Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property: U.S. Government Committee Should Incorporate Additional Collaboration Practices
Published: 2017-09-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
Conflicts in Iraq and Syria have led to the destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, as well as others. In an effort to protect this property and in response to Congress, the Department of State established a cultural heritage coordinating committee in 2016 consisting of nine federal entities.
We found that the committee has made progress by identifying leadership and including relevant participants. However, we recommend that the Department of State work with other committee members to develop goals, clarify roles, and document collaborative agreement within the group.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The conflicts in Iraq and Syria that began in 2003 and 2011, respectively, have led to the destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others. The United Nations called these events the worst cultural heritage crisis since World War II and reported that ISIS has used the sale of looted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property to support its terrorist activities. Congress authorized and the President imposed import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material of Iraq in 2008 and Syria in 2016. The act directing Syrian restrictions also includes a sense of Congress that the President should establish an interagency committee to coordinate executive branch efforts on international cultural property protection.
GAO was asked to review U.S. efforts to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. This report examines (1) actions DHS and DOJ have taken to enforce U.S. laws and regulations involving restrictions on such property and (2) the extent to which CHCC participants collaborate to protect cultural property. GAO reviewed documents related to 17 DHS- or DOJ-led cultural property investigations, interviewed officials, and assessed the extent of CHCC collaboration using GAO's key practices.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's examination of 17 cultural property investigations shows that the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) have taken a number of actions to enforce laws and regulations related to restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. DHS's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken actions such as monitoring shipments and detaining and seizing suspected items of restricted cultural property. CBP coordinates with DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which investigates objects; detains, seizes, and obtains forfeiture of items found to be in violation of U.S. law; and repatriates cultural property to its rightful owner. For example, ICE conducted an investigation into an Iraqi ceremonial sword for sale at an auction in the United States and then seized, obtained forfeiture of, and repatriated it to Iraq in July 2013 (see fig.). DOJ actions to address restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property include activities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ attorneys to investigate and prosecute criminal violations, as well as actions related to the forfeiture and repatriation of cultural property items.
Ceremonial Sword Repatriated to Iraq by Department of Homeland Security in 2013
The Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee (CHCC), established in November 2016 with nine participating federal entities and led by the Department of State (State), has followed several of the key collaboration practices identified by GAO but has not demonstrated others. GAO has previously identified key practices for organizations to enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts. The CHCC has followed key practices of identifying leadership; including relevant participants; bridging organizational cultures, such as agreeing on common terminology; and addressing resource issues. Most participants also reported that the CHCC was a helpful forum for sharing information. However, the CHCC has not fully demonstrated other key practices for enhancing collaboration. First, the CHCC and two of its three working groups have not developed short- and long-term goals. Moreover, the CHCC has not clarified participants' roles and responsibilities on the committee or its working groups. Finally, CHCC participants have not documented agreements related to collaboration, such as developing written materials to articulate common objectives. Incorporating these practices could help participants work collectively, focus on common goals, and organize joint and individual efforts to protect cultural property as the CHCC continues its efforts beyond its first year.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State work with other CHCC participants to (1) develop goals, (2) clarify participants' roles and responsibilities, and (3) document collaborative agreement in the CHCC and its working groups. State concurs with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the conflicts that began in Iraq in 2003 and in Syria in 2011, the  destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property by the Islamic  State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others have led to what United Nations  (UN) officials have called the worst cultural heritage crisis since World  War II. These cultural properties include historical monuments, ancient art  and antiquities, and other archaeological or ethnological material. The UN  has also reported that ISIS and others are generating income from the  looting and smuggling of cultural property from archaeological sites and  museums in Iraq and Syria, which may be used to strengthen the  capability of ISIS to plan and carry out terrorist attacks. In addition,  according to a Department of State (State) official, based on subject  matter expert and law enforcement sources, at least some material from  illicit trade of cultural property is entering the United States, by far the  world’s largest market for art, antiques, and antiquities. In July 2017, a  nationwide arts and crafts retailer consented to, among other things, the  seizure and forfeiture of $3 million, and 144 ancient Iraqi cylinder seals, in  part, for introducing items into the United States contrary to law,  according to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  document.
Through the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA),  the United States has restricted the importation of certain cultural  property. The Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act  (International Cultural Property Act), signed in May 2016, in part, directs  the President to exercise authority under the CPIA to impose emergency  import restrictions on any archaeological or ethnological material of  Syria. In August 2016, the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational  and Cultural Affairs, acting pursuant to delegated authority under the  International Cultural Property Act, imposed the import restriction.  Under this restriction, no designated Syrian archaeological or ethnological  materials may be imported into the United States unless accompanied  by specified documentation of lawful exportation. Similarly, U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a regulation on April 30,  2008, to reflect import restrictions on designated archaeological and  ethnological material of Iraq imposed by State pursuant to delegated  presidential authority under the CPIA. Additionally, the International  Cultural Property Act includes a sense of Congress that the President should establish an interagency coordinating committee on executive  branch efforts on international cultural property protection, chaired by  State. In response, State established the Cultural Heritage Coordinating  Committee (CHCC).
