The Cultural Heritage Center website carries news about a proposed renewal of import restrictions on Chinese cultural goods. CPAC's public session will take place on May 14th.
The Federal Register notice formally announcing the renewal is to be released on April 1st.
Somehow that is fitting. I'm all for the Chinese populace collecting rather than destroying (remember the Cultural Revolution) artifacts like the bazillions of cash coins that are found all the time in China, but hope CPAC recognizes that current restrictions have done little but to provide Chinese auction houses and dealers with a leg up on their foreign (especially US) competition.
Is it about protecting the archaeological record or encouraging the continued movement of the trade in Chinese artifacts to China and other major market countries?
Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts
Supreme Court Denies Cert.
Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly given the some 150 petitions before the Court at its last conference, the Supreme Court has denied the ACCG's petition for certiorari. (The Court granted certiorari in four cases, two of which were summarily sent back to the Second Circuit for consideration of a decision just issued this year.)
The Supreme Court's order has no precedential value, leaving the Fourth Circuit�s decision that the State Department's and U.S. Customs' decision-making is generally only subject to "political" rather than "judicial" review only applicable in that Circuit.
ACCG now plans to contest the forfeiture action the Fourth Circuit anticipates the Government will file against the coins the ACCG imported for purposes of its test case.
The test case is part of the ACCG's continuing effort to educate the public and government decision-makers about the damage overbroad restrictions have done to the ability of American collectors to legally import coins of the sort that remain widely available abroad, including in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and China.
In that regard, the latest post on the Chasing Aphrodite blog provides further discussion about the thinking behind the test case.
Labels:
ACCG,
ancient coins,
Import Restrictions,
State Department,
US Customs
Rewriting the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act
It's no surprise that Dr. Nathan Elkins-- one of the AIA's chief proponents of import restrictions on common historical coins of the sort collected worldwide-- claims that any coin type that circulated "predominantly" in a given country should be placed on the "designated list" for restrictions when it's easy for him to generalize that coins circulate "predominantly" where they are made.
But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more. Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).
The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.
The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted. The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.
The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market. In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites. That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.
But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more. Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).
The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.
The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted. The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.
The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market. In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites. That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.
Labels:
ACCG,
AIA,
ancient coins,
bureaucracy,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
Nationalism,
State Department,
US Customs
Funding Opportunities Abound?
In reviewing some of the submissions for CPAC's upcoming public session concerning the proposed renewal of the MOU with Cambodia, I was struck by the submission of Christina Luke to CPAC advocating tapping into a vast amount of federal dollars for archaeological projects. Ms. Luke is associated with Boston University and serves as the Chair of the AIA's "Cultural Heritage Policy Committee."
Leaving aside the self-serving nature of any such request, let's talk about its bad timing, what with sequestration coming this week. If anything, the State Department should be considering whether any funding for foreign archaeological projects makes sense in a tough budgetary climate where there is pressure to cut other programs that benefit people in foreign countries far more directly, like funding for clean water and HIV/AIDs prevention.
Leaving aside the self-serving nature of any such request, let's talk about its bad timing, what with sequestration coming this week. If anything, the State Department should be considering whether any funding for foreign archaeological projects makes sense in a tough budgetary climate where there is pressure to cut other programs that benefit people in foreign countries far more directly, like funding for clean water and HIV/AIDs prevention.
Presidential Power: From Drones to Drachms
What issues link President Obama's drone war with the ACCG's cert petition to the Supreme Court? Find out in Michael McCullough's latest post, Presidential Power: From Drones to Drachms. It's well worth a read.
Law 360: Justices Asked To Hear Imported Coin Seizure Case
Law360, a well-known legal news service published this report on the ACCG case by Helen Christophi :
Law360, Los Angeles (February 15, 2013, 4:40 PM ET) -- The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to reinstate its suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies over the seizure of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins after the Fourth Circuit tossed it over foreign policy concerns.
The guild filed a petition arguing for a reversal of the Fourth Circuit's October decision dismissing its suit claiming ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins couldn't be traced to illicit excavations in either country, saying foreign policy concerns shouldn't undermine the law as it had in the lower court's ruling.
�The ACCG has raised serious questions concerning whether foreign policy concerns trump judicial review where Congress has imposed significant procedural and substantive constraints on executive authority to restrict the ability of American citizens to import common cultural goods widely sold worldwide,� Peter Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, an attorney for the ACCG, said.
