Chicago's Persian heritage crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago's Persian heritage crisis (تاراج سرمايه باستانی ايران در شيکاگو in Persian) refers to a threat to seize invaluable Persian antiquities kept at the University of Chicago by the United States federal courts and also a threat to numerous other Persian antiquities kept in the Field museum in Chicago. It has been seen by Iranians as an example for the hostility of United States federal court system toward Iranian people and Persian heritage.^[1]

1 Background
2 Ruling
3 Background on University of Chicago's artifacts
4 Field Museum case
5 Larger international impact
- 5.1 US government position
- 5.2 Iranian response
6 References
7 See also
8 External links

[edit] Background

In 2003, a group of victims of a September 4, 1997 Iranian-linked explosion in Israel (a suicide bombing in Ben Yehuda mall in Jerusalem) won $71 million in a judgment in a U.S. court against Iran,^[2]^[3] for being a "state sponsor of terrorism".^[4] Hamas had claimed responsibility for the attack, so some American visitors filed the federal lawsuit against Iran and Iranian officials, claiming that Hamas was financed by Iran, making the country legally responsible for their suffering.^[4] The case is formally called Jenny Rubin, et al vs. the Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.^[4]

After Iran ignored the judgment, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina issued a default judgment for the plaintiffs, awarding them $423.5 million in damages.^[4], including $300 million in punitive damages.^[5]

After the verdict, the question was how to collect. Rhode Island attorney David J. Strachman, along with other attorneys, representing the plaintiffs, found that the late shah had purchased a home in Lubbock, Texas for his son, which was sold for $400,000;^[5] they then went after Iranian-owned objects held by U.S. museums in Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan.^[2]^[5] The Oriental Institute and its holdings from Persepolis became a primary target.^[5] Strachman said collectors are interested in the antiquities, potentially for tens of millions of dollars.^[2]^[3]

The university had argued sovereign immunity, i.e, under federal law, "certain property owned by foreign governments is protected from court judgments."^[2] The university was arguing that on Iran's behalf, saying that "the Iranians were gun-shy because of bad experiences with the American legal system."^[4] The victims characterized the university and other institutions as defending Iran.^[2]

[edit] Ruling

In June 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Blanche M. Manning ruled that only Iran, which has not acknowledged the suit, can claim its own rights.^[2] Manning said that the university's "brazen accusation that the courts of the United States are hostile to Iran and that, as a result, Iran should be excused from bothering to assert its rights, is wholly unsupported."^[4]

The university however, in light of the new ruling, has argued that seizing the tablets would frighten foreign museums away from loans to U.S. institutions, and that U.S.-owned objects overseas might also be seized.^[2]^[3]

[edit] Background on University of Chicago's artifacts

The Achaemenid (or Persepolis^[5]) clay tablets were loaned to the University of Chicago in 1937.^[6] They were discovered by archaeologists in 1933 and are legally the property of the National Museum of Iran and the Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization.^[2]^[3] The artifacts came with the understanding that they would be returned to Iran.^[5] The tablets, from Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire, date to about 500 B.C.^[2]^[6]^[5]

The tablets give a view of daily life, with things like daily rations of barley that were given to workers in nearby regions of the empire. These tablets were sent to the capital to keep track of how they were paying workers.^[2] Gil Stein, director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, said that details largely concern food for people on diplomatic or military missions.^[5] Each tablet is about half the size of a deck of Playing cards and has characters of a dialect of Elamite, an extinct language understood by perhaps a dozen scholars in the world.^[5]

Stein called it "the first chance to hear the Persians speaking of their own empire."^[5] Charles Jones, Research Associate and Librarian at the Oriental Institute and tablet expert compared them to "credit card receipts."^[6] Most of our current knowledge about the ancient Persian empire comes from comes from the accounts of others, most famously the Greek storyteller Herodotus.^[5] Stein added, "It's valuable because it's a group of tablets, thousands of them from the same archive. It's like the same filing cabinet. They're very, very valuable scientifically."^[5]

The university's Oriental Institute had been returning them to Iran in small batches.^[2]^[3]^[6] The Institute had already returned 37,000 tablets and fragments to Iran and were preparing another shipment when Strachman intervened.^[5]

[edit] Field Museum case

The case of Chicago's Field Museum is however different. It faces a similar lawsuit, but argues that its Persian collection was bought on the open market and is not owned by Iran.^[2]^[3]

[edit] Larger international impact

According to the UNESCO convention on "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property", transfer of ownership of any and all Persian antiques is illegal.^[7]

[edit] US government position

The executive branch of the US government, in particular the US State Department have been supportive of the Iranian government's position in this case, arguing like the University of Chicago that the artifacts are protected under the soverign immunity doctrine.^[5]

As in several other cases involving U.S. citizens and foreign nations, the United States Department of Justice argued that national interest is better served if such disputes are resolved through diplomatic negotiations rather than legal suit.^[4] Poking fun at the United States government, Manning wrote that "[t]he government relegates the [key] argument to a footnote."^[4]

[edit] Iranian response

In late June 2006, Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs, warned that "if the US denies Iran's right to its properties and assets to satisfy judgments by some of its court, Tehran will reciprocate the action."^[1]^[5]

Mottaki said "one of Americans' usual propaganda ploys is raising claims at the US courts based on the country's civil laws, which is contrary to the international law."^[1] He said that Iran had adopted a similar law in 1999.^[1] This has resulted in complaints against the United States for such things as its role in Operation Ajax and the Iran-Iraq War.^[1] So far, three billion dollars in penalties have been issued against the US government.^[1]

Mottaki says that Iran would follow up the case with UNESCO.^[1]

Gil Stein, director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago said, "The Iranians are understandably furious about this. You'd have to imagine how we would feel if we loaned the Liberty Bell to Russia and a Russian court put it up for auction."^[5]

Strachman said that Iranian commentators had been going into "crazy conspiracy theories", including calling it a Zionist conspiracy."^[5]

In early July 2006, following the decision, Iran sent Washington lawyer Thomas Corcoran to Chicago after years of refusing to participate in either the original terrorism case or the Chicago artifacts litigation, to assert Iran's immunities. Patty Gerstenblith, a cultural property law specialist at DePaul University, said that Corcoran's appearance changes matters greatly, as the crux of the judge's ruling was that Iran had to assert sovereign immunity itself. "It changes things pretty dramatically. If foreign sovereign immunity can be asserted, the case should be more or less resolved," she said.^[5]