For completeness' sake, so no one else feels compelled to go
hunting around for it the way I did, The Hague
Convention of 1954. (Both the Cronaca link and the ArtNews
story assume everyone knows the full text of it, I guess-- ArtNews,
at least, is probably making a fair assumption.)
I don't believe anyone here would feel a desire to defend the
military practices of the Ba92athist leadership (pardon me, but I'm
getting really tired of the word "regime") in this matter. Heck,
pretty much *any* matter. I doubt the museum curators had much
choice-- their responsibility would be to get as much of the
collection out of the combat zone as they could. At least someone
made an effort to lock things away, though that's not very
effective when the looters have access to the keys.
While we're on the topic of the Hague Convention and culpability,
note that Article 11 does
not release the opposing party from the convention, it only revokes
the museum's immunity while the violation exists. Come to think, in
the initial reports of the looting, I recall U.S. soldiers stating
that they hadn't defended the museum because it wasn't on the list
of places they'd been ordered to protect-- maybe that was why. But
if so, why did it take them so long to get back there and start
defending the place? And hey, if the museum had been safely closed
since the *first* Gulf War, why did they open it again right before
the *second* war?
It sounds to me like there's blame enough to go around on this one,
but as usual, everyone's pointing the finger at someone else. It's
tragic that any of this had to happen, no matter whose fault it
was. It's shameful of the media to try to downplay the damage. No
matter how hard we try to agree on treaties and conventions in
sane, rational times, someone's always going to flout them in the
middle of a war. Yeah, war is hell, and culture is often one of the
first things sacrificed. It's painful for a librarian to admit, but
if the choice came down to saving my skin or saving the last copy
of a book for future generations, I'd probably focus on the
painfully immediate future. (Well... were ita book I *really*
loved, I'd probably loot it, just to keep it out of unsafe hands.
I'd give it back later. No, honestly. Don't look at me that
way.)
Anyway, lies or not, I think some good things came of the looting
outcry. It got the world's attention focused on the threat to the
collection, it netted them some pretty talented help in a hurry,
and it probably made the artifacts too hot to sell easily. Damaged
or not, it means they're getting their things back. The end
justifies the means? Hm. I think I'll fall back on the "war is
hell" statement again.
Well, sorry this was so rambling... oh, my, look at that, it's 4:30
in the morning. That's probably why. (It's Neil Gaiman's fault, for
pointing me to this absorbingly interesting blog in *his* blog.
Bah.)
Comment statistics for Gris on the Electrolite blog
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Gris:
Show all comments by Gris.