developing countries, specifically Mexico and Peru (Jowers 2003). The resulting agreement, the
1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export,
and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, indeed reflects the interests of those countries by
adopting the nationalist view on cultural property. The Convention grants each state wide latitude in
determining what would qualify as cultural property to be protected within its territory. The other
key term of the Convention – “illicit” – is also given meaning through the national laws of
individual states. Since states have wide discretion to determine what would be considered “legal”
trade, the Convention essentially emphasizes national retention of cultural property. Unsurprisingly,
most Western countries did not sign the Convention, which threatened to restrict significantly the
trade in cultural property; Britain and Switzerland even refused to participate in the negotiations
(Bator 1983: 97).
Two main puzzles require explanation. The first concerns the US policy on trade in cultural
property. Until the late 1960s the US was committed to free trade in cultural property: works of art
and other cultural property could be freely imported without duty and could be freely exported. As a
major market for cultural property, I would have expected the US to support museums and
collectors and to strongly oppose the UNESCO Convention. However, the US chose to sign the
Convention and ratified it immediately. Moreover, the US took additional measures in support of
the retentive nationalist position: a bilateral treaty with Mexico designed to enhance cooperation for
the recovery and return of stolen cultural property; executive agreements with Peru and Guatemala;
legislation controlling the importation of pre-Columbian monumental sculpture and murals;
aggressive administrative action by the US customs service; and criminal prosecution of smugglers
(Merryman 1986). Why would the US, against the interest of museums and collectors in free trade
in cultural property, enforce other countries’ retentive laws and policies? A possible explanation
would be the US desire to improve its relations with developing countries through cooperation on a
19
Convention