Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)

PROFESSOR PETER STONE AND DR ROGER O'KEEFE

10 JUNE 2008

  Chairman: Good morning, everybody. This is a special session of the CMS Select Committee to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Government's draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill, and we have a number of witnesses this morning, so we are going to try and move fairly rapidly through each part of the session. Can I start off by welcoming Professor Peter Stone, Professor of Heritage Studies at Newcastle University, and Dr Roger O'Keefe, Lecturer in International Law at Cambridge University.

  Q1  Philip Davies: Could you tell us what difference in practice this Bill would actually make if it were enacted?

  Dr O'Keefe: Well, I think you have got to distinguish between two things. One thing is the difference that signing up to the Convention will make and the difference that the actual Bill will make. The Bill is actually targeted at quite a specific area and that is criminal offences in relation to dealing in stuff that has been taken in armed conflict and, to that extent, it will add to the 2003 Act which is the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act, covering a whole range of more areas, and, simply, it will just enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the 1999 Protocol. Signing up to the Convention and the Protocol, on the other hand, will not make too much of a difference to the extent that the military in this country already acts in accordance with the Convention and the Protocol since it has come in; it has just been part of its practice and all these instruments are now mentioned in the current UK manual on the laws of war. What it will do, which is only a good thing, is, I think, focus these efforts specifically through the setting up within the military reserve, I understand, of a special unit pursuant to Article 7 of the Convention, which is in charge of preparing the troops and educating them and so on and so forth, so I think it will bring all those efforts to bear and make it much easier to inculcate these rules in respect of cultural property in the Armed Forces.

  Q2  Philip Davies: But is it realistic though? Is it not sort of like a Sergeant Wilson approach, you know, "Would you mind awfully not bombing this"? Is it realistic to expect people to take any notice of these sorts of things when you are actually in that kind of situation?

  Professor Stone: Yes, I think, is the answer. Firstly, the only thing I would add to Roger's point before is that in 2003, whilst the UK adhered to the content of the Convention, actually in practice we did not have enough boots on the ground and we did not have enough training in place to actually fully embed that process, and I think that will be the change through the Bill to the Convention. Yes, we should be making a difference. By not having a Sergeant Wilson approach, you just say, "Okay, that's fine. Bomb everything you want to". There is an issue that says that cultural heritage is important, not only from a cultural heritage point of view and for the political uses that that cultural heritage is put to, but also from an overtly military point of view. Talking to colleagues in the American military, if they allow a mosque to be damaged on day one, attacks on their troops can go up exponentially on day two. There is also now good anecdotal evidence from both Interpol, Scotland Yard and actually in evidence now put in print by the American military that the trade in antiquities, which comes from this whole issue, is actually helping to fund the so-called insurgency in Iraq at the moment.

  Q3  Philip Davies: It is all very well, but it is the practicalities. I am all for the principle. I have a World Heritage Site in my constituency and we are all going to be safe in Saltaire, but it is the practicalities that worry me and I just wonder what the sanctions are if anybody does not actually apply it. We are already at war with them, so I am not entirely sure what else you are going to do if somebody does not actually abide by these Conventions.

  Dr O'Keefe: If I could mention the practicalities, I have studied this thing and actually we think of the Second World War as the archetype, but the Second World War was the exception because, first of all, the law was crucially different then: it did not have a rule which said, "If you can't bomb this without accidentally bombing that, then you mustn't bomb this", but in the Second World War, it said, "Go ahead and bomb this". It does not say that anymore. Secondly, we now have better technology, so in fact in the first Iraq war and in 2003 as well, the targeting was done extraordinarily well. I would also remind you that in the Second World War the United Kingdom had its own corps of Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives officers under a man called Sir Leonard Woolley who actually went with the troops all round the fronts and said, "Insofar as it's possible, we don't target this. When we are in occupation, we seal off this", and, interestingly enough, the first troops into Rome in the Second World War, in contrast to Baghdad in 2003, were American troops dedicated to sealing off the museums. In terms of sanctions, after the Second World War at least one of the Nazi High Command was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity and actually executed for his role in the massive plunder and destruction of cultural property in Europe. Currently, two men are behind bars in The Hague for their role in the shelling of Dubrovnik and another is on trial, so there is a range of sanctions, and in fact the Bill itself provides those sanctions. It provides for jurisdiction in the courts of this country over people, wherever they may be, who destroy certain types of cultural property. I think I would be a fool to let you think that there is no problem with enforcement, that there is no problem with sanctions. There is, but that is international law generally. Insofar as international law is capable of stopping behaviour, it can stop this, but, when you have someone dedicated to destroying something, they will and nothing will stop them.

  Q4  Philip Davies: Professor Stone, you talked about Iraq and what has happened in Iraq and you were quite critical in your evidence about what may well have happened with the UK Forces. What have been the consequences of the Armed Forces failing to provide adequate protection?

