Cultural Property: Protection of Iraqi and Syrian Antiquities
Published: 2016-08-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other groups have seized upon the conflicts in Iraq and Syria to destroy, loot, and traffic cultural property, including antiquities. According to the United Nations (UN), this destruction and looting has reached unprecedented levels. The UN has also reported that since the civil war in Syria began in 2011, ISIS has used the sale of looted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property to generate income to strengthen its capabilities to carry out attacks. Under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, signed into law in 1983, and other laws, the United States has restricted the importation of certain, but not all, Iraqi and Syrian cultural property.
GAO was asked to examine the protection of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, including views of art market experts. This report describes (1) activities undertaken by U.S. agencies and the Smithsonian Institution to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property since 2011, and (2) art market experts' suggestions for improving U.S. government activities. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed U.S., international, and foreign officials. GAO interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of U.S.-based art market experts representing different categories of the art market to obtain suggestions for potentially improving U.S. government activities. GAO then asked experts to rate the importance of these suggestions and obtained U.S. officials' views on experts' top-rated suggestions.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: U.S. agencies and the Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) have undertaken five types of activities to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property since 2011, which include awareness raising, information sharing, law enforcement, overseas capacity building, and destruction prevention. For example, the Department of Homeland Security reported coordinating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to open 18 Iraqi and Syrian cultural property cases—such as those regarding smuggling by individuals and international criminal organizations—between 2011 and February 2016. To enhance the capacity of partners overseas, the Department of State (State), the government of Iraq, and others established an archaeological and cultural management training facility in Erbil, Iraq. In addition, to prevent destruction, the Smithsonian and others trained Syrian antiquities professionals to use sandbags and other materials to protect ancient mosaics at a Syrian museum, reportedly resulting in the successful protection of the museum collection when it was bombed.
Types of Iraqi and Syrian Items at Risk of Being Trafficked
Art market experts identified suggestions related to improving information sharing, clarifying guidance, creating a strategy, and establishing a Department of Defense contact as most important to improving U.S. government activities for cultural property protection. For example, art market experts suggested U.S. agencies could work with nongovernmental entities, such as museums overseas and foreign countries, to improve data management. Specifically, they suggested the creation of a database including information, such as museum catalogues, that could help verify if art market items were stolen. U.S. officials GAO contacted generally agreed with this suggestion and reported some ongoing work in this area. For example, State officials noted that State provides funding to support several projects annually to inventory museum and archaeological sites, including in countries where cultural property may be at risk. Agency officials had various responses to other art market experts' suggestions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others seized upon  instability that began in Iraq in 2003 and in Syria in 2011 to destroy and  steal cultural property, including historical monuments, mosaics, and  other ancient art and antiquities. The United Nations (UN) has expressed  concern that the destruction and looting of such property, including Iraq’s  oldest Christian monastery and two ancient temples in Syria, has reached  unprecedented levels and constitutes the worst cultural heritage crisis  since World War II. International and U.S. government officials, including  the Secretary of State, have noted that these attacks represent assaults  on our shared heritage, reducing the opportunity for historical study and  harming opportunities for sustainable tourism that could be used to boost  local economies. Additionally, the UN has reported that ISIS and other  individuals have generated income from the looting and smuggling of  cultural property from archaeological sites and museums in Iraq and  Syria. This income may be used to support terrorist organizations in  planning and carrying out attacks. In July 2015, the Department of State  (State) announced that a few months earlier, during a raid in eastern  Syria to capture ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf, U.S. Special Operations Forces  recovered a cache of hundreds of archaeological and historical objects,  including objects catalogued as belonging to the Mosul Museum in Iraq.  Documents obtained during the same raid demonstrate that ISIS is  organized to sponsor looting and trafficking of antiquities for profit.
We were asked to examine the protection of Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property, including views of art market experts. This report describes (1)  activities undertaken by U.S. agencies and the Smithsonian Institution  (Smithsonian) to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property since 2011 and  (2) art market experts’ suggestions for improving U.S. government  activities.
To determine the activities undertaken by U.S. agencies and the  Smithsonian to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, we reviewed  documents and data, and interviewed officials representing U.S.  agencies; the Smithsonian; international organizations; and foreign  governments, including the United Kingdom (UK), Italy, and Jordan. We  chose the UK because agency officials and art market experts reported it  represents the second-largest legal antiquities market after the United  States; we chose Italy and Jordan because the U.S. Mission to the UN  reported the two countries’ UN missions were leading an effort to protect  Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. We also reviewed relevant laws  governing cultural property and authorities used by agencies and  international organizations to address cultural property issues.
To obtain art market experts’ suggestions to improve U.S. government  activities to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, we conducted  interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of U.S.-based art market  experts knowledgeable in cultural property protection issues, including  antiquities. We selected these experts based on, among other factors,  representation of different categories of the art market. These art market  experts, who have knowledge of U.S. government activities to protect  cultural property, including some who have worked as government  employees, range from those representing art and antiquities dealers,  auction houses, appraisers, archaeologists, museums, academic  institutions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to lawyers who  bring specialized expertise to cultural property cases. These experts may  not have access to nonpublic information regarding efforts by U.S.  agencies to protect cultural property. Additionally, because our sample  includes individuals covering a broad range of expertise in the art market,  not all individuals have expertise in all areas of cultural property  protection. For instance, individuals in our sample with expertise in one  area, such as archaeology or other academic topics, may not necessarily  have expertise in other areas, such as legal or law enforcement issues.  During our interviews, we asked these art market experts to identify  suggestions for U.S. government improvement to cultural property  protection activities. After compiling their suggestions in a questionnaire  listing their 25 suggestions, we sent the questionnaire to 29 art market  experts to rate the importance of the various suggestions. Of these 29 art  market experts, 26 responded to the questionnaire. Based on the average  score of these 26 art market experts’ ratings of suggestions in the  questionnaire, we identified suggestions that experts rated as highest in  importance and asked U.S. officials to provide their views about these  suggestions. While we report the views of art market experts and U.S.  officials related to these suggestions, we are not expressing an opinion  on them. To gather information for both objectives, we interviewed  government officials and art market experts in Washington, D.C.; New  York, New York; and London, UK. See appendix I for more details on our  scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2015 to August 2016  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Destruction, Looting, and Trafficking of Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property
paragraphs: The destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property, especially  during times of political instability and armed conflict, is a longstanding  international concern. Destruction of cultural property entails intentional or  unintentional bombing and damage to sites and objects. Looting involves  the illegal removal of undocumented objects from a site or structure not  already excavated. Objects documented as part of a collection may also  be stolen from individuals, museums and similar institutions, and other  places of origin. Looted and stolen objects may be trafficked, or illicitly  traded, sometimes outside the location in which the objects were looted  or stolen.
The United States has a history of protecting cultural property during  times of conflict. For example, when the Nazi regime made a practice of  looting art and other cultural property during World War II, the Allied  Armies established the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Section,  known as the Monuments Men, who restored and returned to their rightful  owners more than 5 million works of art, though many thousands of  pieces of art were never recovered by their rightful owners (see fig. 1).
Although cultural property has been destroyed throughout history, the civil  war in Syria, which began in 2011, and the rise of ISIS in portions of Iraq,  has resulted in what members of the UN have called the worst cultural  heritage crisis since World War II. Several parties to the Syrian conflict  have contributed to the destruction of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property.
