Uncontrolled Bloodflow: Blood Antiquity Sales in the UK
Though the era of European colonialism largely came to an end by the mid-20th century, echoes of its exploitative legacy can still be heard in museums and other cultural institutions throughout Western Europe. Indeed, countries such as Britain and France have accumulated significant cultural capital through their expansive collections of art from Africa and other former colonies. Increased pressure in recent years to repatriate these cultural artifacts has been mostly unsuccessful, though it did contribute to the passage of regulations in 2019 that were aimed at governing the importation of cultural artifacts from outside the European Union. However, with the recent withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, questions were raised as to whether the UK would choose to abide by the regulations set forth by the EU. An answer finally came in January of 2021, when the UK announced that it would no longer apply such restrictions to the importation of cultural goods as stipulated by the 2019 legislation. Though it is legally within the rights of the UK government to disregard these regulatory efforts, doing so fundamentally undermines their commitment to upholding key tenets of international law, specifically the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. When it comes to regulating the sale of blood antiquities, the UK government should thus rely upon international legal statutes and precedent to inform a prudent, long-term approach, rather than bowing to pressure from wealthy antiquities dealers.
Beyond the symbolic dimension of strictly regulating how private individuals and museums can profit from the sale of cultural antiquities, the regulatory framework also sought to address a more urgent issue: the funding of terrorist groups through the trafficking of cultural artifacts. Among the terror organizations that trafficked most prolifically in the sale of “blood antiquities,” as items seized during conflict are often called, was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”). As ISIS militants expanded their territory, they would often engage in the deliberate destruction of cultural sites, including museums and places of worship, in the cities they conquered. Doing so allowed them to both pillage artifacts for sale, while also destroying the cultural identity of communities they brought under their control. According to Iraqi officials, it is estimated that the group was generating as much as $100 million from the sale of blood antiquities at its peak. [1]
It is critical to acknowledge that ISIS would not necessarily have engaged in such culturally destructive behavior if there were not a group of eager buyers for blood antiquities. At its peak, the so-called caliphate of the Islamic State covered an expansive area of land in what is considered the birthplace of civilization, and the market value of blood antiquities from this region is staggering. The most common examples of items stolen from the area include early examples of glasswork, ivory statues, and jewelry, all of which are highly prized in the eyes of antiquities collectors. For instance, according to estimates, just one Syrian statue can fetch up to $1 million on the global antiquities market. [2] Many of these buyers are spread throughout Western Europe, where cities like London play host to some of the most robust antiquities markets in the world.
EU regulators thus sought to create a framework that would both constrict the unchecked flow of blood antiquities, as well as establish some degree of accountability for entities profiting from the sale of those objects. Such a framework was finally introduced in 2019, with the essence of its ultimate goal explicitly articulated in the opening statements of Article 1: “to ensure the effective protection against illicit trade in cultural goods and against their loss or destruction, the preservation of humanity’s cultural heritage and the prevention of terrorist financing and money laundering through the sale of pillaged cultural goods to buyers in the Union.” [3] Furthermore, Article 2 qualifies the aforementioned intentions of regulators, noting that “this Regulation should take into account regional and local characteristics of peoples and territories, rather than the market value of cultural goods.” [4] In other words, this framework fundamentally shifts the evaluation of cultural artifacts away from market-oriented criteria, and towards a more holistic appreciation of their cultural and historical value.
This commitment is enacted, in part, through the creation of a licensing program for importers of cultural goods originating outside the EU. As outlined in Article 12, this program stipulates that individuals can only obtain a license if they provide proof that the items they are selling were legally obtained, as opposed to pillaged from sites of cultural destruction. [5] The creation of a regulated licensing program is a critical step towards establishing legal accountability for the sale of blood antiquities, given that the overwhelming majority of transactions are unrecorded and, therefore, untraceable. Historically, these antiquities were then sold to European buyers through personal relationships with antiquities dealers, or through third-party sites like eBay. Neither avenue of sale was subject to regulatory oversight until the enactment of the 2019 regulations.
