"When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns"

The NYT published a sad article about the complex forces behind campaigns for the repatriation of antiquities. While I'm generally sympathetic to the concerns of the original owners (particularly regarding items the Nazis took from Jewish citizens), the article traces the potential darker motivations behind some cases. Artifacts can function as potent cultural symbols representing a national identity. This trait leaves them vulnerable to exploitation during international power struggles. Officials in the country of origin can assume the moral high ground by demanding the return of an artifact while simultaneously using the resulting fight to accomplish their international relations agenda. Ironically, the specific artifacts mentioned in the article are still being used as cultural loot--this time by their countries of origin. How should we evaluate antiquities controversies when all parties involved are tainted? What criteria should be used in cases with ambiguous legal standing?