According to a State-funded research project on cultural property, terrorist  organizations; Iraqi, Russian, and Syrian airstrikes; Kurdish groups;  Syrian opposition groups; and individual actors have damaged cultural  sites and property. Damages include the shelling of medieval cities and  looting of museums containing items that date back more than 6  millennia. By around July 2014, ISIS had destroyed hundreds of religious  sites throughout the territory it controlled, including Christian statues of  the Virgin Mary and the tomb of the Prophet Jonah in Mosul.  Furthermore, according to a United Nations Educational, Scientific and  Cultural Organization (UNESCO) official, ISIS bombed two temples in  Palmyra, Syria, and brutally murdered a Syrian archaeologist in August  2015, after reportedly questioning him about the location of valuable  artifacts in the city. Iraq and Syria have 10 World Heritage sites that  UNESCO has determined to be of cultural or natural significance. See  figure 2 for a map of reported damage and looting at these culturally and  naturally significant sites.
In addition to the destruction of cultural property, State officials reported  that looters, including people affiliated with ISIS and other terrorist  organizations, other parties to the conflict, as well as opportunistic  individuals, have illegally excavated areas in Iraq and Syria, presumably  in search of antiquities to sell. The proceeds of these sales could be  linked to financing terrorism, according to a Deputy Assistant Secretary of  State. For example, ISIS manages and profits from industrial-scale looting  at sites it controls in Iraq and Syria. Moreover, satellite imagery shows the  archaeological site Dura Europos in Syria in 2012, before extensive  looting, and after extensive looting in 2014, as depicted in the visible  looting pits in figure 3.
A Deputy Assistant Secretary of State reported that ISIS has encouraged  the looting of archeological sites as a means of both erasing the cultural  heritage of Iraq and Syria and raising money. The State official noted that  the U.S. raid to capture ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf resulted in the finding of  documents that demonstrated that ISIS had established an Antiquities  Division with units dedicated to researching known archaeological sites,  exploring new ones, and marketing antiquities. According to these  documents, the Antiquities Division collects a 20 percent tax on the  proceeds of antiquities looting and issues permits authorizing certain  individuals to excavate and supervise excavations of artifacts. Documents  found during the raid also indicate ISIS made statements prohibiting  others from excavating or giving permits not authorized by ISIS. Sales  receipts indicated the terrorist group had earned more than $265,000 in  taxes on the sale of antiquities over a 4-month period in late 2014 and  early 2015. However, the director of the State-funded project on cultural  property reported that there are no reliable and publicly available  estimates of the revenue ISIS earns from trade in stolen cultural property  overall. Nonetheless, State officials also noted that although trafficking is  difficult to quantify, ISIS has increasingly turned to the antiquities trade as  access to revenue from other sources, such as oil, has been restricted.
According to the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the  categories of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property most vulnerable to  trafficking range from written objects, figural sculpture, stamps, and seals  such as cylinder seals, to coins and clay tablets with cuneiform writing  (see figs. 4 and 5).
According to experts, cultural property looted from Iraq and Syria is at risk  of being trafficked to the United States and Europe. A State-funded  research project reported that traffickers are likely smuggling cultural  property out of Iraq and Syria, through Turkey and Lebanon, and on to  Europe; art market experts believe that some material may also be  destined for the Middle East and Asia. According to art market experts,  the United States and the United Kingdom have historically had the two  largest markets for legal antiquities, particularly in New York City and  London. Some art market experts have speculated that illicitly obtained  Iraqi and Syrian items may end up in these markets, often after having  gone through intermediaries. Many art market experts we interviewed told  us that they had not seen suspicious Iraqi and Syrian cultural property for  sale in the United States, particularly newly circulated objects that could  have been looted or stolen recently. The art market experts who reported  an absence of antiquities on the market noted that media attention may  be deterring buyers from acquiring objects, causing traffickers to find  clients in markets other than the United States and Europe, or delaying  the sale of items, as happened with items looted from the Iraq National  Museum in Baghdad during the Second Gulf War in Iraq. However, other  art market experts noted they had seen some cultural property they  suspected of having been looted from Iraq or Syria for sale on the internet  and in galleries. Further, according to State officials, antiquities dealers  and auction houses may never see suspicious items because these items  may remain entirely in the illicit market or surface only on internet sales  websites.
section_title: International Agreements and U.S. Laws and Regulations on Cultural Property Protection
paragraphs: In addressing destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property,  UNESCO adopted conventions in 1954 and 1970 to protect cultural  property. The 1954 convention addresses cultural property protection  during armed conflict, and the 1970 convention addresses the protection  of cultural property against illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership.
Ratified by the United States in 2009, the 1954 Convention for the  Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954  Hague Convention), in part, calls on parties to refrain from any act of  hostilities against their own or other parties’ cultural property, to refrain  from using such property for purposes that are likely to expose it to  destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict, and prohibit theft  and acts of vandalism against such cultural property. If one party  occupies the territory of another party in whole or in part, the occupying  party, as far as possible, is to support the competent national authorities  of the occupied country in safeguarding the occupied party’s cultural  property. Additionally, should it prove necessary to take measures to  preserve cultural property situated in occupied territory and damaged by  military operations, the occupying party shall, as far as possible, and in  close cooperation with the authorities of the occupied party, take the most  necessary measures to preserve cultural property damaged during the  conflict should the competent national authorities be unable to do so. Iraq  and Syria are signatories to the 1954 Hague Convention.
The United States enacted the Convention on Cultural Property  Implementation Act (CPIA) into law in 1983, thereby implementing  provisions of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting  and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of  Cultural Property (1970 UNESCO Convention). Through the CPIA, the  United States has restricted the importation of certain cultural property.  For example, as it relates to cultural property from Iraq and Syria, this  restriction covers cultural property documented as belonging to the  inventory of a museum or a religious or secular public monument or  similar institution, which was stolen from such museum, monument, or  institution after April 12, 1983.
In addition to the 1983 CPIA import restriction on stolen documented  property, the United States has implemented other restrictions related to  a wider range of cultural property from Iraq and Syria. In response to  Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States imposed  comprehensive sanctions against Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein  in 2003, the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad was looted, resulting in  the loss of approximately 15,000 items, including ancient amulets,  sculptures, ivories, and cylinder seals. Some of these items, such as the  one shown in figure 6, were returned to the museum. In 2007, pursuant to  the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004, State  determined the existence of an emergency condition under the CPIA, and  import restrictions for cultural property illegally removed from locations in  Iraq other than museums and monuments since 1990 were also put in  place. In February 2015, the United Nations Security Council  unanimously adopted resolution 2199, which notes, in part, that all  member states shall take appropriate steps to prevent the trade in Iraqi  and Syrian cultural property illegally removed from Iraq since August 6,  1990, and from Syria since March 15, 2011. In May 2016, the United  States passed the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property  Act, which requires the President to restrict the importation of Syrian  archaeological and ethnological material beginning no later than August  2016.
While the CPIA restricts the importation of documented cultural property  that is stolen from state parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention— including Iraq and Syria—some imports, regardless of their country of  origin, are exempt from the CPIA. For example, the CPIA does not  apply to some items that are imported into the United States for  temporary exhibition or display. Additionally, CPIA restrictions do not  apply to some imported items if certain documentation is provided  verifying its history of ownership. See appendix II for more details on  these exemptions and on specific restrictions codified in regulations that  apply to Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. While the CPIA is specific to  cultural property, agency officials reported that other legal authorities  have been used to prosecute cultural property cases.
section_title: Due Diligence on Cultural Property Transactions
paragraphs: According to art market experts we interviewed, since the passage of the  CPIA, and given media attention to legal cases regarding stolen  antiquities, art market participants have focused on documenting certain  aspects of their transactions to protect against allegations of illicit activity.  To do so, art market participants often conduct “due diligence,” or  research to verify the identity, authenticity, and value of an object and to  have assurance that an object of cultural property was not illicitly traded.  Art market experts we interviewed told us that they use their own  discretion and professional judgment to conduct due diligence for  antiquities they purchase and sell. To avoid the purchase of cultural  property that may have been looted or otherwise stolen, experts noted  that due diligence should include—but not be limited to—three steps: (1)  researching the item’s history, or provenance; (2) checking databases  that may have a catalogue of stolen items; and (3) following additional  guidelines established by professional and commercial antiquities market  associations.
