.
![]()
The statement by Stephen J. Knerly (Jr.) on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee concerning the extension of the 2007 bilateral cultural property agreement between The Government of the United States of America and The Government of the Republic of Mali is of interest. It reveals the colonialist attitudes of even US heritage professionals when dealing with the smuggling of cultural property from one of the world's poorest countries.The AAMD points out that before the USA considers putting in place (or in this case maintaining) checks on illicit imports from this country, the CCPIA requires the administration to determine "that the requesting country has taken measures [...] to protect its cultural patrimony”. But the AAMD points out that "the recent coup d’état in Mali puts in peril the stability of Malian government that we have knownover the last two decades as well as its ability to take steps to protects its cultural patrimony".
This is rich:
Apart from this, the AAMD "urges the Committee to review the status of cultural exchange asrequired by Article II of the 2007 MOU". This next bit is pretty disgusting:
These are bilateral agreements. Note that there is not a single word in what the AAMD propose concerning promotion of American archaeology and culture in Mali as a symbol of the "goodwill" they demand from the Malians in return for honouring the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Not a word. Not a word that the Government of the United States of America will make efforts to seek to expand the exchange of itsarchaeological materials with Mali. No mention of any discussions on how to increase the number ofexhibition loans of US objects of archaeological interest, increase the number andoverall length of long-term loans of objects from the US "forresearch and educational purposes" to Malian institutions. No mention about inviting Malian museums and universities to propose andparticipate in joint excavation projects in the United States with the finds being loaned to theMalian participants. The AAMD obviously have a very one-sided view of bilateralism. In their vision the other side has to give-give and Uncle Sam will take-take (in return for doing no more than what it said it will do when becoming a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention).
The statement by Stephen J. Knerly (Jr.) on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee concerning the extension of the 2007 bilateral cultural property agreement between The Government of the United States of America and The Government of the Republic of Mali is of interest. It reveals the colonialist attitudes of even US heritage professionals when dealing with the smuggling of cultural property from one of the world's poorest countries.The AAMD points out that before the USA considers putting in place (or in this case maintaining) checks on illicit imports from this country, the CCPIA requires the administration to determine "that the requesting country has taken measures [...] to protect its cultural patrimony”. But the AAMD points out that "the recent coup d’état in Mali puts in peril the stability of Malian government that we have knownover the last two decades as well as its ability to take steps to protects its cultural patrimony".[...] in order for the Committee to recommend renewal of the 2007 MOU, it first must decide whether the determinant set forth in 19 U.S.C.A. §2602 (a)(1)(B) - that a requesting country is taking steps to protect its cultural patrimony - can be met given the political turmoil in Mali. [...] Under thesecircumstances, should the Committee recommend renewal of an agreement for five years whenthe situation is so fluid?This is just nuts, as we are all painfully aware it is precisely in times of political turmoil like this that the looting of museums (and we have seen all over the conflict zones of recent years - raw sites) is taking place. It is precisely in times like this that the market nations such as the US should be taking swift action to make sure that it is not US buyers who are snapping up the freshly "liberated" bargains.
This is rich:
The Act requires that a requesting country be taking steps “consistent with theConvention” which includes for example, that the requesting country should provide thenational services responsible for the protection of its cultural heritage with an adequate budget.The United States of America, undeniably one of the richer nations in the world covering a territory with an extensive archaeological record going back tens of thousands of years, has no such national service. It is really sickening to see these heritage "professionals" (I use the term loosely) throwing it in the face of the Malians that they have not got what the US has not bothered to create.
Apart from this, the AAMD "urges the Committee to review the status of cultural exchange asrequired by Article II of the 2007 MOU". This next bit is pretty disgusting:
Given therestrictions in trade, in order to enhance the publics’ (sic) understanding of the world’s great cultures,the United States must require the countries seeking its assistance to make available for loanobjects of cultural significance for exhibition, display, study, and research on both a short andlong-term basis and with reasonable terms.The Committee should recommend to the President that when and if there is an extensionof the 2007 MOU, it contains a strong commitment by Mali to foster cultural exchange withAmerican museums, to not only allow, but encourage, both exhibition and long-term loans ofsignificant objects. This can be accomplished, in part, by amendments to Paragraph A of ArticleII as follows:
A. The Government of the Republic of Mali will seek to expand the exchange of itsarchaeological materials through:
1. Entering into discussions about how to increase the number ofexhibition loans of objects of archaeological interest;
2. Entering into discussions about how to increase the number andoverall length of long-term loans of objects of archaeological interest forresearch and educational purposes, agreed upon, on a case by case basis,by American and Malian museums or similar institutions, recognizing thespirit of goodwill that exists between cultural institutions in bothcountries;
3. Encouraging American museums and universities to propose andparticipate in joint excavation projects authorized by the Maliangovernment, with the understanding that certain of the scientificallyexcavated objects from such projects could be given as a loan to theAmerican participants through specific agreements with the Maliangovernment; and
4. Promoting agreements for academic exchanges and specific studyprograms agreed upon by museums and universities of Mali and Americanart museums [...]
The above language in sections 2 through 4 is virtually verbatim the language of the relevantsection of Article II of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Italy.Since the renewal of the MOU with Italy with stronger language, definite progress has beenmade. The AAMD hopes that stronger language with Mali will have an equally mutuallybeneficial effect.In addition, the AAMD suggest imposing on the Malians an ultimatum, forcing them to conclude such agreements "at least within the first year". This is pure naked imperialism. We will not - this proposal says - stop the import of smuggled Malian cultural property into the US market UNLESS: The Government of the Republic of Mali (despite all the other problems the country has on its hands right now) makes efforts to seek to expand the exchange of itsarchaeological materials with the US. Right now. They are to be asked to do this through discussing how to increase the number ofexhibition loans of objects of archaeological interest, increase the number andoverall length of long-term loans of objects to the US "forresearch and educational purposes". Furthermore they are to allow American museums and universities to propose andparticipate in joint excavation projects in Mali with the finds being loaned (a la Machu Picchu) to theAmerican participants. Also they are to support "exchanges and specific studyprograms" between "museums and universities of Mali and Americanart museums" [...] Just "art" museums? I thought that in America, archaeology was anthropology, not "art".
These are bilateral agreements. Note that there is not a single word in what the AAMD propose concerning promotion of American archaeology and culture in Mali as a symbol of the "goodwill" they demand from the Malians in return for honouring the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Not a word. Not a word that the Government of the United States of America will make efforts to seek to expand the exchange of itsarchaeological materials with Mali. No mention of any discussions on how to increase the number ofexhibition loans of US objects of archaeological interest, increase the number andoverall length of long-term loans of objects from the US "forresearch and educational purposes" to Malian institutions. No mention about inviting Malian museums and universities to propose andparticipate in joint excavation projects in the United States with the finds being loaned to theMalian participants. The AAMD obviously have a very one-sided view of bilateralism. In their vision the other side has to give-give and Uncle Sam will take-take (in return for doing no more than what it said it will do when becoming a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention).
