4 Masterworks Are Stolen in Zurich

By UTA HARNISCHFEGER and GRAHAM BOWLEY
Published: February 12, 2008

ZURICH — Armed robbers stole four important paintings by van Gogh, Monet, Degas and Cézanne from a museum in Zurich, the Swiss authorities announced Monday, in what they said might have been the largest art theft in Europe.

Three thieves, wearing dark clothes and ski masks, walked into the emile Bührle Foundation, a private collection housed about a mile outside of Zurich’s city center near the shore of Lake Zurich, around 4:30 p.m. on Sunday, a short while before the museum was due to close. The collection is considered to be one of the biggest privately owned collections of French impressionists in the world.

While one held a pistol and ordered visitors and staff members to lie on the floor in the main room of the museum, the two other men removed the four paintings from the wall: Monet’s “Poppy Field at Vetheuil,” “Ludovic Lepic and his Daughter” by Edgar Degas, Van Gogh’s “Blooming Chestnut Branches,” and Cézanne’s “Boy in the Red Waistcoat.” Their total worth is estimated at $163 million.

“It is a very bad experience because as museum director you live with these pictures day in day out, you become attached to them like family,” said Lukas Gloor, the museum’s director, at a news conference.

After the theft, the men fled in a white car, with the trunk open and the paintings visible, witnesses said.

“This is the largest ever art robbery in Switzerland, and it would be hard to find a bigger example elsewhere in Europe,” said Peter Rüegger, head of the police investigation.

The police said the fact that the theft took place while the museum was still open and the thieves were armed presented “a new dimension” for art robbery, and they said they were concerned it would set a new precedent.

The police said that they did not think the paintings were stolen “to order” because they were hanging in a row along one wall, and that the thieves seemed to have simply removed the row.

They were also not the most expensive paintings in the museum. The Cézanne was one of four variations of the same painting; the other three are in the United States, but the one in Switzerland was considered to be the most valuable.

The authorities speculated that the thieves stopped after taking four paintings because they were covered in glass casings and were heavy. Last week, two Picasso oils valued at $4.5 million were stolen from a Swiss museum in Pfaeffikon, Agence France-Presse reported.

The paintings, the 1962 ”Tête de Cheval” (“Horse’s Head”) and the 1944 “Verre et Pichet” (“Glass and Pitcher”), were on loan from the Sprengel Museum in Hanover, Germany. But authorities said Monday that they did not think the two robberies were linked.

In February 2007, two Picassos estimated to be worth a total of about $66 million were stolen from the Paris home of his granddaughter Diana Widmaier-Picasso.

The two oils, “Maya With Doll” from 1938 and “Portrait of Jacqueline” from 1961, were taken from her home on the Rue de Grenelle in the city’s chic Seventh Arrondissement.

In August 2004, armed robbers grabbed “The Scream” — Edvard Munch’s masterpiece of existential angst and one of the world’s most famous paintings — and another painting off the wall of a crowded museum in Norway and sped off in a black station wagon.

Uta Harnischfeger reported from Zurich and Graham Bowley from New York.

__________

 

Jonathan Freedland
It's no beauty pageant - there are real differences between the candidates


The US campaign has been painted as all about image, but there are policy distinctions - and they do matter

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday February 6, 2008
The Guardian


Funny, isn't it, how we have come this far in the US election campaign, reaching the milestone of results from 24 states in the early hours of this morning, and still a mystery remains - one that has vexed more than a few Guardian readers. Despite all the ink spilled, the pages filled and the airwaves crammed with coverage, they complain, there is something large they still don't know. What, exactly, do these warring candidates stand for?

Partly this is a media mea culpa, to go alongside the, er, misreading of the New Hampshire primary. For what have been the dominant themes so far? Barack Obama's rhetoric in Iowa, Hillary Clinton's tears in New Hampshire, the role - asset or liability? - of Bill, the cost or benefit of Obama's race and of Clinton's gender. On the Republican side, we've had Mitt Romney's Mormonism, John McCain's age and Mike Huckabee's wit. That's a bit of a caricature, but not so far off. Policy differences have not exactly been centre stage.

And yet, it would be a grave mistake to conclude that somehow this election is nothing more than a personality contest, albeit a gripping one. We could repeat the old cliche - that, under the surface, all these politicians are the same - but too many made that mistake before. In 2000 it was fashionable to say that Al Gore and George W Bush were ideological twins, the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of bland centrism. Now we know, to our cost, how wrong that was. So perhaps today, as the presidential campaign enters a new phase, we should take a hard look at what these candidates are about.