Provenance. According to the Smithsonian, provenance is the history of  ownership of an artwork or other artifact and provides important  information about the attribution, or determination of authorship, of the  object. The Smithsonian officials and art market experts we interviewed  noted that provenance can be challenging to establish, and the level of  provenance that art market participants obtain may vary. For example,  in a public description of provenance research challenges, the  Smithsonian noted that provenance researchers may sometimes find that  no records of transfer for an object were created or retained; collectors  wish to remain anonymous when selling artworks through galleries and  auction houses; or records are unclear, inaccurate, or give inadequate or  conflicting information. Some museum curators outside of the  Smithsonian told us that they do not accept items that came into the  United States after a certain year, while other experts noted that any  reference to an item that establishes its location during a certain time  frame, such as a picture or a letter that made reference to the item, may  be accepted as provenance. Some art market experts reported that items  with provenance that appears unquestionable are likely to sell for a higher  price, and that those without provenance may not be accepted in the  market.
Databases. To help vet antiquities for sale, art market experts also  informed us that databases exist for tracking stolen art and antiquities.  For example, art market dealers often check with the databases  maintained by Art Loss Register and Art Recovery International. Both  organizations are private companies that, according to their  representatives, include some information from the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies in their  databases, in addition to registering stolen items on behalf of individuals.  State officials and art market experts noted that these databases only  contain items for which ownership information and descriptions have  been documented, whereas items looters have excavated from the  ground or items otherwise undocumented prior to being looted would not  be registered in the databases.
Association Guidelines. Professional and commercial associations  related to museums, antiquities, and ancient coins have developed  guidance for their members to follow, such as codes of ethics, guidelines  for conducting due diligence, and affidavits for buyers and sellers. For  example, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) has guidelines  regarding the definition of “antiquity” to help inform due diligence required  for transactions of such items. AAMD updated its guidance for acquiring  archaeological material and ancient art in 2013, including a statement  deploring illicit excavation of archaeological materials and ancient art; the  destruction or defacing of ancient monuments; and the theft of art from  museums, individuals, and other repositories. In addition, the  International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art established a code of  ethics and practice that states its members should not purchase or sell  objects until they have established, to the best of their ability, that such  objects were not stolen from excavations, can guarantee the authenticity  of all objects they offer to the best of their professional knowledge and  belief, and check items in excess of a certain dollar value with stolen art  registers recognized by the association’s board. Furthermore, the  International Association of Professional Numismatists established a code  of ethics that lists five responsibilities for its members, including a  statement calling on members to never knowingly deal in any item stolen  from a public or private coin collection or reasonably suspected to be the  direct product of an illicit excavation, and to conduct transactions in  accordance with the laws of the countries in which they do business.
section_title: Federal Cultural Property Protection Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: U.S. agencies, including the Departments of State, Homeland Security  (DHS), Justice (DOJ), the Treasury (Treasury), and Defense (DOD), as  well as the Smithsonian, reported having roles and responsibilities related  to protecting cultural property worldwide, as shown in table 1.
section_title: U.S. Agencies and the Smithsonian Have Undertaken Five Types of Activities to Protect Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property Since 2011
paragraphs: U.S. agencies and the Smithsonian have undertaken five categories of  activities intended to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, including  awareness raising, information sharing, law enforcement efforts, overseas  capacity building, and preventing destruction, as shown in figure 7.  Agency officials noted that some of these activities are done in  conjunction with international organizations and foreign governments and  that those partners also conduct efforts to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property that fall into the same five categories. Examples of international  partners’ activities are provided in appendix III.
Awareness raising. According to agency officials, raising awareness of  the destruction, looting, and trafficking of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property  can be important in promoting its protection. For instance, awareness  raising can help alert the art market and law enforcement to the possibility  of illicit items appearing in the United States. Further, publicizing U.S. law  enforcement efforts may deter looters.
Since 2011, U.S. agencies have undertaken a number of awareness- raising activities related to Iraq and Syria, such as funding the  development and circulation of Emergency Red Lists, which describe the  types of items that would likely be looted, hosting public events, and  promoting due diligence. State’s Cultural Heritage Center (CHC) provided  support to ICOM to create an Emergency Red List of Syrian Cultural  Objects at Risk in 2013 and to update its Emergency Red List of Iraqi  Cultural Objects at Risk in 2015 (see fig. 8). The lists illustrate and  describe the types of items likely to have been found in illegal excavations  in the two countries. According to officials, the illustrations in the Red  Lists can serve as a resource to help the art market and law enforcement  determine whether items they encounter may have been looted.
U.S. agencies have also hosted public events and ceremonies to raise  awareness about Iraqi and Syrian cultural property protection. For  example, State’s CHC officials reported having worked with the  Metropolitan Museum of Art, UNESCO, and others to bring together U.S.  government officials, international organizations, and other stakeholders  to discuss how they can cooperate to curb the looting and trafficking of  Iraqi and Syrian antiquities. Moreover, DHS and the FBI, working with  State and the government of Iraq, have conducted public ceremonies of  the repatriation of Iraqi cultural property seized for investigations.
In addition, U.S. agencies have promoted due diligence in the art market.  For instance, State and the FBI have issued policies and alerts  encouraging individuals to conduct due diligence to avoid purchasing  items that may have been looted or stolen. For example, State issued a  policy on its website noting that all U.S. citizens should exercise care  when purchasing cultural property items abroad to ensure that objects  were not stolen or looted and that their export does not violate host- country law. Similarly, the FBI publicly announced a list of issues that  buyers should address as part of due diligence, including reviewing  import and export documents, the history of ownership, and information  about the buyer or seller. Furthermore, U.S. agencies alerted the art and  antiquities market to the potential connection between terrorism financing  and purchasing Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. State’s Bureau of  Diplomatic Security announced in September 2015 that its Rewards for  Justice program would offer awards of up to $5 million for information  leading to the significant disruption of the sale or trade of antiquities by,  for, on behalf of, or to benefit, ISIS. Moreover, the FBI issued an alert on  the agency’s website to the art and antiquities market—specifically  individuals and institutions in the trade and their clients, and professional  and academic communities—in August 2015, noting that purchasing an  object looted or sold by ISIS may provide financial support to a terrorist  organization, which could be subject to prosecution. The FBI has also  held teleconferences with members of the art market, such as dealers  and auction houses, related to the looting and trafficking of Iraqi and  Syrian cultural property.
Additionally, DOD officials reported that DOD had produced training  products to raise awareness among U.S. military personnel and DOD  contractors in Iraq regarding the importance and value of preserving and  protecting cultural property.
Information sharing. Agency officials reported that sharing information  among agencies and with stakeholders is a key activity for protecting Iraqi  and Syrian cultural property. Agencies sought to share information among  U.S. agencies and with international organizations and foreign  governments. Specifically, State, DHS, DOJ, and others participate in an  interagency task force, called the Cultural Antiquities Task Force, which  has funded activities for law enforcement efforts to combat theft, looting,  and trafficking of historically and culturally significant objects from Iraq.  Additionally, State, Treasury, DOD, and others have interagency efforts to  prevent ISIS from financing its activities, which may include trafficking of  antiquities in Iraq and Syria. State has supported international information  sharing by working through the UN on resolutions related to Iraqi and  Syrian cultural property protection and has met with groups representing  religious minorities from Iraq and Syria to share information about  resources that U.S. agencies can offer to assist in protecting cultural  property. State also funded an NGO to document looting and destruction  of cultural heritage sites in Iraq and Syria to assess future restoration,  preservation, and protection needs.
