BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:14 PM

The British forces were up to the job. They successfully guarded the museum(s) in their sector. Are they more capable than the US forces or something, or do they just have better leadership?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:24 PM

Being "social workers and policemen" - ie taking on responsibility for civil society as necessary - is part of the job of an army when it occupies another country. It's a legal requirement under the Geneva Conventions.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 06:44 PM

Not that I think that the "occupying power" doesn't have some responsibilities for maintaining order, but could somebody tell me which Article in which Geneva Convention states that it has the responsibility to guard museums and to provide social work services? I looked and couldn't find it. The Geneva Conventions (there are 4 plus 2 Additions) are here.

What the applicable treaty (which is the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954) says is as follows: Art. 5. 1. Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its cultural property. Iraq did not sign this, the US and UK did.

It might, BTW, be interesting to take a look at the international treaties which Iraq has signed, here.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 06:59 PM

Wow that's quite a site Mr. Brooks.

Here's one: Each High Contracting Party undertakes to prevent the exportation, from a territory occupied by it during an armed conflict, of cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, signed at The Hague on 14 May 1954.
(Protocol para. 1)

See, also:

Resolution I

The Conference expresses the hope that the competent organs of the United Nations should decide, in the event of military action being taken in implementation of the Charter, to ensure application of the provisions of the Convention by the armed forces taking part in such action.

See, also Resolution II, hoping that each signatory will have qualified specialists on this issue in place for advisement.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b0d5f4c1f4b8102041256739003e6366/6fa17d44aaba6394c12563cd0051d062?OpenDocument

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 07:06 PM

Here is a page by Amnesty about the duties of occupying powers in this context - Iraq - Responsibilities of the occupying powers.

While the Fourth Geneva Convention is part of the legal framework, there is a lot more to it than that. What I said was oversimplified.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 07:34 PM

Thank you, heric...it seems as if that may apply. International treaties should be examined with caution, since they really only apply to nations that have signed them. BTW, it seems that museum staffers and the museum director have some disagreements regarding what may have been taken and what removed elsewhere for safekeeping...article here.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 11:08 PM

they really only apply to nations that have signed them

This means that they apply to the behavior of those who signed them. So if the US signed the treaty, it is bound by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 07:16 AM

I was looking for more information regarding the Geneva Convention when I stumbled upon this chilling tidbit. Apparently US forces are in contact with military lawyers during combat, to determine what can and cannot done when engaging the enemy. According to their interpretation the following was just fine with them:

"Col. Borch has written several books, including his 2001 'Judge Advocates in Combat,' in which he reported that, during the 1991 Gulf war, Army Gen. Tommy Franks radioed a ranking military legal officer to ask whether burying the enemy alive in his own trenches was permitted under the Law of War." Gen. Franks told the judge advocate general that troops were using bulldozers and he could "stop it now" if it was a war crime. But, Col. Borch wrote, the general was assured that it was lawful and was advised to mark sites so the Red Cross could retrieve bodies."
Washington Times Article

I guess smothering them to death might be considered easier and cheaper than blowing them to bits and it certainly was a quick solution regarding dealing with Chapter II, Articles 17 and 18 of the Geneva Convention, but for some reason it made my skin crawl. Perhaps because it seems to contravene an even earlier document:

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907
SECTION II
HOSTILITIES
CHAPTER I
Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Sieges, and bombardments
Article 23

TO DECLARE THAT NO QUARTER WILL BE GIVEN

Interesting too, speaking of the Geneva Convention, that Army Col. Frederick L. Borch III is the top contender to lead the prosecution staff, regarding the POWs at Guantanamo Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 07:23 AM

And the point would be that this is somehow worse than the "traditional" way of getting enemy troops out of bunkers-the flamethrower? War sucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:22 AM

artbrooks, no doubt there, but there does seem to be this mistaken belief that the armed forces of western societies are somehow more civilized and adhere to the tenets of international laws.

The point being, that to declare no quarter given is a no-no under international law; whether one carries out the total slaughter with a flame thrower or a bulldozer is of little distinction to me. Although I did notice you referred to "getting enemy troops out of bunkers" However, there must have been some question in Frank's mind to request a clarification regarding the legality of using bulldozers to bury the "enemy" alive or else why bother asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 09:22 AM

Presumably the idea of General Franks was to cover his back and pass on the legal responsibility. Sort of pre-emptive variant on "I was only obeying orders". A man with a clear idea of how to rise in the system and keep out iof trouble - and it worked for him.

"Chilling" is indeed the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 10:07 AM

Commanders have staffs. The purpose of a staff member is to provide advise. The commander retains full responsibility for the consequences of following that advise, good or bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 02:51 PM

Including the consequences of the times where he has delegated the decision-making, and hasn't gone into the fine details. That's how it should be - except it doesn't seem to work that way. When something goes wrong, the buck stops down at a pretty junior level.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 09:15 AM

I found this article quite thought-provoking. Apparently the ACCP (American Council for Cultural Antiquities), a coalition of art lawyers and antiquities dealers whose members include "collectors and lawyers with chequered histories in collecting valuable artefacts, including alleged exhibitions of Nazi loot," secured a meeting with the US Defense and State Department back in January. This group had been working since 2001 to ease legal restrictions on the removal of Iraqi artifacts from the country after a coalition victory.

"The ACCP's agenda is to encourage the collecting of antiquities through weakening the laws of archaeologically-rich nations and eliminating national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export ... The ACCP has caused deep unease among archaeologists since its creation in 2001."

More information at this Sunday Herald article.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 05:46 PM

That statement has been disavoued by the organization's President.
The rumour that the US is planning to "liberalise" Iraq's tough laws on the export of antiquities, widely reported in the international press, derived from a meeting in Washington on 24 January between the American Council for Cultural Policy (a privately funded association of collectors and lawyers) and Pentagon and State Department officials.

The council's treasurer, William Pearlstein, was later quoted in the US magazine Science as describing Iraq's laws as "retentionist", and he wanted to see "some objects certified for export."

American Council for Cultural Policy president Ashton Hawkins told The Art Newspaper that what Mr Pearlstein had done was to voice his personal opinion after the meeting, and that this, did not represent council policy. He insisted that "there had been no discussion of Iraqi law" at the Washington meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 05:47 PM

Sorry...meant to add, the link is here, along with some other interesting information.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 06:56 PM

It's not "just" the museum in Baghdad - here is an article from Monday's Daily Telegraph (a decidedly Conservative paper, I point out in case Doug is reading the thread),about what has happened in Babylon - Looters strip Babylon palace

Here's a poignant quote: Iraqi museum managers and archaeologists had moved many of the cherished heirlooms of Babylon into the vaults of Baghdad's National Museum to protect them, only to see them looted the day US marines stormed the capital.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi National Museum Looted
From: Peter T.
Date: 21 Apr 03 - 07:19 PM

This week's Spectator, not exactly a left wing magazine, has another very unsettling article about the ACCP -- they actually got to meet the President, big money people. yours, Peter T.