We were asked to examine U.S. efforts to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property, including investigations related to such cultural property and  U.S. collaboration within the newly established coordinating committee.  This report examines (1) actions the Departments of Homeland Security  (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) have taken to enforce U.S. laws and regulations  involving restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property and (2) the  extent to which participants of the CHCC collaborate to protect cultural  property.
To determine actions DHS and DOJ have taken to enforce U.S. laws and  regulations involving restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property, we  analyzed documents and interviewed DHS and DOJ officials to obtain an  understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the enforcement of  laws and regulations involving restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property.  Based on discussions with DHS and DOJ, we identified 17 closed  investigations, led by DHS and DOJ, involving Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property with public repatriation ceremonies, from January 2003 to April  2017. We examined specific aspects of each investigation as reported,  including the origin of the cultural property item; the source and time  frame of the investigation; the involvement and coordination of each  agency in the investigation; the consultation of outside experts; the  location of and method by which the item entered the United States; the  potential violation of laws and statutes; and the associated prosecutions  or convictions. We also analyzed relevant laws governing cultural  property in the United States and actions used by agencies to address  related investigations. Using this information, we determined the types of  actions taken by DHS and DOJ to enforce U.S. laws and regulations involving restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property and grouped the  actions into five key categories. We discussed these categories with  officials from DHS and DOJ to confirm that they accurately reflected  agency actions.
To assess the extent to which the CHCC participants collaborate to  protect cultural property, we analyzed participants’ collaboration using our  key practices for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms.  Evaluating efforts since the first CHCC meeting in November 2016, we  assessed whether participants had demonstrated or not yet demonstrated  our key practices. To make this determination, we examined CHCC  documents and conducted semistructured interviews about the  committee’s collaborative activities with officials representing U.S. federal  entities on the committee. The CHCC documents we analyzed include  meeting agendas, lists of invitees and attendees, and meeting notes for  the CHCC and its working groups produced between November 2016 and  June 2017, as well as working documents resulting from the committee  and its working groups. Interviewees comprise those representing U.S.  federal entities that participated in the CHCC’s first meeting in November  2016, including State, the CHCC’s lead entity; DHS; DOJ; the  Departments of the Treasury (Treasury), Defense (DOD), and the Interior  (Interior); the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the  National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH); and the Smithsonian  Institution (Smithsonian).
We used our analysis of CHCC documents and the results of our  discussions with officials to assess collaboration practices among CHCC  participants. We determined that CHCC participants demonstrated a  practice when we found evidence that key features associated with that  practice were present in the CHCC and its working groups. We  determined that CHCC had not yet fully demonstrated a practice if we  found that key features associated with that practice were either (a) not  present; or (b) present in some, but not all, of the CHCC’s components.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2016 to  September 2017 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
paragraphs: The destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property are heightened  during times of political instability and armed conflict. Destruction of  cultural property entails intentional or unintentional damage, such as  bombing, to sites and objects. In the context of cultural property  protection, looting usually refers to the illegal removal of undocumented  objects from a structure or site 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.
A Deputy Assistant Secretary of State reported that ISIS has encouraged  the looting of archeological sites as a means of 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 in May 2015 resulted  in the discovery of documents that demonstrated ISIS had established an  Antiquities Division with units dedicated to researching known  archaeological sites, exploring new ones, and marketing antiquities.  According to these documents, ISIS’s 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. Figure 1 depicts antiquities  recovered during a raid to capture Abu Sayyaf.
While documents from the Abu Sayyaf raid show that ISIS has profited  from the looting of antiquities, there are no reliable and publicly available  estimates of the revenue ISIS earns from trade in stolen cultural property  overall, according to the director of a State-funded project on cultural  property. However, State officials have also noted that, although profits  from trafficking are difficult to quantify, ISIS has increasingly turned to the  antiquities trade as access to revenue from other sources, such as oil,  has been restricted.
subsections: section_title: International Agreements and U.S. Laws and Regulations on Cultural Property Protection
paragraphs: In addressing destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property, the  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization  (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.
The United States enacted the 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. Cultural property is defined in the CPIA by reference to  the 1970 UNESCO Convention, that defines the term “cultural property”  for purposes of the convention to mean property, which on religious or  secular grounds, is specifically designated by each state as being of  importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art, or science  and which belongs to certain categories. According to State officials, the CPIA addresses undocumented looted materials of a State Party by  providing the President the authority to enter into a bilateral or multilateral  agreement with the State Party to impose import restrictions and by  providing the authority to impose import restrictions if an emergency  condition applies. As it relates to articles of stolen cultural property from  Iraq and Syria, and other Parties to the 1970 Convention, the CPIA also  restricts cultural property 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 or  after the date the country of origin became a party to the Convention.
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 2003 intervention in Iraq,  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 which were subsequently 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 museums, and monuments, and other  locations in Iraq since 1990 were also put in place. DHS’s CBP then  issued a regulation on April 30, 2008, to reflect the imposition of the  import restrictions. 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, which  State refers to as objects, to which the import restrictions apply.
