[Tony Smith]

Before things get too heated, let's look again at the original thread. An item was on LOAN to a museum, and it was asked to return it to the original owner (presumably the CWM, but possibly still the DND). End of story, full stop. I don't see anything subversive or underhand in that transaction. It wasn't sold, gifted or donated to the smaller museum, and both parties understood where ownership lay. It doesn't point to a hidden agenda by the CWM, the DND, or the Government at large (although it doesn't rule one out either!). It was part of a larger collection that could not be displayed, and was provided on loan to another museum that could display it. I think that is quite generous and a sign of co-operation between two museums with a similar charter. Knowing that the smaller museum did not own the borrowed item, it would have been wise only to allocate enough resources to bring the item up to a standard fit to display.

The question of ownership of items displayed in any museum is always an issue. Quite often items are bought outright with money from donations to the museum or from it's own accounts, or the item is gifted to the museum free of any conditions. In these cases, the museum is free to do with the item as it pleases, within it's own charter. However, where the items are lent to the museum, or bequeathed, or gifted with conditions, then the museum is bound by those conditions that applied to the acquisition process. If the vehicles mentioned are covered by an End-User Certificate, then the CWM may have breached their conditions of acquisition of the vehicles by on-lending to a third party, and are being forced to comply with the conditions. Certainly, the M113 vehicles would be under a US EUC, and if it does not list the 3rd party museum, then even the DND would be in breach. If the DND were to consider the consequences of breaching an International Arms agreement just for the purposes of appeasing a small museum, I'd hazard that the museum will always come off 2nd best.

I'm currently going through the process of negotiating an EUC to export an item, and it's not too difficult if supported with the appropriate paperwork. I would suggest the Museum in question contact the DND, and in conjunction with the CWM, apply to have the terms of the EUC modified to include themselves. Paperwork can be a PITA, but it's just paper and sometimes it's necessary to jump through some hoops to acheive an outcome.

Lynn's mention of the New Zealand M113s is a case in point. The original sale to a private buyer/dealer for re-sale was vetoed by the US State Department because the buyer did not have an EUC, and could not apply as the final owners of the vehicles could not be identified at that stage. It was presumed at the time that this was a closed door. Some vehicles were preserved in NZ Army hands, but I understand that at least one NZ private citizen has applied for an EUC and been granted ownership of one of the M113s, but with stringent conditions regarding uses and re-sale specified on the EUC. It is not the final say, just the conditions that are currently in force for that owner. A future application to amend the use or for re-sale will be necessary, and provided all the paperwork is in order, it will in all likelihood be granted.