  Professor Stone: Well, I was critical of the fact that there was no formal process in place to embed the identification and protection of those sites into the UK military planning. It was purely because I happen to live in the same small village in Northumberland as somebody who was a serving officer in the Royal Navy at the time who was in the MoD who was talking about, within the MoD, part of his role as targeting. From a conversation in late January of 2003 around the table in the MoD, the conversation went something along the lines of, "Iraq, we are just about to invade. Isn't there a lot of archaeology there?" "Yes, I'll ask somebody at the weekend who will know about it". That is a totally unacceptable way of going about the identification and protection of cultural heritage. It needs to be formalised in a process that will take account of that whole package of issues related to cultural heritage, as I say, at both the political, military and social levels, so I was critical of the process in 2003 and, whilst I know the MoD are working towards creating a better process spurred on by the creation of this Bill and the probability, I hope, of accession to the Convention, that formal process is still not in place, so, if the UK were to, God forbid, invade somewhere else tomorrow, there is still no formal process in place to identify, and protect, cultural heritage.

  Q5  Chairman: But how does that square with Dr O'Keefe's comment that actually we have essentially been abiding by the provisions of the Hague Convention since it was signed, even if we have not ratified it, and yet we go to war in probably one of the most archaeologically rich areas across the globe, and the only reason that they take account of this is because you happened to bump into somebody in the pub in your village who was in the middle of planning the invasion? The two things do not seem to square exactly.

  Professor Stone: I think rhetoric and practice sometimes do not square, and I cannot really comment further.

  Q6  Chairman: But, if you had not had that conversation, you do not think anybody in the MoD would have stopped and thought, "Well, we had better take account of the archaeology before we start dropping bombs on it"?

  Professor Stone: As far as I am aware, that is exactly the situation that was there in 2003.

  Dr O'Keefe: In the United States, they do have a body of people who advised the military and the President on this and they drew up no-target lists and all that sort of thing, but, when it actually came to sealing off the museums on the ground, that was a different thing and that was simply the decision taken not to put enough people in there and not really to take control of the area when they occupied it.

  Q7  Chairman: But you feel that the actual passage of this Act will change that position?

  Professor Stone: It certainly should do because, as Roger says, there is a legal requirement, there is a criminal element that will go with the responsibility.

  Q8  Mr Sanders: How does the draft Bill interrelate with the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 and has the 2003 Act been effective in preventing illegal dealing in cultural property?

  Dr O'Keefe: The 2003 Act deals with a wider range of things. It deals with the illicit taking of cultural property in peacetime as much as in wartime, so to a certain extent there is overlap between the two, but there is not interference between the two. Now, that is always very common, so, for example, some of the offences in this Act will already, if committed today, be an offence under the ICC Act 2001 and under the 1995 amendments to the Geneva Convention Act of 1957, so it is often the case that you have overlapping provisions in the criminal law. This is just more specifically geared towards the Convention, but it seems to me and, through reading the explanatory memorandum, it is fairly clear that the Department took great care to ensure that the two Acts mesh together. Now, whether the other Act has been effective, I think it is far too early to tell. I do not think it can have been ineffective, but I do not think I am really in a position at this stage to say whether it has been effective. You would have to speak to people who really analyse the art market and so on.

  Q9  Mr Sanders: So, if there is still illegal dealing taking place, it may be nothing to do with the Act or, if dealing is not taking place, it is not to do with the Act, or you are aware that dealing is taking place, but the Act has not actually had any impact?

  Dr O'Keefe: Well, I am sure the Act has had an impact. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some people have taken their dealings underground or are doing them through private sale or something like that, but I think it has certainly had some effect, although how specific I can be about it, I cannot at the moment; it is too early to tell.

  Q10  Mr Sanders: Does the definition of "occupied territory" used in the Bill exclude territory where occupancy is disputed or where a power maintains that it is not a hostile army, but is merely maintaining the peace?

  Dr O'Keefe: This is a question really to do with the laws of war. The definition we have here in the Convention is the accepted international definition. The International Court of Justice recently said this. It is what we call the customary definition of "occupation". Now, whether it applies in any instance is a difficult question of factual appreciation which always happens with law, so, for example, it took countless cases until the House of Lords recently said that the Human Rights Act applies in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances, in Iraq. That is something to be expected in the application of any law. In answer to your question about disputed territory, the answer would be yes. By comparison with the Geneva Convention, the fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has always disputed its de jure applicability to the occupied territories, but recently the International Court of Justice affirmed what the rest of the world has always said, that it does apply to these territories, and I think it would clarify that. It does not mean that there is an answer to every situation, so, for example, in peacekeeping situations, there are always going to be questions, but it is as good a definition as we can have and no national law is going to get a better one.

  Q11  Mr Sanders: Where you have peacekeeping operations that have been sanctioned by the United Nations, there is little room for disagreement, but, when you have an army that is claiming to be peacekeeping, who adjudicates in that circumstance?

  Dr O'Keefe: I think it is fairly clear in that circumstance that that army would be a belligerent occupant and I think it would be rare actually in law for a state to deny that, but, even if they did, as with international law, it is a decentralised system, but the states of the world generally would say that that person is an occupant and it may end up in the Security Council where a definitive statement to that effect is made.