Furthermore, 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 International Cultural Property Act, which directs the  President to exercise his authority under the CPIA to impose restrictions  on any archaeological and ethnological material of Syria (as defined in  the Act). In August 2016, CBP issued a regulation to reflect the  imposition of import restrictions and issued a Designated List of  Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Syria that describes the types  of objects or categories of archaeological and ethnological material to  which the import restriction applies.
section_title: Structure of the Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee
paragraphs: Included in the International Cultural Property Act is the sense of  Congress that the President should establish an interagency committee to  coordinate the efforts of the executive branch to protect and preserve  international cultural property at risk from political instability, armed  conflict, or natural or other disasters. According to this sense of  Congress, such committee should  1.  be chaired by a Department of State employee of Assistant Secretary  rank or higher, concurrent with that employee’s other duties;  2.  include representatives of the Smithsonian and federal agencies with  responsibility for the preservation and protection of international  cultural property;  3.  consult with governmental and nongovernmental organizations,  including the United States Committee of the Blue Shield, museums,  educational institutions, and research institutions, and participants in  the international art and cultural property market on efforts to protect  and preserve international cultural property; and  4.  coordinate core U.S. interests in—(A) protecting and preserving  international cultural property; (B) preventing and disrupting looting  and illegal trade and trafficking in international cultural property,  particularly exchanges that provide revenue to terrorist and criminal  organizations; (C) protecting sites of cultural and archaeological  significance; and (D) providing for the lawful exchange of international  cultural property.
Pursuant to the sense of Congress, State has led the effort to create the  CHCC. After State convened an informal interagency meeting in June  2016, State chaired a formal meeting to establish the CHCC in November  2016 and chaired additional CHCC-wide meetings in March and June  2017. At its inception, CHCC participants included officials from nine U.S.  federal entities. Appendix I shows these entities’ reported activities  related to protecting cultural property.
The CHCC has also established three working groups, as follows:  1.  Technology, a newly created working group that focuses on the  application of new and existing technologies to combat cultural  property trafficking.  2.  Partnerships and Public Awareness, a newly developed working  group that focuses on public outreach and public-private partnerships.  3.  The Cultural Antiquities Task Force (CATF), a preexisting group that  is now a third working group under the CHCC, focuses on efforts to  support local governments, museums, preservationists, and law  enforcement to protect, recover, and restore cultural antiquities and  sites worldwide, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the  CATF has previously funded a broad range of activities in support of  law enforcement efforts to combat theft, looting, and trafficking of  historically and culturally significant objects worldwide.
State asked participants representing nine U.S. federal entities to  voluntarily participate in individual working groups. As of June 2017, the  newly formed working groups—Technology, and Partnership and Public  Awareness—had each held two meetings. The CATF, which held regular  meetings prior to the formation of the CHCC, met in June 2017 after the  CHCC was established and the CATF became a CHCC working group.  Figure 2 shows key events as of June 2017 related to the CHCC and its  working groups since the passage of the International Cultural Property  Act.
section_title: Key Practices That Can Enhance and Strengthen Collaboration
paragraphs: In our prior work, we have identified key collaboration practices that could  be used to assess collaboration at federal agencies. These practices can  help agencies implement actions to operate across boundaries, including  fostering open lines of communication. We also found that positive  working relationships among participants from different agencies bridge  organizational cultures and that these relationships can build trust and  foster communication, which facilitates collaboration. Given many  federal agencies’ long-standing challenges working across organizational  lines, following these practices could help agencies to enhance and  sustain collaboration at all organizational levels. Figure 3 depicts these  key practices.
section_title: DHS and DOJ Take a Number of Actions to Enforce Laws and Regulations Related to Restricted Iraqi and Syrian Cultural Property
paragraphs: DHS and DOJ take actions in five key areas to enforce laws and  regulations related to restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property: (1)  monitoring of shipments; (2) detention, seizure, and taking forfeiture  actions on items; (3) investigation of objects; (4) repatriation of cultural  property; and (5) prosecution of criminal violations to enforce laws and  regulations related to restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property.  According to DHS officials, DHS has the primary role for enforcing import  restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. CBP conducts  monitoring of shipments, cargo, and travelers for illicit cultural property  through border interdictions. CBP and the U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) detain,  seize, and obtain forfeiture of suspected items; and ICE-HSI conducts  investigations, pursues prosecutions through state and federal courts,  and repatriates cultural property to rightful owners. DOJ actions to  address restricted Iraqi or Syrian cultural property include detaining,  seizing, and taking forfeiture action on items; conducting investigations;  repatriating cultural property; and prosecuting criminal violations.  According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials, the FBI  conducts investigations; detains, seizes, obtains forfeitures, and  repatriates restricted cultural property items; and, according to DOJ  officials, the U.S. Attorney’s offices or the Criminal Division within DOJ  pursue potential criminal violations. See figure 4 for a list of key actions  taken by DHS and DOJ on restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property.
Monitoring of shipments. According to DHS officials, CBP, within DHS,  monitors shipments and travelers to identify items of Iraqi and Syrian  cultural property imported in violation of U.S. customs laws.
