protection of "cultural property" in war

A question was raised by Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation as to why cultural sights and landmarks are forbidden as targets in armed conflict for US forces. Mention was made of a 1950s treaty dealing with this subject. I'd like to discuss the treaty and to link to a news article on artistic works looted in World War II by Nazi forces.

First, the Treaty.

The 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict defines the following categories of items and places as being protected in armed conflict:

"...(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
-(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
-(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments". " (Art. 1)

In terms of the actions forbidden against such objects and places, cultural property (CP) may not be subject to military danger (Art. 4(1)), theft, vandalism or requisitioning (4(3)), reprisals (4(4)). CP is to be granted immunity from military action (Art. 9) . CP may be transported by a contracting party; such transports are to be protected (Art 12). CP may not be captured (Art. 14(1)), and CP has a distinctive emblem that is to be respected. (Art. 16) And these rules apply in both international and non-international conflicts-- a big step for 1954. (Arts. 18, 19)

These rules sound very much like the rules against targeting hospitals and other medical facilities, especially the provisions on how immunity against attack can be waved if the cultural centres are used for military purposes. Further, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) may be called upon to provide neutral technical assistance in protecting the CP. (Art. 23)

One interesting fact. While 118 states have ratified/aceeded to the Convention, 6 have only signed it: Andorra, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, UK and the US. At least we're not in the company of dictators as we sometimes are in these sorts of Conventions and Treaties. I'm glad to see that the US takes the protection of cultural patrimony seriously in its operations, even if not technically 100% bound to do so under international law.

(This issue of protection for CP has been an issue in the 2003 Iraq War, where the Iraqi National Museum was looted during the lawlessness of the initial period of the military action. There are many reasons this occured-- I do not point fingers-- but it is certainly unfortunant and a loss for all of humanity. I hope the US government, allied governments, UNESCO and/or other international organizations can assist the Iraqi government in rounding up the looted items and those involved.)

Second, the news article.

"Israel's national museum opened two new exhibits Monday of paintings with a tragic history: They were stolen from museums and salons by the Nazis and never reclaimed because many of the rightful owners perished during World War II. "

The subject of returning stolen/looted works to their rightful owners or heirs from the Nazi occupation of Europe has been a long contentious issue. As the article points out, after 60 years, it's increasingly unlikely that these works will be claimed by the survivors or their families. Many in the international community have pointed out the difficulties presented in helping reunite stolen works and goods with rightful owners/heirs because of the facts from the war years: people were driven from their homes with no documents and/or necessary documents were taken from them by the Nazis, making it extremely difficult to prove ownership. This is as much the case with artwork as it is with land, bank accounts, life insurance policies, stocks/bonds and other non-cash commodities. And let us not forget that entire families were murdered, so there are no heirs left to claim the stolen property.

There's also a tremendous difficulty in deciding what is the appropriate course of action when faced with the desire to return cultural or religious objects stolen from communities (synagogues, churches, museums even) when those communities or institutions no longer exist; vast numbers of Jewish communities were wiped off the face of the map by the Nazis and their sacred objects stolen. In such cases, perhaps the best solution is a museum (more or less) dedicated to their preservation and care, and to the story of the museum's acquisition of these objects.

"...Being convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world;..." (Convention, Preamble)