Points on the Guimet Exhibition
3rd December 2007



The Agreements.
The usual practice is to sign agreements between museums’ directors, but each country may of course decide on it’s own procedures : the Bangladesh authorities preferred to sign the agreements at the government’s level, which was fine with France. Questions about the legality of such a decision are not answerable by France. Such agreements are not secret, but they are confidential because disclosure of the details could put the artifacts or the couriers at risk.

Consultations.
The French side had extensive talks with their counterparts. Since the Bangladeshi authorities had expressed a preference for government level agreements, France keep discussions at an official level. Mr Sarajul Islam Choudhury and others feel that France should have consulted the civil society and assist Bangladesh because, as they put it, differences in levels of development place France in the position of an adult and Bangladesh in the position of a “baby”. We do not agree. Bangladesh is a sovereign State and a respected partner, not a “baby” and France has no lessons to give. That is the reason why the French Embassy has nothing to say on internal Bangladeshi procedures and why, being the representative of our government, we worked exclusively with our counterpart, the Bangladeshi Government.
When concerned citizens contacted the French Embassy with specific questions, the Embassy has received them and answered as best as we could while respecting the normal confidentiality between parties.
Such questions have been few : most questions have been raised in a provocative way through the medias.

Opponents to the exhibition.
A small number of eminent citizens (26 originally, less thereafter) with mixed backgrounds, many remarkable but far outside of the field of archaeology except a few and none with experience of international archaeological exhibitions, have first expressed fears about the exhibition and then have been using all means possible to stop this exhibition from happening. While differences of opinion are legitimate, unsubstantiated insults misleading the public are not and the French Embassy protests against this way of debating.

Security.
The Guimet Museum is a national museum of France. Therefore, the loan agreement is guarantied by the French state. As usual, a decree of non-distrainability has been issued, which means there is no scope whatsoever for anyone to keep the artifacts in France, sell them or do anything at all except send them back as per the agreement., Thousands of international exhibitions have happened in France in recent years, and more than a hundred in the Guimet Museum: not a single theft has been recorded during those exhibitions and all the artifacts have been returned. No exception exist to our knowledge related on an international exhibition.
Yes, stolen artifacts are being trafficked everywhere, including France and Bangladesh, but they do not come from national European museums: they are stolen from their country of origin, whichever it is, as recent recovering of such pieces made by RAB or by many police forces throughout the world demonstrate.

Documentation
Proper documentation according to international standards was maintained irrespective of initial imperfections: insurance lists have 187 objects, corresponding to 187 accession numbers. A photographic record is annexed to the original agreements. The confusion probably comes from the fact that some working documents were presented by misinformed persons as the final documents. Following common practice, some items, punch marks for instance, are recorded by lots, so there are only 120 catalogue numbers. Each item or lot as its specific insurance value. Demands for video documentation are extravagant and far outside accepted practice.

Stolen artifacts and trafficking.
It has been repeatedly said that Guimet did not sign the UNESCO conventions: not quite true. There are two UNESCO conventions regarding illegal transfer of cultural property: one is dated 1970 and the other dated 1995. France has signed both. Governments, never individual museums, sign such conventions and everything agreed by the French government applies fully to Guimet since it is a National Museum. It may be noted that, while 102 countries have signed the 1970 convention, the 1995 convention is not yet widely accepted since only 29 countries have agreed to it. Bangladesh has not.
The Declaration on importance and value of universal museums, signed by the Guimet, Getty, Guggenheim, Metropolitan, Prado, Hermitage and British museums (hardly nobodies) applies only to objects acquired long ago: it has nothing to do with today’s loans (which are not acquisitions anyhow) between museums. It may be noted that Bangladesh is in a similar position : some of the artifacts in it’s museums could possibly be claimed by other countries, like the helmet and shield of Shah Abbas of Persia.
Allegations regarding other artifacts not returned after restoration will be examined. What is immediately clear is that those allegations do not refer to an international exhibition and are therefore irrelevant here. France does not pretend everything it does is perfect : we are just saying international exhibitions are routine and risk free.

Insurance values
Much has been made of the insurance values. Unique artifacts have, by definition, no monetary value because they cannot be replaced, so the insurance value is only an amount set aside for restoration in case of damage. Because a precise amount has to be decided upon, the lender usually uses the closest value taken from international auction houses. This value is best kept reasonable for two reasons: first, since accidents happen so seldom and would be anyhow fully compensated by the borrower, there is little call to make the insurance companies profit from huge bonuses and second, too high a premium might put the artifacts at risk of been stolen after their return because people might think, mistakenly, that they will be able to sell them for that price. In this particular case, values were reasonable to start with and, purely as a gesture of good will, have been increased further according to the recommendations of the Committee.
Some European indologist has suggested that those values were too low compared to other art works. Buyers determine market value : it is a sad fact of life that very rich buyers are ready to spend millions of dollars for a painting but not for other items.
The word “fraud” has also been used. That is ridiculous: a fraud implies a financial profit. The only profit for France is cultural: financially, it is a clear loss since this exhibition will be entirely paid by France; needless to say, receipts will, as always, be way below costs.