Within DHS, CBP monitors suspected shipments to identify restricted  cultural property from Iraq or Syria that may be trafficked in the United  States, according to CBP officials. These officials noted that CBP uses  information obtained by other U.S. agencies or industry partners to  identify high-risk transactions and shipments for further examination.  These officials said that CBP may refer cultural property items found  during its examinations to ICE-HSI for further investigation if they suspect  a violation. Additionally, in collaboration with ICE-HSI, CBP also provides  training to its officers at high-risk ports of entry.
CBP monitoring activities have led to the discovery of smuggled cultural  property. For example, according to DHS officials, a CBP inspection of a  shipment exiting a Chicago mail facility led in December 2007 to the  discovery of a Babylonian clay foundation cone originating from Iraq from  2100 B.C. (see fig. 5). The person exporting the item had misclassified it  using a false country of origin. CBP detained the item and referred it to  ICE-HSI for further investigation. According to ICE officials, ICE-HSI  ultimately obtained forfeiture of the item and repatriated it to Iraq in  February 2010.
Detention, seizure, and taking forfeiture actions on items. DHS and  the FBI detain, seize, and take forfeiture actions on Iraqi and Syrian  cultural property items that are potentially in violation of U.S. law.
Within DHS, CBP detains and, if appropriate, seizes Iraqi or Syrian  cultural property if that property was potentially imported into the United  States contrary to U.S. law, according to CBP officials. When CBP  identifies such an item, it detains the property and, if further investigation  is warranted, contacts ICE-HSI, which may conduct an investigation. ICE- HSI also receives leads regarding illegally imported cultural property  already within the United States from other sources, including auctions,  art galleries, and museums. Upon identification by CBP or found through  other means, ICE-HSI seeks forfeiture of items of Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property that have entered the United States in violation of U.S. customs  law. According to ICE-HSI officials, although the import restrictions on  Iraqi and Syrian cultural property are not criminal laws, the restrictions  provide a legal basis for seizure and forfeiture actions by CBP and ICE- HSI. DHS actions to detain, seize, and pursue forfeiture of items that are  suspected to be in violation of U.S. cultural property laws have led to the  rescue and return of cultural property to Iraq. For example, according to  DHS officials, in 2005 CBP discovered an inscribed stone tablet  originating from Iraq during an inspection at a FedEx facility at Newark  airport. After CBP detained the item, ICE-HSI consulted with local cultural  property experts to determine the authentication and origin of the item,  which, according to ICE-HSI officials, was imported using a false country  of origin. ICE-HSI seized, took forfeiture action, and ultimately repatriated  the item to Iraq in February 2010.
When the FBI discovers restricted items of cultural property, the FBI’s Art  Crime Team works to obtain or pursue forfeiture of the items, according to  FBI officials. The FBI has detained, seized, and taken forfeiture actions  on items of Iraqi cultural property. For example, according to FBI officials,  the FBI opened an investigation after receiving a tip about an array of  ancient artifacts originating from Mesopotamia for sale online (see fig. 6).  Most of the items were cuneiform tablets used in Mesopotamia for record  keeping, and three of the seized artifacts were inscribed foundation  cones. According to an FBI document, the artifacts were looted from  present-day Iraq and smuggled into the United States unlawfully. The  antiquities dealer in California who held the items surrendered any right  he had to the artifacts, which have been forfeited to the U.S. government.  According to FBI officials, the government of Iraq asserts ownership over  the items, but they have not yet been repatriated.
Investigation of objects. ICE-HSI and the FBI conduct investigations  into potentially restricted items of cultural property originating from Iraq  and Syria.
ICE-HSI conducts investigations involving the illicit importation, trafficking,  and distribution of cultural property. CBP sometimes originates ICE-HSI  cultural property investigations by referring incidents of suspected  criminal activity related to illicit cultural property trafficking to ICE-HSI  officials. According to ICE officials, most ICE-HSI cultural property  investigations are based on other information and involve items of cultural  property already in the United States, which may be held in private  collections, museums, galleries, auction houses, or by other entities. ICE- HSI investigates potentially related criminal violations such as smuggling  or falsely classifying an item. CBP and ICE officials reported collaborating  with the FBI and State on investigations into illicit trade of cultural  property from Iraq and Syria. According to these officials, CBP and ICE- HSI identify appropriate subject matter experts to examine detained  cultural property to make a preliminary determination regarding the  authenticity of the artifact or object.
ICE-HSI cultural property investigations have led to the return of cultural  property to Iraq. For example, ICE-HSI opened an investigation in  January 2011 after receiving a tip about an Iraqi ceremonial sword for  sale at an auction in the United States (see fig. 7). ICE-HSI found that the  item was brought into the United States by a U.S. citizen who had served  in the military. ICE-HSI consulted with a cultural property expert to  authenticate the origin of the item and seized, obtained forfeiture, and  ultimately repatriated the item to Iraq in July 2013.
According to FBI officials, the FBI pursues Iraqi and Syrian cultural  property items based on information from various sources, including from  investigations into related matters. The FBI does not investigate or  enforce import restrictions on cultural property, but FBI investigations on  other criminal matters sometimes involve items of cultural property. In  addition, according to officials, the FBI receives information on cultural  property items from a variety of sources, including tips from informants,  findings from other criminal investigations, and foreign government  contacts. Officials added that, while ICE-HSI and the FBI lead distinct  investigations involving cultural property, the two agencies coordinate  with each other and outside experts, when appropriate. FBI officials  reported sharing information with ICE-HSI and CBP on specific  information and cultural property items, when appropriate. FBI officials  also told us they regularly consult with outside experts to help identify  cultural property items.