Law enforcement efforts. Law enforcement efforts to counter smuggling  and deter looting of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property include investigating  suspicious imports, repatriating items, and providing cultural property  training and guidance to law enforcement personnel. For instance, DHS’s  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported having coordinated with each other,  the FBI, and other agencies to open 17 cases related to Iraqi cultural  property and 1 related to Syrian cultural property between 2011 and  February 2016. The cases were opened at 13 DHS offices in the United  States, including Boston, New York, New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles,  Phoenix, and San Antonio. Among these cases, those that have been  closed included an investigation identifying a transnational criminal  organization dealing in illicit cultural property and shipping to major  museums, galleries, and art houses in New York; individuals smuggling  and transporting stolen property; and individuals selling cultural property  on Craigslist without import documentation. ICE estimated it had  repatriated 1,350 items of Iraqi cultural property since 2008. Figure 9  depicts an example of a repatriated item.
The FBI’s Art Crime Team has also recovered and repatriated Iraqi  cultural property items. For example, in 2005, the FBI recovered eight  cylinder seals looted in Iraq; in 2006, the FBI investigated a case  involving terracotta plaques and other artifacts taken from Iraq by defense  contractors; and in 2013, the FBI repatriated four Iraqi cylinder seals.  Additionally, agencies provided guidance and training to law enforcement  personnel and attorneys regarding Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. For  example, CBP and ICE issued guidance to their officers, and to agents  from other departments, alerting them to attempts to smuggle recently  looted items into the United States. The guidance included resources,  such as the State-funded ICOM Emergency Red Lists; contact  information for specialists in ICE’s Cultural Property, Art and Antiquities  office; and a link to State’s description of cultural property items restricted  from import. CBP’s general guidance and training for personnel includes  information on cultural property. According to CBP officials, in May 2016,  CBP created a Cultural Property Integrated Project Team comprised of  law enforcement, legal, and policy personnel to address issues relating to  CBP’s enforcement of cultural property laws. Similarly, according to  agency officials, DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys  (EOUSA) has worked with others to develop voluntary, web-based  cultural property training for its assistant U.S. attorneys nationwide,  funded by State.
Overseas capacity building. U.S. officials highlighted the importance of  building the capacity of governments and individuals overseas to protect  cultural property, such as by providing training on conservation and  repair. For example, State has funded activities to train Iraqi art  conservators and museum curators on topics such as creating museum  inventories and techniques for conservation and repair of cultural  property. These projects have included work with the Iraqi State Board of  Antiquities and Heritage to develop policies and practices to help protect  and manage sites in the future. For one of these projects, working with  museums and conservation specialists, State established and funded an  archaeological site protection and collection management training facility  in Erbil, Iraq, which State officials said had trained approximately 350  Iraqi professionals between 2009 and June 2016 using public and private  U.S. funds. In February 2016, State added the Smithsonian to the project,  and the Smithsonian began teaching an 18-week course. Separately, in  2016, the Smithsonian worked with UNESCO, the International Centre for  the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, and  others on another project to provide training to cultural property protection  professionals, including some from Iraq and Syria, on protecting cultural  property during times of crisis.
Preventing destruction. U.S. officials also reported activities related to  preventing the physical destruction of cultural property. For example,  DOD takes information from lists of cultural property sites in Iraq and  Syria into consideration when planning military action. Further, the  Smithsonian officials reported they had worked with universities and  NGOs to train Syrian antiquities professionals to protect museum  collections against bombs, looting, and other threats to art in conflict  areas. For instance, their training on the use of sandbags and other  materials to protect ancient mosaics at a Syrian museum resulted in the  reportedly successful protection of immovable mosaics at the Ma’arra  Museum in Idlib Province.
section_title: Art Market Experts’ Top-Rated Suggestions Include Improving Information Sharing, Clarifying Guidance, Creating a Strategy, and Establishing a DOD Contact
paragraphs: Art market experts we interviewed suggested 25 ways in which the U.S.  government could improve its cultural property protection activities. The  26 art market experts who responded to our questionnaire identified 7 of  these 25 suggestions, as shown in table 2, as being of the highest  importance (one case had a tied ranking) for protecting cultural property  by U.S. agencies. See appendix IV for a table of all 25 suggestions and  their average ratings.
Art market experts provided comments on their suggestions to improve  U.S. cultural property protection activities, and U.S. officials provided  comments on the suggestions rated as most important by art market  experts, as summarized below.
Improve information sharing among U.S. agencies
Many art market experts expressed the view that it would be helpful if  U.S. agencies shared more information with each other more  regularly, including information that law enforcement agencies have  on cultural property cases. These art market experts also  recommended improved interagency coordination in conjunction with  increased information sharing. Some stated that increased information  sharing among U.S. law enforcement agencies could help leverage  expertise and increase the likelihood of resolving cases. For instance,  some art market experts discussed their perception that DHS entities  and the FBI appear to have overlapping law enforcement  responsibilities, and they could improve communication with each  other.
U.S. officials recognized that more information sharing could be  helpful, but most, including State and DOJ’s FBI and EOUSA, noted  that information is already regularly shared among U.S. agencies. FBI  officials noted that it regularly and proactively shares information, as  appropriate, with law enforcement partners and that the FBI is an  active member of the State-led Cultural Antiquities Task Force, which  furthers these efforts. These officials further explained to us that art  market experts’ suggestions on the issue may be the result of their not  being fully informed about interagency communication, as it may not  be appropriate for law enforcement agencies to alert the public about  such communication. EOUSA officials noted that although  longstanding DOJ practice prevents them from commenting to the  public regarding prosecutorial processes, EOUSA takes all allegations  of criminal conduct very seriously and carefully reviews investigative  evidence presented to support such allegations in light of the  Principles of Federal Prosecution. State officials responded to the  comment made by art market experts about overlapping law  enforcement responsibilities, stating that different agencies have their  own sources and contacts; thus, the alleged duplicate responsibilities  to investigate and prosecute cases are not necessarily a problem.  Further, according to EOUSA officials, limited resources in this  particular field make all cultural property law enforcement more  difficult than necessary, and periodic, possibly quarterly, meetings  among the agencies might be helpful, mainly to facilitate awareness of  contacts in other agencies. DHS officials commented that information  sharing allows agencies to make use of limited resources and develop  a broader, more comprehensive view of the transnational criminal  organizations that are trafficking cultural property. DHS officials added  that agencies are given the opportunity to question and learn from  each other’s experience in cultural property and that through domestic  training and international workshops, law enforcement agencies can  learn firsthand about cultural property cases, including the  investigations and prosecutions processes, as well as the challenges  and best practices stemming from those cases. DHS officials  emphasized that existing training, workshops, and meetings of the  Cultural Antiquities Task Force provide information sharing  opportunities and further noted that some redundancy among law  enforcement agencies allows for the agency most readily available to  assist in an investigation. According to DHS officials, agencies may  also have different areas of expertise, different missions, and different  legal authorities, as well as different systems and processes in place.  These differences could be advantageous when one agency does not  have the authority to pursue a lead but another does, though these  differences could also complicate information sharing among  agencies.
