[suid]

The same issue arises over and over. Like the destruction of antiquities by religious radicals in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's good to round up antiquities at risk and export them, but with the right provenance and to suitable institutions to hold with a public display of that provenance, so that when an appropriate time comes, they can be returned. I.e. treat it as "borrowing" or "safe-keeping".

Not just take it and sell it to unscrupulous buyers who will keep it.

How would you like it if someone swooped down on your house in advance of a hurricane and said "hey, your house is going to get destroyed anyway; why don't I take your appliances and electronics and sell them to other interested parties for my profit? After all, you won't be able to use them while you don't have a home, so what's the harm?"

[AlotOfReading]

Holding artifacts for safe-keeping is a nice idea in theory, but in practice has been used as a way to justify retaining colonial-era thefts long after any reasonable concerns have subsided.

This has been cited for the Elgin marbles for example, and US museums for indigenous cultural artifacts, and even by the Germans in WW2 to justify keeping things like the Ishtar gate as they were being bombed.

[roflc0ptic]

That makes sense - I certainly see how “I’m doing this for your own good” opens up a bit of moral hazard.