I’m glad James Purnell has announced he’ll act to reassure the Russian authorities who’ve threatened to cancel the planned loan of a number of works of art which its intended will be shown in the Royal Academy’s From Russia exhibition starting in a few weeks. It’s easy to think this little row is caused by the dispute about Andrei Lugovoi – and that does of course overshadow Anglo-Russian relations just now, which have broken out into a sort of Kulturkampf, with the proposed suspension of the British Council. But this specifically cultural row has a history of its own.
Since this happened in 2005 the Russians have worried that their cultural assets might be the target of civil enforcement proceedings in the west, and Britain, having no legislation guaranteeing immunity from seizure, was concerned about the possible refusal of foreign authorities to lend works to British galleries. That led to Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which is intended to solve the problem, and which James Purnell will now commence. To be fair to the Russians, the FT story I linked to above indicates they will send the paintings as soon as that legislation is in.
But what I don’t understand is, why wasn’t the legislation commenced earlier? Admittedly regulations needed to be drafted, the consent of devolved administrations obtained, galleries geared up to follow guidelines and so on – but Royal http://www.gooakley.com/ assent was in July, and surely DCMS ministers knew this exhibition, including paintings from Russia which is especially sensitive, was due in January. I can’t understand what the delay’s been for – and perhaps neither could the Russians.
Mr. Gardner,
Can I have read your profile correctly? Have you really advised Mr. Blair on human rights? How, then, can you possibly be glad about HM’s government acting “to reassure the Russian authorities” who “have worried that their cultural assets might be the target of civil enforcement proceedings in the West” ever since Mr. Gaon’s 2005 attempt at seizing a Hermitage collection in Switzerland?
Do you know that the right to property is one of the fundamental rights enshrined into the European Convention on Human Rights? That being deprived of one’s property is a violation of those same rights? And you say you are glad to see your government has acted to protect the violator to the obvious detriment of the violated?
Please take the time to read my article below. I would be interested to read any comments of yours.
Karolus.
P.S.: I am one of 316.000 French holders of defaulted Russian bonds worth more than US$90 billion who have been deprived of any possibility of making good on their bona-fide claim through successive manoeuvres of the French governement which are very similar to what your government is now doing. We shall never give up, and will chase Russian assets wherever they may be.
——————————-
SPINELESS UK GOVERNMENT KOWTOWS TO RUSSIAN OFFICIALDOM AND FLATTENS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S BONA-FIDE CREDITORS
Is it normal to tread on the possible legitimate rights of bona fide creditors in the sacred name of art? If this is done to preserve “the rights of HM’s subjects” to access fine works of art, should HM’s government not compensate bona fide creditors who in the process are deprived of any chance of making good on their claims?
The Russians were rightfully worried that paintings they allegedly “seized” (in your and my language that simply means plundered) from private interests in 1917 might today be seized by (in your and my language that simply means returned to) heirs of their rightful owner if they sent them to a temporary exhibition in the UK.
In order to mollify the Russians, the UK has finally agreed to rush forward a piece of legislation giving immunity from seizure to foreign works of art while temporarily in the UK.
How can HM’s government kowtow to Russia’s government and announce that normal rule of law will be waived in this particular case, thus depriving the (allegedly) rightful owners of making good on their claim?
Does HM’s government have no confidence in its own law to establish who the rightful owner is?
Has HM’s government given up on contract enforcement and rule of law?
How crooked must the Russian government be to seek waivers from foreign laws lest one of its innumerable unpaid creditors file a claim anytime Russian assets are let out of its boundaries?
How crooked must a host country’s government be to enact a general law on the basis of one individual case, with the specific aim of depriving possibly legitimate claimants from any chance of lawfully making good on their claims?
Are we in Sicily?
The UK government’s grovelling attitude just serves to show how right the Russians are to throw their weight about. All of us in the West can now expect more of the same! Well done!
Yes, Karolus, I am glad. I agree that it’s a major problem if art has been looted in the past, but remains in a country’s public collection. I think each country should adopt a system a bit like we have here in the UK whereby the rightful owners can seek the return of the art, or else compensation. I like to see our system improved, actually, so that galleries can actually give the works back.
But what you’re talking about is quite different: as I understand it you claim no rightful title to any artwork, but simply want the right to seize art as a means of enforcing other debts. I am against you on that, yes.
As this incident has made clear, if the UK didn’t bring in this law, you’d be no worse off: you wouldn’t be able to seize Russian artworks here anyway, because they wouldn’t come here. But galleries and the public would be worse off as international art loans started going out of fashion.
This new law protects art loans, and only art loans. If you have any justiciable contract claim in English law against the Russian government, you can still pursue it.
So while I agree you’ve a right to have your claim properly enforced, and if the Russians are preventing that, you’re right to be angry; I don’t agree that there’s any fundamental right to interfere with international art loans.
Thank you Mr. Gardner for your answer.
Re-reading my first message I realise I was not entirely clear: I was not intending to stake a claim to these works of art myself. That was going to be done, as the Russians feared, by the rightful heirs of the Russian collectioners from whom they were plundered in 1917.
My anger stems from a sense of solidarity with the righful heirs whose bona fide attempts have been once again thwarted by the Russians, this time with the active participation of the British.
I believe that contrary to what you say, the heirs are worse off from the enactment of the British law: if no countries enacted such laws life would become so complicated for the Russians that they would enventually be compelled to do justice to all injured parties (and they are legion); instead of which, by enacting them, governements, such as the British, but also the French, the Swiss, and others, collude in thwarting the legitimate efforts of those very citizens they are supposed to protect!
In the meantime, the heirs remain deprived of one of their fundamental rights, the right to their ancestor’s property, without appropriate compensation.
The present case is in fact much worse than, for example, that of a museum which might have bought a painting from an art dealer without knowing that painting had been stolen from a jew’s flat by the Nazis, and then puts it on show in London; in Russia’s case, Britain is dealing directly with the plunderer! The Hermitage, which is a Russian public entity, never paid a ruble for the paintings, which it has always known full well were stolen in 1917. And so does HM’s Governement!
Sincerely,
Karolus.
Visit http://www.empruntsrusses.winnerbb.com