Dear Patrick

On which side of the river is the National Library ?

On the other hand, I do not understand what kind of people are those who
destroyed the museum. Stealing in museums it's a long story (and not
only in times of war) ! But destroying things you can not steal - and
supposedly objects of much national pride - I hardly understand.

I am angry with the US army about failing to guard the museum and the
library. As you demonstrate, the US marine proved it was possible. But I
am mad to the people of Baghdad who did this. We, the inhabitants of
Bucharest witnessed similar power vacuum in December '89 - and yes, we
were angry too -, but I did not recall looting in the museums, and the
library set on fire here was a punctual (and professional) criminal act,
not a "popular" one.

Question is, can we do something practical to improve the situation ? My
laments are of little help. I have no ideas for the moment.

Yours,

Dan

____________________________________________
Dan Matei, director
CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory]
Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90,
713411 Bucuresti [Bucharest], Romania
tel/fax (+40-21) 224 37 42
www.cimec.ro


> -----Original Message-----
> From: International Council of Museums Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of P Boylan
> Sent: 14 aprilie 2003 19:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ICOM-CC appalled by looting in Iraq.
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Sophia Labadi wrote:
>
> ++++ [CLIP] ++++
>
> > ICOM-CC said:
> > 'ICOM-CC urges the so-called Coalition Forces to act
> according to The
> > Hague Convention'.
> >
> > This is just a rhetorical question:
> > Neither the USA nor the UK have ratified the 1954 Hague Convention.
> > Why then would they act according to it?
> >
> > Sophia.
> >
> ==================================
>
> Sophia:
>
> Not a rhetorical question at all, in fact.
>
> It is true that neither country has ratified either the 1954
> Hague Convention, nor the First Protocol (which has the
> effect of making illegal almost all actual or purported
> "transfers of ownership" of cultural property in war zones.)
>
> However:
>
> 1.  Iraq is a party to both, so the Convention applies to the
> territory, (the "lex situs" rule under both international and
> national law) and arguably therefore to everyone within the
> territory and all actions by them regardless of their nationality,
>
> 2.  The United States Defense and State Departments jointly
> formally recommended in about 1996 that the President should
> seek to ratify the Hague Convention (though not the First
> Protocol - presumably due to objections from the art and
> antiquities trade).  The Convention was duly sent to the
> senate for ratification in 1998, but successive Foreign
> Relations Committee Chairmen (of both Parties0 have failed to
> even table the proposal for debate.
>
> 3.  At the 1999 Diplomatic Conference which agreed to update
> the Hague Convention through a Second Protocol the United
> Kingdom also stated that it now supported Ratification of the
> Convention (though not the Protocol) and subject to
> Ministerial;l approval hoped to Ratify alongside the USA.
>
> 4.  The publicly stated policy of both The USA and the UK is
> to comply with the principles of the Hague Convention even
> though neither country is yet formally a party to it.
>
> To me, the puzzle is why has there been such apparent chaos,
> looting and destruction in West Baghdad, with the military
> authorities arguing that nothing could be done about this
> immediately.  In total contrast, following standard US
> military principles, the US Marine Corps which are in charge
> in East Baghdad seems to have moved immediately to assert and
> maintain law and order, so looting, arson etc. has been kept
> under control.  (For example, though little publicised by the
> international press, who are largely holed up in hotels in
> the Business and Government Quarter in West Baghdad, the
> local medical chief this afternoon reported in a TV interview
> that all 12 hospitals east of the River  Tigris were
> immediately guarded and continue to function, with little or
> no looting.)
>
> Unfortunately the national museum was on the wrong side of
> the river, where there seems to have been quite a different
> interpretation of United States and International Military
> and Humanitarian Law from that applied by the commanders of
> the Marines in East Baghdad.
>
>
>
> Patrick Boylan
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search
> the archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html