Increase support of public-private partnerships and collaboration  with foreign countries on data management
Art market experts highlighted a need for the U.S. government to  increase support for and work with the private sector and foreign  countries to improve the management of foreign countries’ cultural  property data, such as museum inventories. For example, art market  experts reported that looters may steal items from museums and from  storage sites or artifacts from archaeological excavations in Iraq and  Syria. Museums and archaeologists sometimes maintain catalogues  and documentation of their collections and findings; however,  according to experts, this information is not widely shared. Art market  experts also noted that some archaeologists who worked in Iraq and  Syria have begun to collect and share their information for the  purposes of tracking down potentially looted items, but some said this  information is not yet accessible. Some art market experts said an  inventory of items could be helpful to include in a registry or database  and to share with the art market and law enforcement to help verify  whether items are being sold that have been previously documented  as stolen. They also emphasized the importance of collecting and  sharing such information carefully, as it could identify items that have  not been looted. Moreover, some suggested the need for the U.S.  government to encourage foreign countries to share information and  work together to maintain a centralized database.
U.S. officials generally agreed with this suggestion and emphasized  their ongoing work in this area. State officials noted that the U.S.  government can, and already does, assist countries with their  museum inventories within the proper frameworks, assuming the  foreign country desires it. For example, State officials explained that  the United States almost always uses its bilateral cultural property  agreements concluded pursuant to the CPIA with foreign countries to  promote efforts to maintain inventories of heritage sites, collections at  museums, and other cultural institutions. Additionally, State’s  Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation supports several  projects around the world annually to develop museum and site  inventories, including in countries where collections, archaeological  sites, and other forms of cultural heritage are at risk. Finally, such  measures are a usual component of State’s Cultural Antiquities Task  Force international workshops on cultural heritage site protection and  promotion of bilateral and regional cooperation to prevent looting,  theft, and trafficking. DHS officials also supported the idea of  institutions or countries developing their own registries of goods that  are reported lost or stolen, noting that such registries could help bring  looters and thieves to justice. According to DHS officials, there are  several existing international registries that include similar information.  DHS officials further stated that they encourage any and all private  entities and foreign governments to share information pertaining to  potential U.S. Customs violations involving cultural property. They  commented, however, that the U.S. government may encourage, but  cannot force, countries to share information. Smithsonian officials  noted they viewed this suggestion as being helpful. They emphasized  that the Smithsonian is working on an agreement with the World  Customs Organization, which relates to international cultural property  data and training, according to Smithsonian officials. They also stated  that the Smithsonian is conducting research regarding threats to  collections data and threats to cultural property.
Increase collaboration with foreign countries to share law  enforcement information internationally
Art market experts rated increasing U.S. government collaboration  with foreign countries to share law enforcement information  internationally as highly important. Some art market experts noted that  countries such as Italy have effective cultural property management  and law enforcement systems that the United States could benefit  from. However, some stated that U.S. agencies do not appear to be  able to obtain such information from foreign countries. Others  suggested the need for an international organization, such as  UNESCO or the International Criminal Police Organization  (INTERPOL), to centralize various countries’ law enforcement  information on looting and trafficking of cultural property items and  encourage countries to share more information than they currently do.
Many U.S. agency officials generally did not agree with art market  experts’ comments that U.S. law enforcement agencies are  systematically unable to obtain information from foreign law  enforcement partners for investigations and provided many examples  of ways in which agencies share information with foreign partners and  INTERPOL. For example, State officials said that, contrary to the  experts’ perception, U.S. law enforcement has effective, existing  bilateral mechanisms in place, such as regular meetings and  workshops that allow for information sharing. With regard to  collaboration with foreign countries, FBI officials noted that their  agency’s extensive network of overseas staff regularly shares and  receives investigative information from foreign partners. DHS officials  commented that DHS also has an extensive overseas footprint, with  ICE agents in 62 locations around the world, which supports  information sharing with foreign partners in law enforcement.  According to EOUSA officials, collaboration varies from country to  country, and countries that have effective cultural property  management and law enforcement programs generally receive  cooperation more easily from the United States. EOUSA officials  noted that an effective domestic cultural property management and  law enforcement system comparable to that of Italy would be a very  useful goal for the United States, whose own cultural property,  including Native American artifacts, is the subject of overseas  trafficking. Regarding U.S. agencies’ collaboration with international  organizations, State and DOJ’s FBI and EOUSA officials all clarified  that they are already connected with INTERPOL, and DHS officials  noted that INTERPOL already supports the function of collaboration  with foreign countries to share law enforcement information. FBI  officials reported that they leverage the information capability of  INTERPOL, while State officials commented that the Cultural  Antiquities Task Force holds workshops to include ICE, FBI, and  INTERPOL participants for promoting bilateral and regional  cooperation. State officials added that INTERPOL’s Database of  Stolen Works of Art is steadily being improved and that the reporting  and appropriate diffusion of cultural property crime data is an  important INTERPOL responsibility. DHS officials also mentioned  UNESCO’s searchable database of cultural property laws, funded by  State, and reiterated their comments that information sharing among  U.S. agencies and collaboration with foreign countries on cultural  property allows for fuller use of limited resources. Finally, State  officials noted that State stands ready to assist law enforcement  agencies in obtaining information relevant to individual cases and  trafficking as a whole.
Improve CBP guidance on importing cultural property
Many art market experts suggested that CBP could improve its  guidance on importing cultural property, such as clarifying information  required in Customs declaration forms for imported goods. Art market  experts commented that CBP’s May 2006 guide to the trade  community on cultural property, What Every Member of the Trade  Community Should Know About: Works of Art, Collector’s Pieces,  Antiques, and Other Cultural Property, is the most recent guidance on  CBP’s website and should be updated. The document discusses  requirements for the importation of cultural property, including special  rules that apply to certain types of cultural property because of  international agreements, treaties, or other requirements. For cultural  property in particular, many art market experts emphasized the  difficulty they have encountered in determining the “country of origin,”  which some thought CBP generally defines as the place of  manufacture. However, they noted that ancient borders do not align  with modern state boundaries, which complicates attempts to  determine the origin of antiquities. For example, a Roman artifact may  have been manufactured in one part of ancient Rome and found in  Italy, Iraq, Syria, or any of the countries once included in the shifting  borders of the ancient Roman Empire. According to some art market  experts, tracing the origins of items that were made to be circulated,  such as coins, is even more complicated. Moreover, many art market  experts we spoke to provided examples of cases in which the importer  would declare a European country to be an antiquity’s country of  origin because it had been held in that country for some time.  According to UK art dealers we spoke to, requirements for export  documents from the country an item leaves before coming to the  United States have changed over the years. They sought new  guidance from CBP regarding what to do with items with older export  documents that may not match newer requirements.
Within DHS, CBP officials agreed with the suggestion for updating the  May 2006 trade guide, and ICE officials noted that they support CBP  in its ongoing efforts to streamline and clarify guidance provided to  individuals and companies wishing to import goods to the United  States. DOJ’s EOUSA officials agreed that guidance and clarification,  including definitions, should be updated. State officials commented  that there may be confusion about the issue of country of origin of  archaeological material being considered for importation, and that it  could be worthwhile for State and CBP to consult on a definition of the  country of origin for archaeological materials that could be adopted  and used by CBP and others.
Increase training of law enforcement officers
Art market experts noted the importance of improved and increased  training on cultural property investigations for law enforcement  agencies, including ICE, CBP, and the FBI. Some art market experts  said that they thought that training for CBP officers and ICE agents  may not be adequate. As a result, according to art market experts,  these officials may not recognize looted material or know how to  handle delicate cultural property. Some art market experts discussed  the need for training as part of agencies’ need for increased resources  dedicated to cultural property protection. For example, some art  market experts commented that the FBI’s 16-person Art Crime Team  appears to have well-trained agents but may not have enough  resources and that CBP and ICE do not seem to have a sufficient  number of agents with expertise to investigate cultural property cases.  Some art market experts said that ICE agents have received training  provided by State and the Smithsonian but CBP officers did not  appear to have similar training.