Transportation
The highest international standards are being used for this exhibition: Chenue Ltd, responsible for packing the artifacts, is known the world over. They have transported the Mona Lisa to Japan and the USA. Two direct flights are used for the transportation and the couriers will be more numerous than is usual and will stay in France for the all duration of the exhibition ; usually, couriers are only present at the arrival and departure of the artifacts. The security is foolproof.

Benefits
The benefits, for both countries, are cultural : it is a win-win situation where France gains a better knowledge of Bangladeshi heritage and Bangladesh gains a better image on the international cultural scene.
Money has been mentioned. Museums are dedicated to culture and art, they are not art dealers. Besides, the UNESCO frowns upon royalties between museums, the Standard loan form of the Network of European Museums does not mention royalties and the 2005 Action Plan for the EU Promotion of museum Collections’ mobility and Loan specifically recommends that no fee should be imposed between museums. It may be noted that the borrower paying everything is not common international practice: many countries consider that that publicity they receive by having an exhibition in Paris is worth a significant financial participation.
Costs paid in Bangladesh are the fees to the movers (Homebound). All others costs (packers, Guimet’s personnel, airfreight and air tickets, installations costs, running costs of the museum, couriers costs) are paid in France.
Who benefits financially in Bangladesh? Hardly anybody :
- The three couriers, nominated by each lending institution, receive a 50€ per day living allowance while in France with paid boarding (minimum salary in France is around 40€/day).
- Six officials (4 for Min of Culture, 2 for Min of Education) will be invited to the inauguration. All expenses are paid for up to five days.
- Each lending institution will receive fifty catalogues free of cost (price of the catalogue is 49€).
- No royalties, consultation fee, expert’s fees, lobbying fees, publicity or any other monies have been paid or will be paid to anybody in Bangladesh. All fees in France relate to an actual services.
Cost of the Exhibition is projected to be around 600.000€. Around 200,000€ are expected from entrance tickets and sales of the catalogue. The rest is financed by a sponsor, Crédit Agricole, a French Bank, which has a multiyear sponsorship agreement with Guimet regardless of the actual program.

Dhaka - Paris
In order to create a synergy with the Guimet exhibition, the French Embassy has been working on a few other cultural events to be held in France during the same period. This so-called “Shonar Bangla” (the real name is Dhaka-Paris) is the Embassy’s personal effort : it is not included in the agreements related to the Guimet exhibition and has no legal link to it. The French Embassy welcomes any question regarding “Dhaka-Paris”, but it is a separate item.
Since no significant sponsorship could be found, the Dhaka-Paris had to be limited to the financial capabilities of the French Embassy (around 48,000€) and other participants (around 47,000€). Thus, only the traditional Boat exhibition in the Navy museum (Friendship NGO – refer to the National Museum and to the Bengal gallery exhibition of the same), the documentary film festival and the Auditorium of the Guimet museum (in collaboration with Alliance française of Dacca for the sub-tittles), one Bauls concert (with a French NGO) and, hopefully, a painting exhibition at the CROUS gallery in Paris (with the Bengal Gallery). The French Embassy will pay directly some of the costs for these activities, but none of these partners are being paid or are making money with this venture : we are all spending money together because it is our job to foster cultural activities.

Misinformation
Misinformation has also been used rather freely: the report about missing objects is an example. First, you let fly the rumor that something is missing: this is too good to ignore, so of course some media report it. Then, you use theses reports of a rumor as a proof of the same rumor. Well done, but dishonest. The crates containing the artifacts were securely stored by the Bangladesh National Museum and only three crates have been partially opened by the committee, without unpacking, and immediately sealed again: obviously again, nothing could have disappeared.

Secrecy.
There never was any secrecy, but there certainly a lot of surprise on the French side : these exhibitions are routine for the Guimet museum, they are usually set up between museums without any fuss and no one imagined that this project would create such emotions or would require justification. Secrecy should not be confused with normal discretion regarding agreements : nobody publishes in the medias the agreements or contracts they sign, outside of public procurement procedures.
As for “secretly” removing the artifacts : it was done at 11am through the main entrance of the National museum with a truck from a reputed moving firm and in presence of all concerned officials, including security personnel, as per the schedule agreed with the Government of Bangladesh to be put on a normal scheduled flight : how is that for secrecy?
As soon as it can, the French Embassy will open a web site to give everybody a chance to be informed of all those events in France.