The case, originally lodged in Maryland federal court in February 2010, followed the seizure of more than 20 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins the ACCG imported from London in 2009. The guild argued that it should not be assumed that a coin was stolen or illegally shipped because the owner was unable to show a chain of custody beyond a receipt from a reputable source.
But the government countered that no judicial review of the plaintiff's claims was available and that even if it was, the ACCG had not stated a claim for relief.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake granted the government's dismissal bid, and said that actions taken pursuant to delegated presidential authority under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act weren't subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Fourth Circuit in October threw out the ACCG's suit on appeal, saying that anything but the most basic review of the Federal Register and the district court opinion for procedural compliance �would draw the judicial system too heavily and intimately into negotiations between the Department of State and foreign countries,� according to the guild's Tuesday petition.
Congress enacted the CPIA in 1983, authorizing the president to enter agreements with other countries to limit the importation of objects of archaeological interest and cultural significance.
The U.S. signed off on such deals with Cyprus and China in July 2007 and January 2009, respectively, limiting the importation of ancient coins minted in the countries.
In its petition, the ACCG argued that the high court should verify that lower courts must apply a �political question� test when a party attempts to dismiss a case over foreign policy considerations.
�The court should grant the petition because the lower court's ruling ignores this court's test for 'political questions' and is directly at odds with case law in sister circuits,� the petition said.
The ACCG also contended that the court must clarify its own decisions on judicial review regarding the delegation of presidential authority to government agencies, saying that the imposition by Customs, rather than the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, of import restrictions on some coins put into question what the proper standard of review is.
Finally, the group asserted that the various courts' refusal to review import restrictions harms American museums, collectors and small businesses that trade ancient coins.
"The importance of these issues to the continued access of American citizens and institutions to ancient coins and other artifacts as 'hands-on' mediums of cultural exchange and understanding also argue for this court to take this matter up,� the petition said.
Representatives for Customs could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
The ACCG is represented by Peter K. Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.
The case is Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., case number 12-996, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Law360, Los Angeles (February 15, 2013, 4:40 PM ET) -- The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to reinstate its suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies over the seizure of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins after the Fourth Circuit tossed it over foreign policy concerns.
The guild filed a petition arguing for a reversal of the Fourth Circuit's October decision dismissing its suit claiming ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins couldn't be traced to illicit excavations in either country, saying foreign policy concerns shouldn't undermine the law as it had in the lower court's ruling.
�The ACCG has raised serious questions concerning whether foreign policy concerns trump judicial review where Congress has imposed significant procedural and substantive constraints on executive authority to restrict the ability of American citizens to import common cultural goods widely sold worldwide,� Peter Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, an attorney for the ACCG, said.
The case, originally lodged in Maryland federal court in February 2010, followed the seizure of more than 20 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins the ACCG imported from London in 2009. The guild argued that it should not be assumed that a coin was stolen or illegally shipped because the owner was unable to show a chain of custody beyond a receipt from a reputable source.
But the government countered that no judicial review of the plaintiff's claims was available and that even if it was, the ACCG had not stated a claim for relief.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake granted the government's dismissal bid, and said that actions taken pursuant to delegated presidential authority under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act weren't subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Fourth Circuit in October threw out the ACCG's suit on appeal, saying that anything but the most basic review of the Federal Register and the district court opinion for procedural compliance �would draw the judicial system too heavily and intimately into negotiations between the Department of State and foreign countries,� according to the guild's Tuesday petition.
Congress enacted the CPIA in 1983, authorizing the president to enter agreements with other countries to limit the importation of objects of archaeological interest and cultural significance.
The U.S. signed off on such deals with Cyprus and China in July 2007 and January 2009, respectively, limiting the importation of ancient coins minted in the countries.
In its petition, the ACCG argued that the high court should verify that lower courts must apply a �political question� test when a party attempts to dismiss a case over foreign policy considerations.
�The court should grant the petition because the lower court's ruling ignores this court's test for 'political questions' and is directly at odds with case law in sister circuits,� the petition said.
The ACCG also contended that the court must clarify its own decisions on judicial review regarding the delegation of presidential authority to government agencies, saying that the imposition by Customs, rather than the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, of import restrictions on some coins put into question what the proper standard of review is.