Agency officials had mixed responses to this suggestion, noting that  increased training is tied to additional agency resources. DHS officials  commented that they continue to work with State and the Smithsonian  to enhance the training provided to ICE, CBP, U.S. prosecutors, and  foreign law enforcement. According to DHS officials, the agency  participates in State-funded international workshops with  representatives of foreign cultural and law enforcement agencies to  share challenges and best practices related to the trafficking of  cultural property. DHS’s CBP officials pointed out that, unlike ICE,  CBP does not have agents working on cases but employs officers to  work at ports of entry where they may encounter cultural property.  CBP officials commented that CBP is actively involved in attending  cultural property training provided by State and the Smithsonian.  Officials representing EOUSA received the idea of increased training  for assistant U.S. attorneys positively, especially if done in conjunction  with training for FBI and DHS agents. FBI officials confirmed that the  agency’s Art Crime Team includes well-trained agents that manage  cultural property cases, but FBI officials disagreed that resources  were insufficient.
Other agencies’ officials commented that existing cultural property  training for law enforcement officers could be expanded, particularly  for CBP officials, but that doing so would require more resources. For  example, State, ICE, and the Smithsonian created a training course  entitled “Preventing Illicit Trafficking; Protecting Cultural Heritage,”  which 265 law enforcement officials have attended since 2009,  including some CBP officers. According to State officials, this training  was funded by State under its Congressional mandate for  administering the Cultural Antiquities Task Force. Smithsonian  officials stated that in the January 2016 course, 4 of 28 training  participants were from CBP and that, if the Smithsonian had additional  resources, it would be able to provide more training for CBP and ICE.  State officials reported that State is in consultation with DHS to  explore ways to enhance CBP training. DHS commented that funding  for training is limited and reallocating funds for that purpose diverts  funds from other mission-critical areas; according to DHS officials,  DHS currently does not have a budget for cultural property training. In  particular, CBP officials stated that the agency has not received  funding for cultural property training. State officials noted that, having  expertise in providing specialized cultural property training, they have  had discussions about how State’s training efforts could best be  extended to much larger numbers of CBP personnel, an effort that  would require additional human and budgetary resources. EOUSA  officials also reported that there is periodic training for assistant U.S.  attorneys, annual Art Crime Team training, and annual training  provided by ICE and the Smithsonian but that these training courses  need to be expanded. Regarding art market experts’ comments  related to agency resources, the FBI officials explained that cultural  property cases are investigated out of 1 or more of the FBI’s 56 field  offices across the country. Therefore, the FBI’s capacity to investigate  federal crimes related to cultural property crimes is not limited to the  Art Crime Team in headquarters. EOUSA officials added that  increased resources and prioritization are required to address the  breadth of cultural property crime. Furthermore, State officials  commented that to be effective in reducing pillage, law enforcement  efforts should go beyond importation decisions, including prosecutions  of traffickers and buyers of illicit cultural property, when appropriate.  According to DHS officials, DHS seeks to bring criminals to justice  wherever possible and believes that prosecutions both remove  criminals from the street and serve as deterrents to other individuals  and organizations seeking to profit from trafficking of cultural property.
Art market experts suggested that an overarching strategy on cultural  property protection would communicate and emphasize U.S. priorities  on the issue of cultural property protection and that it should include  diplomatic and law enforcement elements. In addition, a strategy  focused on cultural property should clearly define agency roles and  priorities. Many art market experts we spoke with commented that  U.S. agencies currently do not appear to have clearly delineated  roles, and these art market experts were unclear which agency would  be responsible for addressing certain cultural property issues. For  example, some art market experts that we spoke with noted that they  did not understand the different roles that DHS and FBI play and that  it sometimes appears as though their responsibilities overlap. Also, art  market experts expressed concern that, although State leads a law  enforcement task force, agencies participating in the task force may  not be sharing information effectively, and not all agencies may know  to attend. In addition, many art market experts we spoke to suggested  that creating a government-wide strategy would complement the  suggestion to establish a single point of contact for cultural property in  the U.S. government.
Agency officials expressed mixed views regarding art market experts’  suggestion for a government-wide strategy, but some agency officials  said that the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act  enacted in May 2016 reinforces interagency coordination. Specifically,  State officials noted that a strategy on cultural property protection  could potentially increase coordination between different agencies but  could also be difficult to implement, potentially restrict agency  flexibility in meeting new challenges, and might not achieve any new  goals. State officials also reported that art market experts are not  likely to know the full range of cooperation and information sharing  that currently takes place. Similarly, the FBI officials disagreed with  the suggestion that the agency may not be sharing information  effectively, commenting that the FBI has clearly defined roles and  priorities and works to deconflict investigations with other federal law  enforcement agencies. State officials noted that State has an ongoing  interagency leadership and coordination role on cultural heritage  protection and preservation. Participation in State’s Cultural  Antiquities Task Force is by invitation only, and State is always open  to suggestions concerning inclusion of additional agencies, although  State cannot always accept the suggestions. DHS officials added that  the agency supports the role of State’s Cultural Heritage Center and  the Cultural Antiquities Task Force in efforts to coordinate U.S.  government strategy on cultural property. In contrast, officials from  EOUSA noted that there is sometimes an overlap of agency roles that  occurs with investigations of all crime and that information sharing is  an important action. They commented that the FBI and ICE have art  market outreach efforts, but these could be improved. State officials  commented that the overlapping roles of ICE and FBI are probably  unavoidable but not problematic. Finally, Smithsonian officials said  that they expect an interagency coordination committee to be  established under the Protect and Preserve International Cultural  Property Act, which will include the Smithsonian and others, and  anticipate that the committee will have a role in developing a  government-wide strategy.
Establish DOD point of contact
Many art market experts we spoke to noted that they were not aware  of a central point of contact at DOD for cultural property protection  issues overseas. Some experts thought a central point of contact  would be particularly important if DOD is to be the lead U.S. agency  implementing the 1954 Hague Convention, which, in part, calls on  countries to prohibit the theft and acts of vandalism against cultural  property. Some art market experts stated that DOD should take a  leadership role in implementing these requirements; however,  according to these art market experts, it does not appear to have  done so, nor is it clear to these experts the extent to which DOD has  undertaken cultural property protection work overseas. They believe  that DOD efforts appeared to be disjointed among different combatant  commands and suggested that the primary point of contact to  coordinate all of DOD’s cultural property protection work could  potentially be in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. One art  market expert noted that DOD does not appear to have an approach  to cultural property protection globally. For example, the expert said  that when DOD builds an airstrip or helicopter pad overseas, it is  unclear if DOD has a plan to protect cultural property. Such a plan, art  market experts suggested, could prevent another incident such as the  one in which coalition forces unintentionally damaged an  archaeological site in Babylon, Iraq, by using the site for a large-scale  military base and as a landing area for helicopters.
DOD officials responded that the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Policy’s Office of Stability and Humanitarian Affairs is  available as a point of contact within DOD to respond to inquiries on  DOD policy on cultural property protection overseas. DOD officials  also stated that ensuring the protection of cultural property involves  the responsibilities of many DOD components. In certain cases,  inquiries regarding cultural property may relate to a DOD component’s  implementation of DOD policies and may be more appropriately  addressed to that DOD component. Thus, DOD officials concluded  that they are not certain that a central point of contact through which  all inquiries about cultural property must be routed is necessary or  would result in greater efficiencies.
