Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Africa North

Proposal to rent Egypt monuments refused

2013-03-01

[Egypt Independent] The Finance Ministry's recent proposal to rent out the country's key monuments, including the pyramids in Giza, to fund the current deficit in state budget has outraged archaeologists, cultural activists and the Ministry of State of Antiquities.

Adel Abdel Sattar, the secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, said in an interview on Wednesday with the privately owned ONTV channel that he often gets proposals for overseas exhibits, where selected objects are loaned under specific guidelines. "But is it possible that we rent our monuments? ... This is our heritage, our roots."

He explained that earlier this month he received a request from the Finance Ministry to study a proposal to rent out monuments, such as the Giza pyramids, the Sphinx, the Abu Simbel Temple and the temples of Luxor, to international tourism companies as part of a usufruct arrangement from three to five years. The request stated that this could generate up to US$200 billion in revenue for the state.

The proposal letter, which Egypt Independent obtained a copy of, verifies that the religious website "Al-Ketab al-Mounir" (The Enlightened Book) emailed the Finance Ministry the proposition made by one of its intellectuals named Abdallah Mahfouz as a "quick solution to the current financial crisis our beloved Egypt is undergoing."

The proposal did not indicate a specific country or company behind the offer, and mentioned no details of what the usufruct agreement might entail, apart from specifying the heritage sites and monuments of interest and the lucrative amount of US$200 billion.

Despite his objection to the proposal, Abdel Sattar opted to get official legal consultancy from the Ministry of State of Antiquities. Based on that, he called for a meeting with the council's board. The legal advice from the ministry suggested that heritage sites are owned by the state, and profits from them are public funds that may not be exploited through a usufruct arrangement.

The board unanimously refused the offer and sent their response to the Finance Ministry on 26 February.

Posted by:Fred

#8 Who's to say they aren't already trying that? For all we know they're now in contact with South Sudan, looking for advice.

Posted by: Charles 2013-03-01 19:24

#7 If the Copts were both devious and smart, they'd quietly move from Cairo and Alexandria, where they live for the most part, into the northern Sinai. It'd take a while but they could establish themselves. Do it without raising much suspicion. Then when they have enough of their people there, they make a grab for independence and invite the Israelis in for protection -- a 'mutual defense' treaty or some such.

The Muslim world would holler and squeal but so what? The Copts would have a homeland -- not much of one in the beginning but I suspect they're as industrious as the Joooz, so in time the Sinai would bloom. Boot the Arabs, let the Bedouin wonder about so long as they're peaceful, and build a country.

Posted by: Steve White 2013-03-01 17:06

#6 Renting them means that more icky infidels would be in Egypt, both to view the monuments and to service/protect them. Plus the rent money would disappear to be seen again only in a Swiss or Cayman bank.

Posted by: Steve White 2013-03-01 17:03

#5 The descendants of those who built the pyramids are long gone in Egypt.

The Copts are still there, Bright Pebbles. Though for how much longer remains to be seen.

Posted by: trailing wife 2013-03-01 14:01

#4 The descendants of those who built the pyramids are long gone in Egypt.

Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-03-01 13:53

#3 Zahi Hawass crapped his pants.

Posted by: Muggsy Mussolini1226 2013-03-01 11:07

#2 Thanks for another Rantburg U. session.

"But is it possible that we rent our monuments? ... This is our heritage, our roots."

It's a more palatable option than the one your religious fanatics will offer.

Posted by: Pappy 2013-03-01 11:01

#1 The legal advice from the ministry suggested that heritage sites are owned by the state, and profits from them are public funds that may not be exploited through a usufruct arrangement.

from Late Latin ûsûfrûctus, from Latin ûsus use + frûctus enjoyment - u·su·fruct (yz-frkt, -s-)
n.
The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

I had never seen nor heard the word usufruct, so I'd like to pass on the above information along for those like me.

Good Day.

Posted by: Your Name Here 2013-03-01 09:07

00:00