Finally, the group asserted that the various courts' refusal to review import restrictions harms American museums, collectors and small businesses that trade ancient coins.
"The importance of these issues to the continued access of American citizens and institutions to ancient coins and other artifacts as 'hands-on' mediums of cultural exchange and understanding also argue for this court to take this matter up,� the petition said.
Representatives for Customs could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
The ACCG is represented by Peter K. Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.
The case is Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., case number 12-996, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
1,000th Post: ACCG Files Petition for Cert.
Somehow it seems fitting. For CPO's 1,000th post, I am linking to the ACCG's press release about its petition for certiorari. The petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts' refusal to engage in judicial review of controversial decisions to impose import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus and China.
Why did the ACCG ask to file such a petition? The first and last paragraphs of the body of the petition say it all:
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (�the Guild� or �ACCG�), a nonprofit advocacy group for collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade, seeks judicial review of administrative decisions which have drastically limited the ability of coin collectors to lawfully import historical coins of the sort widely available abroad. In particular, the Department of State (�State�) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (�CBP�) have restricted the entry of historical coins based on the country of manufacture, whereas Congress explicitly limited restrictions to coins �first discovered� in a particular country, which is completely different. Such overbroad, unfocused restrictions have greatly inhibited ancient coin collecting in the United States.
...
Why did the ACCG ask to file such a petition? The first and last paragraphs of the body of the petition say it all:
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (�the Guild� or �ACCG�), a nonprofit advocacy group for collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade, seeks judicial review of administrative decisions which have drastically limited the ability of coin collectors to lawfully import historical coins of the sort widely available abroad. In particular, the Department of State (�State�) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (�CBP�) have restricted the entry of historical coins based on the country of manufacture, whereas Congress explicitly limited restrictions to coins �first discovered� in a particular country, which is completely different. Such overbroad, unfocused restrictions have greatly inhibited ancient coin collecting in the United States.
...
The lower courts have effectively excused State and CBP from any scrutiny despite well-founded allegations import restrictions on historical coins were imposed without regard for the significant procedural and substantive constraints found in the CPIA. Accordingly, the Guild respectfully requests that the Court grant certiorari, not only to decide important questions of federal law regarding the form and scope of judicial review, but also to ensure that federal regulators themselves are bound by the rule of law.
The entire petition may be read here.
The Supreme Court apparently only accepts 4% of such petitions for further review, but should the Court decide to take the matter up, the Court then reverses the lower court some 76% of the time.
As those lottery commercials say, you "gotta play it to win it!"
Throwing Tax Dollars at Foreign Archaeological Sites Doesn't Always Buy Friends
The U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon has learned the hard way that offers to throw US taxpayer dollars to fix up foreign archaeological sites does not necessarily buy the US friends abroad, particularly where the money is to be spent in Hezbollah territory in S. Lebanon. Instead, the Ambassador has been subject to withering criticism because an Embassy vehicle damaged a wall during a tour of ancient Tyre. In the Ambassador's defense, I suspect she did not leave her vehicle because of security concerns, not because she was "too tired or busy" as Arab media has suggested.
Should Transparency Be a Two Way Street?
Archaeo-Blogger and Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire wants to mandate additional record-keeping for dealers in cultural goods in the name of "transparency." Leaving aside whether creating more red tape will accomplish anything other than to place additional administrative burdens on the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade, one wonders whether he would also acknowledge that transparency should be a two way street.
So, how about some transparency for the State Department and CBP concerning their process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods? Or how about imposing new record keeping requirements on archaeologists, such as requiring them to publish their findings within in a reasonable time on the Internet so they will be easily accessible to interested members of the general public?
After all, State, CBP and the archaeological community all purport to act in the public's interest, so is some transparency from them too much to ask?
So, how about some transparency for the State Department and CBP concerning their process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods? Or how about imposing new record keeping requirements on archaeologists, such as requiring them to publish their findings within in a reasonable time on the Internet so they will be easily accessible to interested members of the general public?
After all, State, CBP and the archaeological community all purport to act in the public's interest, so is some transparency from them too much to ask?
