The debate over the theft of the Romanian treasure exhibited at the Drents museum in Assen, Netherlands, has turned into a deeply politicized uproar, with each actor trying to score political points, a lot of nonsense being asserted, and ignorance parading around.
- The most important pieces of the Dacian Treasure were stolen from a museum in the Netherlands
- The treasure was stolen: The latest information from the police and who the famous clan that could be involved in the robbery is
It is claimed, for example, that the exhibition took place in a rural museum, and valuable objects should never leave Romania. The Drents museum is not the Louvre, but it is the oldest archaeological museum in the Netherlands, a respectable institution in a country where museum culture is different, and not all valuable museums are located in the capital.
Of course, Mona Lisa does not leave the Louvre, but she doesn't need to. Millions of people flock annually to see her. When you belong to a culture with much less international recognition and awareness, it is important to reach out to the public, make yourself known, and thus demonstrate the importance and antiquity of your culture.
Romanian officials, led by the Prime Minister, are reproached for not rushing to the Netherlands for reasons that are unclear. The investigation is currently a police one, with transnational involvement.
Certainly, the treasure has a much greater emotional value for Romania, but for the Netherlands, security and responsiveness are under discussion. Such a successful criminal act sparks ideas, especially when the perpetrators remain at large. Therefore, I have no doubt that the mobilization of the Dutch is at its maximum, and the presence of Romanian officials there would not bring any gain, quite the opposite.
Moreover, we know how efficient they are when they rush in, big or small, during floods, fires, or other disasters that they try to politically exploit.
What authorities in Bucharest should quickly and unequivocally clarify to reduce the proliferation of conspiracy theories are a few specific aspects:
1. Did the museum in the Netherlands comply with the contractual provisions regarding exhibit security, and were the provisions comprehensive? The contract stipulates "continuous monitoring in the exhibition through the existence of a control center operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with security personnel available for emergency communications."
Did this involve physical security, which was non-existent, or were there sufficient digital systems connected to the police?
Dutch art detective Arthur Brand explained in an interview for Radio Romania Cultural that in Dutch museums, guards are not allowed to carry weapons to avoid collateral victims.
Who from Romania verified on-site how the Dutch side fulfills security obligations? The director of MNIR only said that he could not personally verify from thousands of km away, so we understand that no one conducted the verification.
2. Under what legal conditions did the Dacian treasure leave the country? Was a government decision necessary or not? The existence of such a Government Decision probably would not have been relevant in the course of events. It concerns how institutions in Romania should organize and collaborate in such situations.
However, regardless, disregarding procedures has become a Romanian brand, with extremely negative effects, and in relation to this, tolerance must be zero.
According to Government Ordinance no. 27/2023, initiated by Minister Raluca Turcan herself, in office at the time of the exhibition's approval:
Therefore, if multiple institutions and authorities are involved, a Government Decision is necessary; if it's just one institution and authority, it's not required.
The document approving the exhibition mentions exhibits from 19 museums in the country, led by MNIR. Ms. Turcan claims that it is, however, about a single institution, MNIR, and the ordinance provision refers to the situation when the Ministry of Defense's involvement is necessary, hence understanding another authority besides the Ministry of Culture.
The fact that the museum is an institution is revealed by Law no. 311 on Museums and Public Collections from July 8, 2003.
We need to learn about the authorities from the official interpretation of the ordinance. The truth is that when the treasure went to Rome and Madrid for exhibition, there were Government Decisions.
However, clarification should not come from the press but from state authorities, who seem completely overwhelmed by the situation and politically panicked.
What is most disturbing is precisely how the authorities behave, unable to provide coherent and precise answers, to lay out legal and institutional explanations on the table.
This spectacle can only have two winners. On one hand, the insurance company, which will undoubtedly do everything possible not to pay the insured amount, in the terrible event that the treasure is not recovered.
On the other hand, extremists, who will exploit both national frustration and the conduct of authorities. Extremists and their external backers. Because it is not at all excluded that this theft, clearly at a fixed point, may have been ordered by Moscow, directly interested in adding some nationalist frustration fuel to the potential tank that is running low for Călin Georgescu.