  Q12  Chairman: But there is some concern about lack of certainty, particularly amongst dealers, as to which parts of the world come under the definition of "occupied territories". Is there any objection or anything to stop the Government actually just publishing a list, saying, "These are territories which we consider to be occupied in terms of the meaning of the Act"?

  Dr O'Keefe: To my knowledge, in the Act the Secretary of State can make a statement to that effect. In section 17(4), if any proceedings arise, a certificate by the Secretary of State is conclusive evidence. Now, whether that can be done in advance, I am not sure actually that the Secretary of State would want to legally prejudice questions on that, but that is something to ask, I think; I could not give you the answer.

  Q13  Chairman: But you will understand that, if you are the dealer, it is rather important to you that you know in advance—

  Dr O'Keefe: Sure.

  Q14  Chairman:—rather than after a prosecution starts?

  Dr O'Keefe: Just off the top of my head, it would make sense for someone to consult the Foreign Office lawyers and for some sort of list to be published. Now, whether in fact they do do that would be up to them, but I do not see any problem with that.

  Q15  Helen Southworth: You have described the draft Bill as, by and large, extremely well drafted, but you have explained some reservations about clause 4, sorry clause 5.

  Dr O'Keefe: Both, yes.

  Q16  Helen Southworth: Could you describe to us what your reservations are and why you think they are important?

  Dr O'Keefe: It is quite simple. Clause 4 omits reference to aiding, abetting and otherwise assisting in the commission of an act. It also omits inciting an act, but I will come back to that in a minute. In terms of aiding and assisting, Article 15(2) of the Second Protocol obliges the United Kingdom to give domestic effect to the various forms of international criminal responsibility that there are out there. The United Kingdom has accepted that Article 28 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court states these definitively and that Article talks about aiding, abetting and otherwise assisting, so, in other words, Article 4 does not give effect, as currently drafted, to one of the forms of criminal responsibility which the United Kingdom is obliged to give effect to. Now, I say that it does not give effect: it does not give effect in terms of England and Wales, but it does give effect in terms of Scotland, which goes to show that there has been some kind of drafting cock-up, I think, there. In terms of Article 5, it is the other way round. It says, "This is to be treated as X, Y, Z", but the term "X, Y, Z" is the English and Welsh term, not the Scottish term, so Article 5 does not work for Scotland, so I have set that out clearly there, but the bottom line is that, as currently drafted, those provisions, through what is probably just a technical oversight, do not give effect to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 15(2) of the Second Protocol. It is a complicated, very technical drafting point.

  Q17  Chairman: Regarding other drafting points, you will have seen the British Red Cross made a submission on a whole series of mostly small suggested amendments and I wonder if you have any particular observations on those and, in particular, their interesting concern around clause 12, the moving of cultural property and the ability of people moving it to put a blue shield at the top and claim that they have self-authorised to be covered by the provisions of the Act.

  Dr O'Keefe: Sure, absolutely. I think most of what the British Red Cross says makes eminent sense. One or two of the points I had not considered problematic myself, but there is no harm in clarifying the issue. As for clause 12, I agree with them. I understand, just through recent discussion, that the Department itself thinks that this is an oversight as well. I think it is absolutely essential that there be authorisation less so of movable cultural property itself than the transport of cultural property for two simple reasons. The first is that the United Kingdom has specific obligations in that regard to make sure that the transport is done in a particular manner and, unless the Government can control the manner in which that transport is authorised, there is no way of knowing if the United Kingdom is in satisfaction or breach of its obligations. Far more simply, let us just say that someone puts a blue shield on a shipment of arms: the first time that is discovered is the last time the cultural property is ever transported anywhere and next time it just gets blown away, so I think it is essential to have control.

  Q18  Chairman: So clause 12 potentially creates that loophole?

  Dr O'Keefe: At the moment, as drafted, clause 12, which lacks the Secretary of State's authorisation, plays up to that, yes.

  Q19  Chairman: I, as an arms dealer, can go and put a blue shield on my next shipment of Kalashnikovs and be confident that it will be waved through?

  Dr O'Keefe: Yes, although it is a very, very narrow area in which this takes place. This takes place during armed conflict in this territory, so it is a bit of a fantasy at the moment to expect that this is going to happen, but it could, God forbid.

  Professor Stone: It does raise a slightly wider issue about the whole ability of the blue shield mechanism to actually deliver. The International Committee of the Blue Shield is very, very badly funded and very badly resourced and there is an issue in my mind certainly as to whether or not there should not be closer collaboration between the whole concept of the blue shield and the Red Cross who have an international profile in this whole area and could deliver in many more ways probably much more effectively than trying to effectively create a new international organisation which is the process at the moment. Now, that is embedded in the 1954 Convention, but I think there is certainly some area of discussion there to have.

  Chairman: I think we need to move on to our next session, so can I thank you both very much.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 22 July 2008