Jay Kislak at 90
It's nice to see former CPAC Chairman Kislak remains active and engaged at age 90. The article discusses his incredible generosity to the Library of Congress. It also touches on his frustrations dealing with the State Department while chairman of CPAC. In particular, the article references Mr. Kislak's statements at the CPRI's seminar on Capitol Hill. As the article notes,
With Kislak's knowledge of collecting, President George W. Bush appointed him to the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee. But while chairing the committee from 2003 to 2008, Kislak grew frustrated and didn't seek to stay on with the group, which deals with controversial issues of regulating the importation of cultural and historical artifacts.
Later, at a Washington, D.C., seminar in March 2011, Kislak called the advisory committee "useless." According to a transcript, he criticized the group for holding closed meetings and fumed that its recommendations were ignored by State Department staff.
With Kislak's knowledge of collecting, President George W. Bush appointed him to the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee. But while chairing the committee from 2003 to 2008, Kislak grew frustrated and didn't seek to stay on with the group, which deals with controversial issues of regulating the importation of cultural and historical artifacts.
Later, at a Washington, D.C., seminar in March 2011, Kislak called the advisory committee "useless." According to a transcript, he criticized the group for holding closed meetings and fumed that its recommendations were ignored by State Department staff.
PAS Harnesses the Power of the Public
The Art Newspaper has written favorably about the PAS and its efforts to record evidence of the past in Britain and Wales. Of course, the PAS records coins and other artifacts, but this effort has fostered academic research as well. As the article explains:
The information provided by members of the public over the last 15 years is available for all to see on the PAS database. This now contains around 810,000 items and spans objects dating from the Stone Age to Anglo-Saxon, Roman, medieval, and post-medieval times. Every entry includes archaeological information on the object in question, details of where it was discovered and often incorporates notes of scholarly interest. The database provides a historical snapshot of human settlement in England and Wales and is an awesome example of what can be achieved by harnessing the power of the public.
�It�s now a major academic resource,� says Bland. �There are 66 people using it for their PhDs and 140 other post-graduate students or undergraduates using it for their dissertations as well as around 12 major funded research projects [working on it], one of them with �150,000 from the Leverhulme Trust to allow us to analyse the factors underlying the data.�
Given these successes, it's hard to understand the hostility still shown it in parts of the archaeological blogosphere and the unwillingness to consider whether it can be adapted in some fashion in countries like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy.
The amounts spent on PAS would seem to give far more "bang for the buck" (or perhaps pound in this case) than many archaeological programs. Perhaps the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and USAID should consider funding a pilot program in a source country like Bulgaria. The costs could be minimal compared to the amounts spent on archaeology in places like Iraq and Egypt.
The information provided by members of the public over the last 15 years is available for all to see on the PAS database. This now contains around 810,000 items and spans objects dating from the Stone Age to Anglo-Saxon, Roman, medieval, and post-medieval times. Every entry includes archaeological information on the object in question, details of where it was discovered and often incorporates notes of scholarly interest. The database provides a historical snapshot of human settlement in England and Wales and is an awesome example of what can be achieved by harnessing the power of the public.
�It�s now a major academic resource,� says Bland. �There are 66 people using it for their PhDs and 140 other post-graduate students or undergraduates using it for their dissertations as well as around 12 major funded research projects [working on it], one of them with �150,000 from the Leverhulme Trust to allow us to analyse the factors underlying the data.�
Given these successes, it's hard to understand the hostility still shown it in parts of the archaeological blogosphere and the unwillingness to consider whether it can be adapted in some fashion in countries like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy.
The amounts spent on PAS would seem to give far more "bang for the buck" (or perhaps pound in this case) than many archaeological programs. Perhaps the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and USAID should consider funding a pilot program in a source country like Bulgaria. The costs could be minimal compared to the amounts spent on archaeology in places like Iraq and Egypt.
No Sense of Humor or Balance, Just Useful Cover?
I guess on reflection it's not all that surprising that the archaeological blogosphere, what with its archaeology over all fanaticism, lacks a sense of humor. Or that somehow an advertisement for the sale of a collection of Islamic coins becomes a springboard for a diatribe against the seller (the ACCG's founder), the collector (a man of the cloth), the Arab Spring (dislocation dethrones some of archaeology's friends in the region?), American Culture (grasping rather than free?), and U.S. Foreign Policy (US made tear gas and "political assasination drones" rather than support for democracy and vast amounts of foreign aid?). But if so, how can the State Department bureaucracy really take the rants of such archaeologists whether in the blogosphere or in comments to CPAC seriously? Or do they just provide a useful cover for State's proclivity to trade the interests of US small businesses, collectors and museums for the fleeting good will of some foreign potentate?