The FBI has investigated suspected items of cultural property from Iraq  that were discovered from investigations into related matters. For  example, it discovered Iraqi antiquities during an investigation into public  corruption of U.S. contractors in Iraq. According to FBI documents, the  artifacts, including two pottery dishes, four vases, an oil lamp, three small  statues, and seven terracotta relief plaques, were illegally taken from Iraq  by DOD contractors in 2004. Investigators learned that the contractors  took the items and used them as gifts and bribes or sold them to other  contractors who then smuggled them into the United States. According to  an FBI document, two of the contractors were ultimately sentenced to  prison for their roles in the fraud scheme, and the items were recovered  and returned to Iraq in July 2011.
Repatriation of cultural property. ICE and the FBI repatriate cultural  property items to the appropriate country, including the return of multiple  items to Iraq.
ICE works to repatriate the stolen or smuggled cultural property items to  the rightful owner after CBP or ICE-HSI detains, seizes, or takes forfeiture  action on an item found to have been brought into the United States in  violation of U.S. law, according to ICE officials. ICE has repatriated a  number of cultural property items to Iraq. For example, in 2008, ICE-HSI  opened an investigation into a pair of Neo-Assyrian gold earrings for sale  at an auction house in the United States (see fig. 8). ICE-HSI consulted  with a cultural property expert to determine the authentication and origin  of the item and worked with CBP to seize, obtain forfeiture, and ultimately  repatriate the item to Iraq in February 2010.
According to FBI officials, when the FBI detains, seizes, or obtains  forfeiture of restricted cultural property items, its Art Crime Team works to  repatriate the items. The FBI has repatriated a number of cultural property  items to Iraq. For example, one FBI-led investigation involved a U.S.  soldier serving in Iraq who purchased eight stone seals and brought them  back to the United States (see fig. 9). The soldier had the items evaluated  by an expert and, upon discovering their historical value, turned the seals  over to the FBI, who repatriated them to Iraq in 2005.
Prosecution of criminal violations. DOJ considers prosecution for  criminal violations relating to investigations involving Iraqi and Syrian  cultural property.
According to DOJ officials, ICE-HSI and the FBI consult with DOJ’s  Criminal Division or local U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and the assigned  prosecutor determines whether to pursue criminal prosecution of related  violations. State and local prosecutors may also consider whether to  pursue prosecution for violations related to cultural property  investigations. DOJ has prosecuted criminal violations from investigations  involving items of cultural property from Iraq. For example, an FBI-led  investigation into a man suspected of selling forged art and fake items led  to the discovery of four Iraqi cylinder seals (see fig. 10). The FBI obtained  forfeiture of the items and repatriated them to Iraq in 2013. According to  FBI officials, the man with the seals was prosecuted and sentenced for  conspiracy and mail fraud.
section_title: In Its First Year, the Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee Has Followed Several Key Collaboration Practices but Has Not Fully Demonstrated Others
paragraphs: The CHCC’s activities during its first year of formation reflected several  key practices that can enhance and strengthen collaboration but did not  demonstrate others. CHCC participants have demonstrated progress in  the key areas of identifying leadership; including relevant participants;  bridging organizational cultures, including developing ways to operate  across agency boundaries and agreeing on common terminology; and  addressing issues related to resources, including funding, staffing, and  technology. However, CHCC participants could enhance their  collaboration by implementing other key collaboration practices, such as  developing goals, clarifying participants’ roles and responsibilities, and  documenting agreements within the CHCC and its working groups.
subsections: section_title: CHCC Has Made Early Progress in Its Collaborative Efforts, Such as Identifying Leadership and Including Relevant Participants
paragraphs: Leadership. The CHCC has followed the key collaboration practice of  designating leaders, including strengthening the influence of leadership  by high-level officials and establishing continuity in leadership. The CHCC  has identified leadership in the full committee. Pursuant to the sense of  Congress at Section 2(1) of the International Cultural Property Act that  the CHCC “be chaired by a Department of State employee of Assistant  Secretary rank or higher,” State’s Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of  Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) has chaired all of the CHCC’s  meetings thus far. According to State officials, the ECA Assistant  Secretary will continue to chair CHCC meetings. State officials also noted  that senior leadership’s involvement in the committee underscores the  importance of the committee and the topic of cultural property protection.  We have previously reported that the influence of leadership can be  strengthened by high-level officials and that designating one leader is  often beneficial because it centralizes accountability and can speed  decision making.
Each of the CHCC’s three working groups has also identified a primary  entity to lead the group’s effort, such as identifying and soliciting input on  agenda items for the working group meetings. The CHCC sought  volunteers to lead its two newly formed working groups. DOJ’s FBI has  volunteered to lead the Technology working group, and the Smithsonian  serves as the lead entity of the Partnerships and Public Awareness  working group. State continues to lead the preexisting CATF, and  different members host regular meetings. For example, DOJ’s Criminal  Division hosted the June 2017 CATF meeting.