DOD officials also stated that DOD is, and has long been, effectively  implementing the requirements of the 1954 Hague Convention,  despite art market experts’ apparent misperception that DOD is not  effectively implementing the convention or does not otherwise have  an effective and coordinated approach to the protection of cultural  property. DOD officials noted that requirements of the 1954 Hague  Convention are included in DOD’s longstanding policy to comply with  the law of war during all armed conflicts and in all other military  operations. DOD directives, instructions, and guidance documents  further provide information to assist DOD components in the  implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention. DOD officials  explained that one such document provides directions for the  management of contingency locations to ensure compliance with  environmental standards and best management practices, including  those that avoid or mitigate adverse effects to cultural, historic, and  natural resources to the extent practicable, given mission  requirements. DOD officials stated that another document provides  standards for historic and cultural resource protection in countries  where DOD has a long-term presence. According to DOD officials,  in particular military operations, DOD components have requirements  to protect cultural property established by an annex of an operation  order or operation plan, which may contain provisions for identifying  historic and cultural areas, liaising with host-nation authorities and  local experts during the planning for the construction or leasing of  base camps or sites to be used by U.S. forces, and developing  guidance and practices to minimize disturbance of historically and  culturally significant areas. In addition to these policies and practices,  DOD components have provided specific guidance to help ensure the  protection of cultural property within each component’s area of  responsibility, including guidance issued by U.S. Central Command,  U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Strategic  Command, the Secretary of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Army,  and the Air Force, among others. Smithsonian officials noted that they  would welcome greater coordination with DOD.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We are not making any recommendations in this report. We provided a  draft copy of this report to State, DHS, DOJ, Treasury, DOD, Interior, and  the Smithsonian for their review and comments. State, DHS, Treasury,  DOD, and the Smithsonian provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. DOJ and Interior had no comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, Treasury,  Defense, Interior, and the Smithsonian Institution; the Attorney General of  the United States; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report describes (1) activities undertaken by U.S. agencies and the  Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property since 2011, and (2) art market experts’ suggestions for  improving U.S. government activities.
To determine the activities undertaken by U.S. agencies and the  Smithsonian to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, we reviewed  documents and data related to cultural property provided by the  Smithsonian and U.S. agencies, including the Departments of State  (State), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), the Treasury, Defense  (DOD), the Interior (Interior); and the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID). We also interviewed officials representing these  agencies and the Smithsonian to obtain an understanding about their  roles and responsibilities as well as cultural property protection activities  they conduct. In addition, we interviewed representatives of international  organizations and foreign governments, including the United Kingdom  (UK), Italy, and Jordan; and collected and reviewed international  organizations’ documents. We chose the UK because agency officials  and art market experts reported that it represents the second-largest legal  antiquities market after the United States; we chose Italy and Jordan  because the U.S. Mission to the United Nations (UN) reported the two  countries’ UN missions were leading an effort to protect Iraqi and Syrian  cultural property. Furthermore, we reviewed laws governing cultural  property and authorities used by U.S. agencies and international  organizations to address cultural property issues. Although we examined  U.S. government and international efforts taken to protect cultural  property globally, we focused on efforts to address Iraqi and Syrian  cultural property protection since 2011, the beginning of the Syrian civil  war. Our description of U.S. government and international activities is  intended to be illustrative of the types of activities these actors conduct to  protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property and is not exhaustive of all  activities undertaken by these entities.
To obtain art market experts’ suggestions to improve U.S. government  activities to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, we conducted  interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of 35 U.S.-based art market  experts knowledgeable in cultural property protection issues, including  antiquities. We selected these experts based on, among other factors, a  varied selection of experts representing different categories of the art  market. These art market experts, who have knowledge of U.S.  government activities to protect cultural property, including some who  have worked as government employees, range from those representing  art and antiquities dealers, auction houses, appraisers, archaeologists,  museums, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations  (NGO) to lawyers who specialize in cultural property cases. However,  these experts may not have access to nonpublic information regarding  efforts by U.S. agencies to protect cultural property. Additionally, because  our sample includes individuals covering a broad range of expertise in the  art market, not all individuals have expertise in all areas of cultural  property protection. For instance, individuals in our sample with expertise  in one area, such as archaeology or other academic topics, may not  necessarily have expertise in other areas, such as legal or law  enforcement issues.
During our interviews, we asked these 35 art market experts to identify  suggestions for U.S. government improvement to cultural property  protection activities. We consolidated interview responses to create a  comprehensive list of 25 suggestions. As a follow-up to our initial  interviews, we compiled this list of 25 suggestions into a questionnaire,  which we sent to a nongeneralizeable sample of 29 art market experts  requesting them to rate the importance of the suggestions based on a  four-point scale. Of these 29 art market experts, 26 responded to the  questionnaire. A complete list of all the suggestions we included in the  questionnaire and the average scores of respondents’ ratings of each  suggestion can be found in appendix IV. Based on the average score of  these 26 art market experts’ ratings of suggestions in the questionnaire,  we identified seven suggestions experts rated as of highest importance  and asked U.S. officials representing State, DHS, DOJ, Treasury, DOD,  and the Smithsonian to provide their views about these suggestions.  While we report the views of art market experts and U.S. officials related  to these suggestions, we are not expressing an opinion on them.
Based on documents we reviewed and interviews we held with U.S.  agencies and the Smithsonian, international organizations, and foreign  government officials, as well as art market experts, we also obtained an  understanding of the art market’s general practices for addressing cultural  property issues. To gather information for both objectives, we interviewed  government officials and experts in Washington, D.C.; New York, New  York; and London, UK.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2015 to August 2016  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: U.S. Laws and Restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property
paragraphs: The United States has implemented a number of laws that restrict the  importation of certain types of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, with  some exemptions. In addition, the United States has made exceptions to  export restrictions to allow some cultural property protection activities to  take place in Syria. Some of these restrictions and exemptions apply to  both countries, while others are specific to each country, as detailed  below.
subsections: section_title: Import Restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property
paragraphs: Since 1983, through the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation  Act (CPIA), the United States has restricted the importation of certain  cultural property from state parties to the 1970 United Nations  Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention  on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and  Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970 UNESCO Convention).  For example, as it relates to stolen cultural property from Iraq and Syria,  the import restriction covers cultural property documented as belonging to  the inventory of a museum or religious or secular public monument or  similar institution that was stolen from such museum, monument, or  institution after April 12, 1983. Moreover, through the CPIA, the United  States has imposed import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological  materials of state parties designated pursuant to international agreements  with such state parties and by emergency action taken by the  administration under the CPIA. According to Department of State (State)  officials, the import restrictions were intended to reduce the incentive for  pillage by discouraging the trade in undocumented cultural property and  encouraging a legal trade in documented property. Iraq and Syria have no  bilateral or multilateral agreements with the United States to apply import  restrictions under the CPIA. However, additional legislation has  authorized the President with respect to Iraq, and mandated the President  with respect to Syria, to exercise an emergency implementation of import  restrictions under the CPIA. Moreover, other U.S. import restrictions apply  to cultural property from the two countries, as described below.
section_title: Iraq-Specific Import Restrictions
paragraphs: Certain cultural property from Iraq is covered by two additional authorities  that allow the imposition of import restrictions under the Emergency  Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004 (Iraqi Cultural  Antiquities Act) and Executive Order 13350. The Iraqi Cultural  Antiquities Act authorized the President to exercise his authority under  the CPIA to apply import restrictions to any archaeological or ethnological  material of Iraq if the President determines that an emergency condition  applies to such material. The authority granted by the Iraqi Cultural  Antiquities Act to impose the import restrictions was assigned to State  and, on July 2, 2007, State made the necessary determination that an  emergency condition applies with respect to archaeological and  ethnological materials of Iraq to impose import restrictions on those  materials. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs  and Border Protection (CBP) then issued a regulation on April 30, 2008,  to “reflect the imposition of the import restrictions.” Consistent with the  Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act, the regulation defines “archaeological or  ethnological material of Iraq” as cultural property of Iraq and other items  of archeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific, or religious importance  illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library of  Iraq, and other locations in Iraq since August 6, 1990. In issuing the  regulation, to provide general guidance, CBP also issued the Designated  List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Iraq that describes the  types of articles to which the import restrictions apply. Similarly, the  regulation implementing Executive Order 13350 covers any cultural  property of Iraq and other items of archeological, historical, cultural, rare  scientific, or religious importance that were illegally removed from the Iraq  National Museum, the National Library of Iraq, and other locations in Iraq  since August 6, 1990. However, this regulation also covers items for  which a reasonable suspicion exists that they were illegally removed from  the same list of institutions. Furthermore, the regulation implementing  the executive order states that questions concerning whether particular  Iraqi cultural property or other items are subject to this regulation should  be directed to the Cultural Heritage Center of the State Department.
