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