Participants. The CHCC has demonstrated our key collaboration  practice of including relevant participants. We previously reported on the  importance of ensuring that relevant participants are included in and have  the appropriate knowledge and abilities to contribute to the collaborative  effort. The CHCC invited and included several entities as participants of  the committee and its working groups. For the first CHCC meeting in  November 2016, State invited nine federal entities to participate and  requested that these participants volunteer for the working groups.  Representatives of these nine federal entities all attended and, with the  exception of USAID, have attended at least one additional meeting since  the committee’s inception. In July 2017, a USAID official informed us that  USAID does not expect to participate in the CHCC. Most CHCC  participants noted that they are confident that the members have the  appropriate knowledge and commitment to contribute and participate in  the committee.
Most representatives who attended the first CHCC meeting also  participated in the committee’s working groups. For instance, officials  from six of the nine U.S. federal entities attending the first formal CHCC  meeting also participated on a voluntary basis in the newly created  Technology and Partnerships and Public Awareness working groups.  These federal entities include State, DHS, DOJ, the Interior, the NEH,  and the Smithsonian. Officials representing three of the nine federal  entities—the Treasury, DOD, and USAID—stated that they did not  volunteer for and have not participated in the new working groups  because they did not clearly see how their entities could contribute to the  topics of focus. In the preexisting CATF working group, four of the nine  CHCC federal entities—State, DHS, DOJ, and the Interior—noted that  they would continue to participate. State officials explained that DOD  had been invited to CATF meetings in the past but had not participated  extensively. According to the DOD representative on the CHCC, DOD  had not participated in the CATF in years but attended the CATF meeting  in June 2017, the first CATF meeting since the formation of the CHCC,  after being asked to participate. Figure 11 depicts the participation of the  nine U.S. federal entities whose officials attended the first CHCC meeting.
One of the CHCC working groups has included participation from  additional federal entities. Led by the Smithsonian, the participants in  CHCC’s Partnerships and Public Awareness working group agreed to  invite other federal entities to the group. The second meeting of the  Partnerships and Public Awareness working group in May 2017 included  additional federal entities that had not attended prior CHCC meetings.  These federal entities included the National Endowment for the Arts, the  National Archives and Records Administration, and the President’s  Committee on the Arts and Humanities. According to Smithsonian  officials, the Smithsonian also invited the Library of Congress, the  Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Science  Foundation, DOD’s National Defense University, and the Wilson Center to  participate in the working group.
The CHCC and its working groups have also included the participation of  nonfederal stakeholders in their activities. The CHCC has invited external  stakeholders to participate in public events led by its Partnerships and  Public Awareness working group. For example, State and the  Smithsonian co-hosted an event to discuss cultural heritage protection  and stabilization in northern Iraq that was open to the public and included  a public panel discussion, led by U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield, a  nongovernmental organization. Other participants in this event included  those representing museums, educational institutions, and research  institutions. Smithsonian officials noted the importance of hearing the  perspectives of these nongovernmental organizations and participants in  the international art and cultural property market—organizations  suggested in the sense of Congress in the International Cultural Property  Act.
However, the full CHCC will not likely include nonfederal stakeholders in  its regular interagency meetings. As the lead of CHCC, State officials  commented that they intend to keep invitees to the full CHCC limited to  U.S. federal entities because this composition facilitates the discussion of  U.S. government law enforcement efforts related to cultural property  protection. Other CHCC participants also expressed concerns about  having nonfederal stakeholders participate in certain CHCC and its  working groups’ discussions, particularly when law enforcement agencies  need to discuss sensitive matters. Therefore, State officials reported that  the CHCC may conduct periodic consultations with external stakeholders  without making these stakeholders members of the committee.
Bridging organizational cultures. CHCC participants have bridged  different organizational cultures among the participating entities by  establishing ways to operate across agency boundaries, a key  collaboration practice that can involve developing common terminology  and sharing information. For example, CHCC participants have generally  agreed on common terminology in the cultural property area. Some  participants reported that federal entities agree on the definitions of  “cultural property” and the “protection and preservation” of such items,  even though these terms could be interpreted differently by many in  academia and nongovernmental organizations.
In addition, most participants stated that they have working relationships  with other members of the committee, which facilitates information  sharing on an ongoing basis. The missions and cultures of the nine  participating federal entities may differ, ranging from those focused on law  enforcement to those that fund grants to protect cultural property.  Nevertheless, many participants reported that CHCC members all share a  common commitment toward the goal of cultural property protection.  Furthermore, most participants reported that the committee was a helpful  forum for collaborating on international cultural property protection efforts.  According to State officials, the formation of CHCC facilitated  collaboration of different U.S. federal entities when cultural property  protection issues arose internationally. For example, in March 2017, State  led an interagency delegation that included DHS, DOJ, and Smithsonian  representatives to participate in an international culture ministerial  meeting devoted to the topic of cultural property protection. According to  a State report, various federal entities also contributed significantly to a  UN Security Council resolution to focus on cultural heritage preservation,  which the Security Council adopted unanimously in March 2017.
