Fascinating. I don't know how anyone could say they're not doing anything wrong when selling artefacts they pay peanuts for physical retrieval of, to then on-sell for a fortune.
I'll steelman it. In the context of the Khemer Rogue and the wonton destruction of anything seen as cosmopolitan (eg, art), laundering it into foreign collections is a great way to prevent its destruction. And those "peanuts" you're paying the looters are actually quite valuable in a famine. The Cambodian government that came after that was obviously not nearly as bad, but it was still lacking in political stability and the old guard was still there as an insurgency for many years.
Look at how many cultural items ended up destroyed by the Revolutionary Guard in China's cultural revolution. If only Latchford had been there to loot them, they could be on their way back to China right now!
Sure. But in the immediate years (say '79-'85) how willing are you to gamble that the new puppet government really is here to stay. Look how fast Afghanistan fell back to the Taliban.
Granted, we're really pushing my ability to steelman this. I have no good rationalizations for after the mid 80s.
I think for that to be genuinely positive the items would be donated or sold to museums and galleries at barely marked up prices, rather than millions of dollars to private collectors.
It's like the argument that corrupt charities are ok because a little bit of good still came out of it.
Well I disagree with your example. If for some reason there is literally no other charity doing a certain deed, corrupt charity is better than no charity.
