Cultural policy Heritage Comment USA

Import ban on Chinese art creates an uneven playing field

Until China holds up its end of the agreement, trade restrictions will unfairly harm US museums, collectors and art dealers

On 13 January, the US renewed an agreement with the People’s Republic of China banning the importation of ancient art from China into the US. At a closed-door meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, a handpicked group dominated by anti-trade attorneys and archaeologists listened briefly to public input, then worked in secrecy to approve an import ban covering virtually all archaeological materials from the Peoples Republic of China, dating from the Paleolithic Period through the end of the Tang Period. It also covers more recent monumental sculpture, minor objects and Chinese coins. The secret committee process has been called by a former committee chairman, Jay Kislak, “absolutely, completely un-American”.

Import agreements are executed under the Cultural Property Implementation Act. The law allows embargos against foreign cultural property only if other important market nations also act—or if US import restrictions alone would significantly reduce pillage. The source country must actively protect its cultural property, there must be no less drastic means available to protect cultural heritage, and the agreement must be “consistent with the general interest of the international community in the exchange of cultural property among nations”.

None of these conditions exist in China. There is no evidence that US import restrictions have had the slightest effect on China’s internal cultural losses or that cultural exchanges have improved over the last five years. China is capable of enforcing draconian laws against its own citizens, but while it harshly punishes small-time looters it encourages the elite-run domestic trade. Chinese ministries continue to demand high fees for tightly controlled, often highly censored, travelling exhibitions. The only result of the ban is that US citizens and institutions cannot import or collect items traded freely in other parts of the world, including in mainland China and Hong Kong.

In fact, China has the world’s fastest growing and largest internal art market—focused entirely on Chinese art. The Poly Group, run by the former Peoples Liberation Army, sources art in New York for its auctions. The behemoth China Guardian Auctions specialises in the sale of ancient coins. Chinese buyers also dominate the global market. Sotheby’s, Christie’s, and Bonhams stated that in 2012, more than 70% of the Chinese art sold worldwide at auction was purchased by buyers in China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.

The Chinese government’s actions mock the committee’s attempts to condition the embargo and fit it into the parameters required by US law. They ignore the undertakings sought during the 2009 agreement: China would stop looted or stolen archaeological materials from entering Hong Kong or Macao with the goal of eliminating illegal trade there; would license the export of certain antiquities; and, since US museums are prohibited from acquiring looted or illegally exported artefacts, Chinese museums would also refrain from acquiring them. Instead, the major Chinese auction houses have increased active trade in antiquities and facilitated the growth of Chinese museums fed by the trade. The trade in Chinese art within China is at least 50 times what it is in the US.

The government has not established regulations over the art market in Hong Kong or Macao. While export is permitted for certain items in mainland China, no official proof of lawful export is provided. Export is permitted from Hong Kong and Macao, which remain Free Trade Ports, but again, without documents that would enable a US importer to prove lawful export. Meanwhile, the Chinese government turns a blind eye to the illegal copying and sale of US “cultural property”—copyrighted movies, music and patented technology.

The embargo on Chinese art deprives US museums and the public of opportunities for study, research and a better understanding of the cultural heritage of millions of American citizens. Import restrictions should be enacted as Congress directed—when they will ameliorate looting and protect archaeological sites. The 2009 agreement with China should have been suspended years ago. The renewal of the embargo merely perpetuates an uneven playing field in which US museums, collectors and art dealers are harmed and China’s elite-run art businesses thrive.

Kate Fitz Gibbon is a New Mexico lawyer specialising in art law, the editor of Who Owns the Past, Cultural Property, Cultural Policy and the Law, 2005, and the author of six books on Central Asian art

More from The Art Newspaper


7 Mar 14
18:35 CET


"Rick" from Lebanon has it wrong. Once a type of object is designated, it cannot be imported unless accompanied by an export permit or proof the item left the country for which restrictions were granted before the date of the restrictions. Such documentation is not available for anything but the most culturally significant artifacts. The problem is that the bureaucrats, enabled by archaeologists who hate collecting, have restricted virtually everything from given cultures. "Rick" may claim otherwise, but several former CPAC members have stated in public forums that State regularly ignores the law and makes every effort to hide that fact with the use of bogus claims of confidentiality. The "treasure map" claim is ridiculous on its face to justify such a lack of transparency.

3 Mar 14
16:49 CET


after years of neglect of museums by the Chinese government they now what everything back. collectors have sacrificed to conserve material and are now abused

3 Mar 14
16:49 CET


This is one of those slippery slope issues where those that are in agreement with the abusers claim that the opposition is Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling. But as with all power grabs and taxes- once they are established they seldom go away, they only grow and expand into other areas- perhaps into areas where those currently being supportive have a vested interest. Who knows, perhaps five years from now they will find their livelihoods in the crosshairs of politics and so-called political correctness. As someone that collects ancient coins I have seen a noble pursuit vilified and those that I call "archaeological extremists" have likened us to terrorists, criminals and even pedophiles. I don't believe in crystal balls, but I don't need one to see these one sided agreements are bad for everyone involved. Today it is coin and antiquities dealers and collectors tomorrow it will be archeologists given an ultimatum of following the state sponsored "history" or driving a cab

3 Mar 14
16:48 CET


The CPIA prohibits stolen archaeological and ethnological material from being smuggled into the U.S. The law is not an absolute prohibition on the trade of of commercially available cultural artifacts. The CPIA is designed to prevent the U.S. from being a safe-haven for looted and smuggled cultural heritage. Recent federal court decisions have said that the CPIA involves the President’s sensitive role in foreign policymaking, That is why Congress crafted confidentiality provisions in the CPIA, which also guards against the potential disclosure of "treasure maps" that could further fuel the destruction of archaeological sites by looters. There is certainly room for lawmakers to open the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) process a bit more, but it is wrong to intimate that CPAC operates outside the framework that the CPIA has set up. Efforts to halt the black market in artifacts from reaching America's shores creates a cleaner playing field in the U.S. market.

3 Mar 14
16:47 CET


True enough, but the elephant in the living room is "Why"?

Submit a comment

All comments are moderated. If you would like your comment to be approved, please use your real name, not a pseudonym. We ask for your email address in case we wish to contact you - it will not be made public and we do not use it for any other purpose.


Want to write a longer comment to this article? Email


Share this