Resources. Despite not having dedicated financial resources, the CHCC  and its working groups have identified human and technology resources  for their collaborative activities. We previously reported that collaborating  agencies should identify the human, information technology, physical, and  financial resources needed to initiate or sustain their collaborative effort.  The CHCC has identified nine U.S. federal entities as participants that  expect to participate in meetings of the committee and its working groups  without using designated funding. Some participants noted that not  having dedicated resources could present certain challenges to CHCC  activities. For example, one CHCC participant noted that cultural  preservation training programs are resource dependent and are,  therefore, difficult to plan without funding. However, this participant also  noted that collaborative efforts on the CHCC have helped participants  coordinate interagency training, which has helped to mitigate these  challenges. Moreover, participants generally noted that even without  dedicated financial resources, they were committed to participate in  CHCC activities as a collateral duty to their work.
Another aspect of managing resources among interagency groups is the  development of technological systems and compatible tools. CHCC  participants have taken steps to explore the development of technological  resources to enhance collaboration. For instance, several Technology  working group participants noted that they have discussed the  possibilities involved in establishing compatible technological systems  among the CHCC’s members. According to one participant, the working  group is in the process of obtaining the status of existing technological  systems of participants and is planning on vetting new technologies.
section_title: CHCC Has Not Demonstrated Certain Collaborative Practices, Such as Developing Goals, Clarifying Participants’ Roles, and Documenting Agreements
paragraphs: Outcomes and accountability. The CHCC could benefit from  addressing the key collaboration practice of organizational outcomes and  accountability, which includes clearly defining short-term and long-term  goals, and developing a way to track and monitor progress toward these  goals. In the first formal meeting in November 2016, the chair of the  committee articulated that the CHCC’s role was to coordinate  antitrafficking efforts and to tackle a wide range of cultural heritage  challenges worldwide. However, subsequent to that meeting, the CHCC  has not produced documents identifying specific CHCC outcomes or  goals. CHCC participants also indicated that no clear consensus on the  CHCC’s stated goals has emerged from CHCC meetings. Many CHCC  participants noted that the CHCC had not developed short-term and long- term goals, with some adding that the CHCC was working on doing so.  Other officials had different views of the short-term and long-term goals.  For example, one participant stated that a short-term CHCC goal was to  establish working groups and understand the roles of the different  entities, while another participant said that a long-term goal was to solidify  information sharing among participants.
The CHCC’s three working groups varied in their development of goals.  One participant of the CHCC’s Technology working group noted that the  working group has developed short-term, medium-term, and long-term  goals, including target time frames for achieving them. For example, the  Technology group has a short-term goal to evaluate the technological  strengths and weaknesses of the members relative to their mission.  However, not all of the participants in that working group were aware of  these goals. The other two CHCC working groups—Partnerships and  Public Awareness, and Cultural Antiquities Task Force—have not  developed goals. As the lead of the Partnerships and Public Awareness  working group, the Smithsonian has compiled an inventory list that  catalogues all of the programs, activities, and outreach that each of the  working group’s participants worked on and planned to undertake.  Smithsonian officials noted that the working group could develop  outcomes based on the inventory list, such as support for other working  group members’ training on cultural property protection. According to  State officials, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the CATF to  train U.S. and foreign law enforcement and customs agents, and the  CATF continued to fund cultural property training. However, such training  has not been developed or documented as goals for the CATF.
State officials explained that the full committee and its working groups  were still early in their formation. Participants have been focused on other  priorities and, therefore, have not yet developed goals. For example,  according to Smithsonian officials, the Partnerships and Public  Awareness working group has been working on creating goals as it  concentrates on holding actual public awareness campaigns, but it has  not established or documented any goals to share with other participants.  Without clearly developed goals, participants of the CHCC and its working  groups may not have the same overall interests and may even have  conflicting interests and disagreement among missions while working  toward the overall CHCC purpose of protecting and preserving  international cultural property. We previously reported that by developing  goals and outcomes based on what the group shares in common, a  collaborative group can shape its own vision and define its own purpose.  When articulated and understood by the members of a group, this shared  purpose provides people with a reason to participate in the process.
Clarity of roles and responsibilities. While participants seemed to  understand each other’s activities related to international cultural property  matters, CHCC participants have not clarified each participating entity’s  roles and responsibilities on the committee and its working groups, a  practice we have identified as helpful in enhancing collaboration. CHCC  participants have discussed cultural property initiatives that each entity  was carrying out, and the Partnerships and Public Awareness working  group is maintaining a list of its participants’ activities. However, we found  that there was no consensus and no clear delineation of the specific roles  and responsibilities of the entities on the CHCC and its working groups.  For example, representatives of one entity leading a working group  described their role in initiating working group meetings, and planning and  circulating meeting agendas. However, most CHCC participants said that  they are unclear about their specific roles and responsibilities for CHCC,  including DOD and USAID, whose representatives on the CHCC were  unable to describe their roles and responsibilities on the full committee  and its working groups.
Furthermore, the CHCC has not clarified the roles and responsibilities of  the additional federal entities that participated in one of the CHCC’s  working groups, including whether these entities would be members of  the full committee or participants of only one CHCC working group. The  CHCC’s Partnerships and Public Awareness working group invited  several other federal entities to attend its May 2017 meeting, but these  entities’ roles and responsibilities in the working group had not been  identified. As the lead entity of this working group, Smithsonian officials  said that they did not know whether the additional participants of or  invitees to the May 2017 Partnerships and Public Awareness meeting  would be included as members of the full committee. The CHCC full  committee meeting in June 2017 did not include these additional federal  entities as invitees.