section_title: Syria-Specific Import Restrictions and Permitted Cultural Property Protection Assistance
paragraphs: On May 9, 2016, the President signed into law an act that provides  emergency protection for Syrian cultural property by requiring the  President to impose import restrictions on certain Syrian archaeological  and ethnological material. The act is entitled the Protect and Preserve  International Cultural Property Act and, like the 2004 Iraqi Cultural  Antiquities Act, it cites a provision in the CPIA that authorizes the  President to apply import restrictions on archeological or ethnological  material upon determining that an emergency condition applies to such  material. Under the CPIA, an emergency condition means, among other  things, that certain types of archeological or ethnological material are in  jeopardy from pillage, dismantling, or fragmentation. In addition to  import restrictions under the CPIA, the U.S. Treasury authorizes certain  services in support of cultural property protection activities for Syria that  would otherwise be prohibited by Syria sanctions regulations.  Specifically, it authorizes the export or reexport of services to Syria in  support of nongovernmental organizations’ (NGO) activities for the  preservation and protection of cultural heritage sites in Syria, including,  but not limited to, museums, historic buildings, and archaeological sites.
section_title: Exempt and Permitted Iraqi and Syrian Imports
paragraphs: Some imports, regardless of their country of origin, are exempt from the  CPIA. For example, any archaeological or ethnological material or any  article of cultural property which is (1) imported into the United States for  temporary exhibition or display and is immune from seizure under specific  judicial process, or (2) purchased in good faith by certain institutions  and where other enumerated conditions apply such as if the acquisition of  the material or article has been reported in specific types of  publications.
In addition to these exemptions, there are a number of designated  archeological or ethnological material that may be permissibly imported  under the CPIA. For example, regarding Iraqi material, an import will be  permitted if the importer (1) files documentation from the government of  Iraq certifying that exportation of such material was not in violation of the  laws of that country, or (2) presents satisfactory evidence (as defined by  the CPIA) that the material (A) was exported from Iraq at least 10 years  prior to being imported into the United States and that neither the person  for whose account the material is imported (or any related person)  contracted for or acquired an interest, directly or indirectly, in such  material more than 1 year before that date of entry, or (B) the item was  exported from Iraq prior to the date on which such material was  designated as prohibited from importation.
Regarding Syrian material, under the Protect and Preserve International  Cultural Property Act, the President may waive the import restrictions if he  certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that certain  conditions are met. First, if the owner or lawful custodian of the specified  archaeological or ethnological material of Syria has requested that such  material be temporarily located in the United States for protection  purposes or, if no owner or lawful custodian can reasonably be identified,  if the President determines that, for purposes of protecting and preserving  such material, the material should be temporarily located in the United  States. Second, the material must be returned to the owner or lawful  custodian when requested by such owner or lawful custodian. Third,  there is no credible evidence that granting such waiver will contribute to  illegal trafficking in archaeological or ethnological material of Syria or  financing of criminal or terrorist activities.
section_title: Appendix III: International Actors Implemented Five Categories of Activities to Protect Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property
paragraphs: Agency officials and experts mentioned a number of international  organizations and foreign governments as having key activities to protect  cultural property for Iraq and Syria. These activities include efforts that fall  into the same five categories that apply to U.S. efforts. Examples of these  five types of activities are described below.
Awareness Raising. The United Nations (UN) established a  monitoring team in 2014 to report on threats posed by the Islamic  State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups and produced  three reports on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property protection efforts,  and challenges to these efforts, particularly regarding the  implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2199. Furthermore,  officials representing the Italian and Jordanian missions to the UN  described to us their efforts in cosponsoring a series of events  regarding the destruction and trafficking of antiquities by ISIS.
Information Sharing. The International Committee for the Blue Shield,  an organization that promotes cultural property protection related to  the 1954 Hague Convention regarding armed conflict, worked with  others and produced lists of cultural sites and repositories in Iraq and  Syria. The committee submitted these lists to the Department of  Defense (DOD), defense agencies in other nations, and the North  Atlantic Treaty Organization for use during military planning,  according to the committee.
Law Enforcement Efforts. To counter smuggling and deter looting, the  International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) maintains a  database of over 45,000 cultural property thefts reported by law  enforcement agencies and worked with the World Customs  Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural  Organization (UNESCO), and the International Council of Museums  (ICOM) to exchange information about the illicit trade in cultural  property. In 2012, the World Customs Organization issued a press  release calling on customs administrations worldwide to increase their  vigilance at borders on cultural artifacts that may be smuggled or  exported illegally from Syria. Further, an official from the United  Kingdom (UK) customs authority reported that the UK made six  seizures between 2015 and early 2016 of shipments containing 10 to  20 kilos each of ancient Roman, medieval, and Islamic coins  suspected of coming from Syria, with dirt still on them.
Overseas Capacity Building. UK officials reported that the Minister of  Culture issued a £3 million grant in October 2015 to the British  Museum to train conservators from Iraq as part of a new £30 million  foreign assistance Cultural Protection Fund created in part as a  reaction to ISIS’s destruction and looting in Iraq and Syria.
Preventing Destruction. According to UNESCO, many museums in  Syria have taken measures to reduce the risk of theft of moveable  heritage since the beginning of the conflict. In particular, UNESCO  reported that some Syrian museums have moved their archaeological  artifacts to safe and secure areas and enhanced security by installing  additional burglar alarms and increasing the number of security  guards and patrols of the perimeters.
section_title: Appendix IV: Complete List and Ratings of Art Market Experts’ Suggestions for Improvements to the U.S. Government’s Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property Protection Efforts
paragraphs: We asked a nongeneralizeable sample of 35 art market experts to  suggest ways the U.S. government could improve efforts to protect Iraqi  and Syrian cultural property. These art market experts, who have  knowledge of U.S. government activities to protect cultural property,  including some who have worked as government employees, range from  those representing art and antiquities dealers, auction houses,  appraisers, archaeologists, museums, academic institutions, and  nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to lawyers who specialize in  cultural property cases. However, these experts may not have access to  nonpublic information regarding efforts by U.S. agencies to protect  cultural property. Additionally, because our sample includes individuals  covering a broad range of expertise in the art market, not all individuals  have expertise in all areas of cultural property protection. For instance,  individuals in our sample with expertise in one area, such as archaeology  or other academic topics, may not necessarily have expertise in other  areas, such as legal or law enforcement issues. We compiled art market  experts’ suggestions into a questionnaire listing 25 suggestions, which we  sent to a nongeneralizeable sample of 29 art market experts and asked  them to rate the importance of each suggestion. We received responses  from 26 of the 29 experts. Table 3 below lists all 25 suggestions,  beginning with the suggestion rated as the most important on average by  respondents and ending with the suggestion rated least important on  average.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Repko (Assistant  Director), Katherine Forsyth, and Victoria Lin made key contributions to  this report. The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of  Lynn Cothern, Justin Fisher, Grace Lui, and Oziel Trevino.