Extensions of the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with Cyprus and Peru will be taken up by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) at their next meeting in Washington, DC. A public session will be held on January 18, 2012 to consider extending the bilateral agreements the United States has with these nations, which implement US import protections covering jeopardized cultural property.
An MoU is enacted pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property). The treaty is implemented in the US by the federal Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). Import protections granted under the CPIA last for five years and may be renewed.
To attend the public session, reserve your place by calling the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State at (202) 632–6301 by 5 p.m. EST on January 3.
 |
| Byzantine bronze cross from Cyprus subject to US import protections. Source: US State Dept. |
Public comments may be submitted electronically to CPAC. Click here to comment on the Cyprus MoU extension, or here to comment on the Peru MoU extension. Comments are due January 3 by the end of the day. If you encounter any problems, visit the eRulemaking web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Enter docket number DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus or docket number DOS-2011-0136 for Peru and follow the instructions on the web site. Be aware that the electronic submissions process sometimes can be cumbersome. Comments may also be mailed to:
Cultural Heritage Center (ECA/P/C)
SA-5, Fifth Floor
Department of State
Washington, DC 20522-0505
The comments must address one, some, or all of the four determinations outlined by the CPIA. Quoting 19 USC 2602, the four determinations are:
(A) [whether] the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party;
(B) [whether] the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
(C) [whether] --
(i) the application of the import restrictions . . . with respect to archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, if applied in concert with similar restrictions implemented, or to be implemented within a reasonable period of time, by those nations (whether or not State Parties [to the 1970 UNESCO Convention]) individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and
(ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and
(D) [whether] the application of the import restrictions . . . in the particular circumstances is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