Thanksgiving: Khouli Sentenced to Home Detention
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has sentenced Mousa ("Morris") Khouli to six months of home detention and one year probation for smuggling Egyptian antiquities by way of false declarations on customs forms. The prosecutor had asked for 46-57 months of incarceration, but the Court evidently was swayed by a sentencing memorandum prepared by Khouli's lawyer that outlined the relatively modest sentences given for other "cultural property" crimes.
The blood-thirsty archaeological blogosphere will likely be aghast at the length of the sentence. But then again, as set forth in the declaration of Jay Kislak appended to ACCG's recently filed petition for rehearing there is credible evidence to suggest that certain individual(s) at the US Department of State misled Congress and the public in official reports about import restrictions on Cypriot coins and have yet to be called into account in any fashion whatsoever.
Is it really more serious to mislead on a customs form than in an official government report sent to Congress? And let's not forget that the very same State Department bureaucrats involved in the Cypriot coin controversy are also intimately involved in coordinating repatriations like that at issue in the Khouli case through the State Department's "Cultural Antiquities Task Force." Why should they be above the law?
The blood-thirsty archaeological blogosphere will likely be aghast at the length of the sentence. But then again, as set forth in the declaration of Jay Kislak appended to ACCG's recently filed petition for rehearing there is credible evidence to suggest that certain individual(s) at the US Department of State misled Congress and the public in official reports about import restrictions on Cypriot coins and have yet to be called into account in any fashion whatsoever.
Is it really more serious to mislead on a customs form than in an official government report sent to Congress? And let's not forget that the very same State Department bureaucrats involved in the Cypriot coin controversy are also intimately involved in coordinating repatriations like that at issue in the Khouli case through the State Department's "Cultural Antiquities Task Force." Why should they be above the law?
Repatriation as a Diplomatic Tool?
Pity poor old U.S News and World Report. It used to be one of the three major news weekly magazines. Now, it's reduced to a web-only publication that in the search for free content has uncritically promoted the views of those ideologically opposed to collecting that repatriation has a real value as a �diplomatic tool.� But, as I have pointed out in comments to the article,
� While antiquities should be repatriated in clear cases, the problem is that all too often they are repatriated in unclear situations where the same types of artifacts are openly available for sale in a particular country. How does this happen? Academics with axes to grind against collectors gin up publicity, that gets foreign governments and then our government involved. And given the modest values of many objects and the costs of mounting a legal defense, it�s the rare case where it makes financial sense to contest the seizure-- so the Government wins by default, and hard questions are never asked about the real situation in the source country.
ACCG Files Petition for Rehearing
The ACCG has requested the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the dismissal of its case testing regulations imposing import restrictions on historical coins of the sort widely traded worldwide. The ACCG has argued that the panel�s decision ignores Supreme Court precedent, case law in sister circuits, and the �plain meaning� rule. Specifically, the ACCG states that the panel: (1) failed to consider the U.S. Supreme Court�s test for determining if �foreign policy� concerns trump the judiciary�s obligation �to say what the law is;� (2) adopted a version of judicial review far narrower than that afforded in sister federal appellate courts; and (3) wrongly assumed that CPAC approved of the Government�s decision imposing restrictions on coins based on their place of production rather than their find spot despite the sworn statement of Jay Kislak, CPAC former Chairman, that was previously brought to the trial court�s attention.
Labels:
ACCG,
bureacracy,
coins,
CPAC,
Import Restrictions,
State Department,
US Customs
Is the State Department Cultural Heritage Center Worth Funding with Money Borrowed From China?
During one of the presidential debates, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said his test for whether a federal program should be continued is whether it was worth funding with money borrowed from China. Whether Romney wins the presidency or President Obama is reelected, the next Administration will face some hard choices about what programs are really worth funding.
If the State Department is forced to start watching its pennies, I'm not sure its Cultural Heritage Center could really justify its worth compared to other worthy State Department programs.
The Center caters exclusively to a small group of academics and foreign cultural heritage bureaucrats. The money it hands out to foreign countries to fund archaeological projects could probably be better spent on things like supplies of clean water or fighting aids.