Those regulations came into effect just one year before the UK officially exited the European Union, which raised the urgent question of how -- or if -- the guidelines would affect London’s buzzing antiquities market. Acquiescing to aggressive lobbying on the part of British antiquities dealers, UK regulators dispelled any uncertainty regarding whether the UK would abide by such provisions when, in January of 2021, the UK announced that it would not implement the 2019 EU regulations. British dealers principally contended that abiding by such regulations would put them at a decided disadvantage relative to their American counterparts, who remain unhindered by regulations governing the importation of cultural goods into the US.
However, abandoning this regulatory framework opens the door to the unmitigated importation and sale of blood antiquities in the UK. This will not only reinforce London’s position as an important market for nefarious groups looking to sell cultural artifacts, but will also allow for the continued sale of blood antiquities that remain in circulation on the UK and EU antiquities market. Beyond purely moral concerns, the UK’s tacit sanctioning of the illegal importation of cultural goods raises the question of how such a decision complies with the country’s commitment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in 1998, includes in the definition of war crimes the deliberate destruction of “buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives.” [6] Notably, the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia applied these provisions to convict Pavle Strugar and Jadranko Prlić of numerous war crimes, including “devastation not justified by military necessity, attacks on civilian objects, and destruction of institutions dedicated to, inter alia, religion, and the arts and sciences.” [7] However, the 2016 conviction of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, marked the first instance of the ICC charging a defendant with war crimes solely for the destruction of cultural property.
Specifically, the official reparations order issued against Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi -- who was found guilty of the destruction of cultural heritage in Timbuktu, Mali -- justified the ICC’s conviction through its evaluation of “the importance of cultural heritage, given that it is an essential component of the charges Mr Al Mahdi is convicted of.” [8] Qualifying their emphasis on cultural heritage, the Court declared that “cultural heritage is considered internationally important regardless of its location and origin,” and that any deliberate destruction of such heritage, including that committed by Mr. Al Mahdi, is “an irreplaceable loss that negates humanity.” [9] By highlighting the destruction of cultural property as a war crime, the Court established an important precedent: those responsible for the trafficking of blood antiquities would be held accountable for the cultural destruction they wrought. Moreover, the establishment of such a precedent underscores the importance of creating and complying with laws and regulations that protect cultural heritage against destruction, exploitation, and profiteering.
Against this backdrop, it is quite difficult to reconcile the UK’s role as an implicit facilitator of the illegal blood antiquities trade with its ostensible commitment to the Rome Statute. On a global scale, as observed by Paul Williams and Christin Coster in an article published by the Case Western Reserve University Journal of International Law, “this international framework, in particular the ICC conviction of Al Mahdi, provides some hope that future prosecutions against ISIS members for cultural-heritage destruction will ensue,” though “it does nothing to caution smugglers and buyers of illegal antiquities.” [10] In other words, countries must resist focusing solely on the prosecution of those responsible for cultural destruction, and should accept individual responsibility for regulating transactions involving those antiquities that occur within their borders.
It bears repeating that the destruction of cultural property and heritage goes hand-in-hand with the sale of blood antiquities, which then financially fuels the operations of terrorist groups. Though ISIS seldom appears in present headlines, history teaches us that it is enormously difficult -- if not impossible -- to completely eliminate the conditions that facilitate the rise of terrorist cells. The willingness of the UK to implicitly sanction the sale of blood antiquities -- whose financial value to terrorist groups is far-too-often underestimated -- opens up a dangerous source of income for groups looking to sow destruction and terror. Moreover, this decision represents a dangerous conflation of what is technically legal with what is legally advisable. Allowing the sale of blood antiquities within the UK, which is in clear tension with international law, undermines the credibility of the UK government’s ostensible commitment to preserving and upholding international law, including the Rome Statute.
Edited by Andersen Gu