According to some CHCC participants, the CHCC and its working groups  spent their first year of operation working to set up CHCC meetings and  determining which invitees to ask to meetings. As a result of prioritizing  these activities and allowing the CHCC to take on a more fluid process,  some participants told us that the committee and its working groups have  yet to clarify the roles and responsibilities of its participants. However, the  CHCC and its working groups could benefit from defining and agreeing  upon participants’ respective roles and responsibilities as well as steps for  decision making when working on protecting and preserving international  cultural property. Without such clarity, CHCC participants could encounter  barriers in organizing their joint and individual efforts on the committee  and its working groups as the CHCC continues to operate beyond its first  year of formation.
Written guidance and agreements. Participants have not documented  their agreement regarding how the CHCC will be collaborating, including  the short-term and long-term goals of the committee and its working  groups, as well as members’ roles and responsibilities on the committee  and its working groups. The CHCC and at least one of its working groups  have produced written notes after its meetings. For example, the  Smithsonian produced a document after the May 2017 Partnership and  Public Awareness working group meeting that provided details on the  activities of its participants, upcoming public events, and a list of task  assignments for its participants. However, these written documents did  not discuss any collaborative strategies within the CHCC and its working  group. State officials said that CHCC participants have not documented  written guidance and agreements for the committee and its working  groups because it was too early in the formation of the CHCC to make  these determinations. Our prior work on key practices for collaboration  found that the action of agencies articulating a common outcome and  roles and responsibilities into a written document is a powerful tool in  collaboration.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The destruction of international cultural property causes irreversible  damage to our shared heritage, and the trafficking of cultural property  could fund ISIS terrorist activities. To protect cultural property from Iraq  and Syria at risk of looting and smuggling, the U.S. government has  imposed import restrictions, and DHS and DOJ have taken a number of  actions to enforce the laws and regulations on restricted cultural property  from these countries. Further, a law passed to protect and preserve  international cultural property included a sense of Congress that the  President should establish an interagency coordinating committee to  coordinate the efforts of the executive branch. State has taken steps to  establish the CHCC, and the committee’s efforts reflect several of the key  practices that can enhance and strengthen collaboration. However, the  CHCC could benefit from following additional practices as it moves  beyond its first year. These practices include developing goals for the  CHCC and all of its working groups, clarifying the roles and  responsibilities of the committee’s and its working groups’ participants,  and documenting these agreements among the participants. CHCC  participants have noted that the CHCC is still in the early stages of  establishment and have, therefore, yet to follow these additional  collaboration practices. Given participants’ receptivity and commitment to  the committee’s work, the CHCC could augment its current efforts as it  moves forward. Using key collaboration practices could help the CHCC’s  members to work collectively to better understand and respond to the  destruction, looting, and trafficking of international cultural property,  especially as such activities may persist with the ongoing instability in Iraq  and Syria.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making a total of three recommendations to State. Specifically:  The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs  should work with other U.S. federal entities participating in the CHCC to  develop goals for the CHCC and its working groups. (Recommendation 1)
The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs  should work with other U.S. federal entities participating in the CHCC to  clarify participants’ roles and responsibilities in the CHCC and its working  groups. (Recommendation 2)
The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs  should work with other U.S. federal entities participating in the CHCC to  document agreement about how the CHCC and its working groups will  collaborate, such as their goals and participants’ roles and  responsibilities. (Recommendation 3)
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to State, DHS, DOJ, the Treasury,  DOD, the Interior, USAID, the NEH, and the Smithsonian for review and  comments. State provided written comments that are reproduced in  appendix II. State, DHS, the Treasury, the Interior, and the Smithsonian  also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.  DOJ, DOD, USAID, and the NEH had no comments.
In its written comments on our report, State concurred with all three of our  recommendations. State noted its agreement with the need for outcomes  and accountability and stated that CHCC working groups aim to draft  mission statements and objectives. Following the adoption of such  statements and objectives, State also foresees clarifying roles and  responsibilities of CHCC participants, and documenting such goals  through a memorandum of understanding.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, the Treasury,  Defense, the Interior, and the Smithsonian; the Attorney General of the  United States; the Administrator of USAID; the Chairman of the NEH; 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 III.
section_title: Appendix I: Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee Participants’ Activities
paragraphs: At the first formal Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee (CHCC)  meeting, participants included officials from nine U.S. federal entities: the  Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury,  Defense, and the Interior; the U.S. Agency for International Development;  the National Endowment for the Humanities; and the Smithsonian  Institution. Figures 12, 13, and 14 show these entities’ reported activities  related to protecting cultural property.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix III: 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), Kim Frankena (Assistant Director), Victoria Lin (Analyst-in- Charge), and Diana Blumenfeld made key contributions to this report. The  team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of Lynn Cothern,  Neil Doherty, Justin Fisher, Grace Lui, Marc Molino, and Sarah Veale.