Moreover, the actual public support for its program to restrict the import of cultural goods is quite slim. And the net result of its activities has simply been to give foreign collectors and cultural goods dealers a competitive advantage. While Americans face stifling red tape requirements that preclude entry of thousands upon thousands of cultural artifacts, foreign collectors and dealers face no such hurdles and go about their business as usual.
Perhaps, the best thing to do would be to eliminate the Cultural Heritage Center and transfer CPAC and the decision making regarding import restrictions to the Department of Commerce. Commerce is well suited for handling trade issues and would likely not take the anti-business stance that seems ingrained in the State Department bureaucracy.
Will this happen anytime soon? No, but hopefully federal budget makers will start asking some hard questions about exactly what the Cultural Heritage Center does for the American taxpayer. Certainly, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently suggested that it might be time for Congress and the Executive Branch to pay more attention to what the Cultural Heritage Center is doing.
If the State Department is forced to start watching its pennies, I'm not sure its Cultural Heritage Center could really justify its worth compared to other worthy State Department programs.
The Center caters exclusively to a small group of academics and foreign cultural heritage bureaucrats. The money it hands out to foreign countries to fund archaeological projects could probably be better spent on things like supplies of clean water or fighting aids.
Moreover, the actual public support for its program to restrict the import of cultural goods is quite slim. And the net result of its activities has simply been to give foreign collectors and cultural goods dealers a competitive advantage. While Americans face stifling red tape requirements that preclude entry of thousands upon thousands of cultural artifacts, foreign collectors and dealers face no such hurdles and go about their business as usual.
Perhaps, the best thing to do would be to eliminate the Cultural Heritage Center and transfer CPAC and the decision making regarding import restrictions to the Department of Commerce. Commerce is well suited for handling trade issues and would likely not take the anti-business stance that seems ingrained in the State Department bureaucracy.
Will this happen anytime soon? No, but hopefully federal budget makers will start asking some hard questions about exactly what the Cultural Heritage Center does for the American taxpayer. Certainly, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently suggested that it might be time for Congress and the Executive Branch to pay more attention to what the Cultural Heritage Center is doing.
Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Test Case
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed Judge Blake�s decision dismissing ACCG�s test case on Cypriot and Chinese import restrictions on coins. Although the Court conceded that the Guild�s arguments, �are not without a point,� the Court concluded any changes to how the State Department and US Customs administers the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act must emanate from Congress and the Executive Branch and not the Courts. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals indicated that ACCG could still pursue various forfeiture defenses related to the seizure of the specific coins it imported. The ACCG is considering further appellate options afforded under the Court�s rules.
Labels:
ACCG,
coins,
CPAC,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
State Department,
US Customs
The Candidates Agree Small Business Needs Help-- When Will State and CBP Get the Message?
Like many Americans, I watched the Presidential debate last night. The candidates disagreed on many things, but agreed that small business needs help and that "one size fits all" regulations can harm small business without really benefiting the public at large.
When will the State Department and US Customs and Border Protection get the message? Their "one size fits all" import restrictions on cultural goods require the same showing for licit import of a $1 million dollar vase as a $2 coin widely traded abroad. (And let's not forget CBP has gone well beyond what is allowed under law to only allow import of artifacts pictured in auction catalogues.) As I observed during oral argument before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the ACCG test case, that simply makes no sense.
Despite nods of agreement from two of the judges on the panel, the Court may indeed decide to affirm Judge Blake's decision to give State and CBP the green light to crush the small businesses of the numismatic trade with such over regulation, but the question remains does this make sense?
When will the State Department and US Customs and Border Protection get the message? Their "one size fits all" import restrictions on cultural goods require the same showing for licit import of a $1 million dollar vase as a $2 coin widely traded abroad. (And let's not forget CBP has gone well beyond what is allowed under law to only allow import of artifacts pictured in auction catalogues.) As I observed during oral argument before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the ACCG test case, that simply makes no sense.
Despite nods of agreement from two of the judges on the panel, the Court may indeed decide to affirm Judge Blake's decision to give State and CBP the green light to crush the small businesses of the numismatic trade with such over regulation, but the question remains does this make sense?
Has State and CBP Exceeded Their Authority in Imposing Import Restrictions on Ecclesiastical Artifacts?