Start with Obama, the candidate who, more than any other, is accused of being light on detail. It's true that he offers nothing like the programmatic minutiae of Clinton, but it's still clear where he stands. During the last month, Obama's standard stump speech opened with a declaration that "The nation is at war and the planet is in peril". In that single sentence, he signalled two radical breaks with the last eight years, on Iraq and on climate change.

On Iraq, he cites his own early opposition to the war to draw one of his sharpest dividing lines with Clinton. Back in October 2002, when he was a mere member of the Illinois state senate, he addressed an anti-war rally. At that same moment, Hillary Clinton voted in the US Senate to authorise the use of force in Iraq, a decision she has never renounced. Obama doesn't quote his own speech but it would be powerful if he did. He condemned "a dumb war, a rash war" in terms that look remarkably prescient now.

More than five years on, Obama promises a US withdrawal and "no permanent bases" in Iraq, besides a garrison to protect the US embassy in Baghdad. He would send more troops to Afghanistan. He would then open talks with Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria, because strong countries "talk to their enemies as well as their friends".

He would not only end the war in Iraq, he says, but end the "mindset that led to the war in Iraq". That means an effort to restore America's standing in the world. Accordingly, he would close Guantánamo and restore habeas corpus rights so that no suspect could be detained without charge. He speaks about the assault on civil liberties entailed by what he does not call the "war on terror".

Related will be his effort to wean the US off Middle Eastern oil, required anyway to make the move towards "green energy". (Both he and Clinton avoid the language of climate change and global warming, as if preferring to focus on the solution rather than naming the problem.) He suggests setting a new fuel efficiency standard of 40mpg for motor cars.

Domestically, he wants to pay teachers more, to offer help with college bills to young people who do voluntary work and to do the same for returning military veterans. He speaks about financial excesses, citing "the CEOs who earn more in 10 minutes than ordinary people earn all year". He wants to raise the cap on social security contributions which at present sees Bill Gates pay as much as a worker who brings in $97,000 a year. "Millionaires should pay their fair share," he says.

Clinton touches some of the very same points, even in the same language, though she has wavered on the social security payment question. She, too, is for help with student grants, and keen to forgive the debts of those who become teachers, nurses or police officers. She, too, wants greener energy, favouring micro-generating solutions that would feed electricity back into the grid or that would see solar panels on household roofs.

She also wants to "end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home", promising to start withdrawing personnel within 60 days of taking office. Her husband says "we're going to use diplomacy with friend and foe alike", a slight shift from her earlier condemnation of Obama as "naive and irresponsible" for suggesting he would talk to the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro.

Her signature difference with Obama is in the provision of universal healthcare. Both agree it's a calamity that tens of millions of Americans have no cover. She would impose mandates, obliging everyone to be insured; he proposes no such compulsion, assuming that people will buy insurance once it becomes affordable.

Crudely, then, she is to the left of him on healthcare and he is to the left of her on Iraq. Otherwise there is huge overlap between their programmes - and, what's more, both would be recognisable to European eyes as pitched firmly on the centre-left. That has not always been the case with America's Democratic party. (Much credit for that goes to former candidate John Edwards, whose message of economic populism dragged both Obama and Clinton leftwards and obliged them to replace platitudes with gritty policies.)

Given this closeness between them on so much of the substance, it's hardly surprising their contest has turned into a duel over their personal merits as candidates. But that should not obscure a larger truth, also made clear this primary season - that the gulf between them and the Republicans remains wide and real.

On the large themes that unite Obama and Clinton, the leading Republicans are squarely opposed. During the last month, they have competed to declare their support for the Iraq war: Baptist preacher Huckabee said that just because no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been found it doesn't mean they weren't there: "Just because you didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean that it wasn't planted." Romney promised to double the size of Guantánamo.

On climate change, McCain concedes the problem, but would have little support in his party for taking any action: his arch-rival Romney would only say that man "probably" plays a role in global warming. As for the rest, the social programmes favoured by the Democrats are condemned as wasteful spending, and the need for universal health coverage barely registers.

The battle so far may seem to have been about identity politics, résumés and political style. But don't be misled: the ultimate battle will be about two entirely different conceptions of the US and its place in the world.

freedland@guardian.co.uk
---------------