property.”
However, cultural exports took place legally for centuries before these laws ever existed. The problem with the MoU is that it intends to reclaim those items too. This will happen at the point of entry to the USA, where, under the terms of the MoU, Customs will have the power to seize any item on the Designated List (see above), wherever it is being imported from at this stage, and regardless of whether it was originally sold and exported legally from India.
How these bilateral agreements really work
So let’s be clear about what this means.
Take for example a fourth-generation Indian family living in the UK whose heirlooms include antique cultural items brought over from India legally by the original immigrants at the end of the Second World War. Since that time, some members of the family have emigrated to the United States. There, a descendant has inherited one of the heirlooms from a grandparent in the UK. As they import it to the US, it is seized at Customs and, under the terms of the MoU, returned to India.
Now note the officially stated objectives of the MoU, as set out above and repeated here: “Cultural property agreements prevent the illegal trade of cultural property and simplify the process by which looted and stolen antiquities may be returned to their country of origin. The United States has been unwavering in its commitment to protect and preserve cultural heritage worldwide and to restrict trafficking in cultural property.”
In this case, the property was not looted, stolen or trafficked; it was the legal property of the family in question. So where is the justification for the seizure?
Under Article 17.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Unites States is a signatory, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”. But what does “arbitrarily” mean here?
With no evidence to show a crime, and under the general principles of law, can it really be argued that the item in question should be seized, especially when those introducing the MoU have clearly stated that its purpose is to restore stolen and trafficked items? Wouldn’t such actions be arbitrary and so in breach of the UDHR?
In February this year, Cultural Property News published its in-depth analysis of the background against which the USA’s MoU with India was established. This shows just how many questions remain unanswered in this debate, including why source countries’ are increasingly allowed to rely on such undemocratic bilateral agreements in place of acting responsibly and fulfilling their own obligations in this context.
A telling point in the CPN analysis is as follows: “Virtually all the objects named on the proposed Designated List for India were made for trade as much or more than for domestic use. Is it the intent of the CPIA to reverse the trade of centuries, even millennia, and claw back trade goods made between 75 and 2000 years ago?”
One of the reasons that MoUs remain popular – and the US now has around 35 of them relating to Culture – is that few understand their true consequences. While their stated aims may be laudable, in practice their terms and execution can be anything but.
In an article published by Cultural Property News on August 26, collector, lawyer and campaigner Peter Tompa considered the problem of returning cultural goods to failed states under US policy: “If the point is to protect cultural heritage, a MOU with Lebanon makes absolutely no sense,” he quoted the late Presidential candidate Bob Dole in his criticism of the State Department over the issue in the 1980s. Debating the problem with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, it is clear that Dole had a firm grasp on how the credibility of seemingly well-intentioned transnational agreements like these can fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.
Recent Comments