The CPIA only allows for restrictions on archaeological or ethnological artifacts. The latter are defined as the products of tribal or nonindustrial societies. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601 (2) (C) (ii). The Senate Report further makes clear that ethnological artifacts are only supposed to encompass "tribal" or "primitive art," such as masks, idols or totem poles. (Senate Report at 5.)
The recently announced expansion of Guatamalen import restrictions thus once again raises the question whether State and CBP have exceeded their authority, this time by adding restrictions on ecclesiastical artifacts that date as late as 1821. Here is a list of the newly restricted artifacts. Can State and CBP fairly claim they encompass "tribal" or "primitive" art?
Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material (Dating From Approximately A.D. 1524 to 1821)
VI. Sculpture�Sculptural images of scenes or figures, carved in wood andusually painted, relating to ecclesiastical themes, such as the Virgin Mary, saints,angels, Christ, and others.
A. Relief Sculptures�circular-shaped, low-relief plaques, often polychrome wood, relating to ecclesiastical themes.
B. Sculpted Figures�wood carvings of figures relating to ecclesiastical themes, often with moveable limbs, usually with polychrome painting of skin and features; clothing might be sculpted and painted, or actual fabric clothing might be added.
C. Life-Sized Sculptures�full figure wood carvings of figures relating to ecclesiastical themes, often with polychrome painting using the estofado technique, and occasionally embellished with metal objects such as halos, aureoles, and staves.
VII. Painting�paintings illustrating figures, narratives, and events relating to ecclesiastical themes, usually done in oil on wood, metal, walls, or canvas (linen, jute, or cotton).
A. Easel Paintings�pictorial works relating to ecclesiastical themes on wood, metal, or cloth (framed or applied directly to structural walls).
B. Mural Paintings�pictorial works, executed directly on structural walls, relating to ecclesiastical themes.
VIII. Metal�ritual objects for ceremonial ecclesiastical use made of gold, silver, or other metal, including monstrances, lecterns, chalices, censers, candlesticks, crucifixes, crosses, and tabernacles; and objects used to dress sculptures, such as crowns, halos, and aureoles, among others.
The recently announced expansion of Guatamalen import restrictions thus once again raises the question whether State and CBP have exceeded their authority, this time by adding restrictions on ecclesiastical artifacts that date as late as 1821. Here is a list of the newly restricted artifacts. Can State and CBP fairly claim they encompass "tribal" or "primitive" art?
Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material (Dating From Approximately A.D. 1524 to 1821)
VI. Sculpture�Sculptural images of scenes or figures, carved in wood andusually painted, relating to ecclesiastical themes, such as the Virgin Mary, saints,angels, Christ, and others.
A. Relief Sculptures�circular-shaped, low-relief plaques, often polychrome wood, relating to ecclesiastical themes.
B. Sculpted Figures�wood carvings of figures relating to ecclesiastical themes, often with moveable limbs, usually with polychrome painting of skin and features; clothing might be sculpted and painted, or actual fabric clothing might be added.
C. Life-Sized Sculptures�full figure wood carvings of figures relating to ecclesiastical themes, often with polychrome painting using the estofado technique, and occasionally embellished with metal objects such as halos, aureoles, and staves.
VII. Painting�paintings illustrating figures, narratives, and events relating to ecclesiastical themes, usually done in oil on wood, metal, walls, or canvas (linen, jute, or cotton).
A. Easel Paintings�pictorial works relating to ecclesiastical themes on wood, metal, or cloth (framed or applied directly to structural walls).
B. Mural Paintings�pictorial works, executed directly on structural walls, relating to ecclesiastical themes.
VIII. Metal�ritual objects for ceremonial ecclesiastical use made of gold, silver, or other metal, including monstrances, lecterns, chalices, censers, candlesticks, crucifixes, crosses, and tabernacles; and objects used to dress sculptures, such as crowns, halos, and aureoles, among others.
As Islamic Fanatics Destroy Libraries, State Department and Customs Reauthorize Regulations Returning Cultural Property to Mali
Given the latest round of destruction--this time of Islamic books-- it would not seem to be the best time to reauthorize import restrictions that call for the repatriation of cultural artifacts to Mali. But the US Cultural Bureaucracy at State and US Customs seems unmoved by the recent turmoil in the country, and they have just announced the renewal of the current restrictions on such artifacts which authorize their return to the country. Is our cultural bureaucracy out of touch with reality? Does it make sense to send back artifacts to Mali where they may end up just getting destroyed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)