APPLICABILITY OF AGREEMENT TO PROTECT CULTURAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 VILNIUS 001002

SIPDIS

STATE FOR L, EUR/NB, AND EUR/OHI

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/21/2014
TAGS: PREL KTIA LH
SUBJECT: APPLICABILITY OF AGREEMENT TO PROTECT CULTURAL
HERITAGE

REF: VILNIUS 733

Classified By: Pol/Econ Officer Gregory L. Bernsteen for Reasons 1.4(b)
and (d)


1. This is a request for guidance. Please see paragraph 12.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


2. (C) International and American Jewish groups have
expressed concerns regarding two construction projects on or
near a large Jewish cemetery not far from the center of
Vilnius. One is a multi-use building currently under
construction and mostly complete; the second is a long-term
development project that remains on the drawing board. A
2002 agreement between the USG and the GOL could be a source
of leverage to influence the future of these projects. We
seek the Department's guidance on the applicability and
enforceability of that agreement with respect to this case.
END SUMMARY.

--------------
Background
--------------


3. (SBU) The Snipiskes Jewish Cemetery, dating back to the
16th century, sprawls across a three-hectare site along the
Neris River, across from central Vilnius, in what is now a
prime development area. The cemetery has been closed for
over 170 years. Czarist Russia, the Nazi occupation
government, and the Soviet government each developed portions
of the cemetery, removed some graves and grave markers,
and/or otherwise despoiled the burial grounds. There are no
longer any headstones or cemetery walls, although at least
some sections of the cemetery contain graves or less
organized human remains. The exact borders are no longer
distinct.


4. (SBU) Interested Jewish parties in the United States argue
that this cemetery still belongs to world Jewry. The history
of successive appropriations of the property and vagaries of
post-Soviet occupation law seem to make this claim untenable,
as the cemetery grounds were already municipal property
hundreds of years ago. Czarist troops built a military fort
on the site as early as 1831, and subsequently the City of
Vilnius built a power station (now demolished) on part of the
site in 1901. Lithuanian property restitution laws only
cover property the Nazis and Soviets confiscated during their
respective periods of occupation. They do not cover earlier
transgressions, however odious.


5. (SBU) Individuals and at least one Jewish organization
have requested that we act on their behalf to stop the
project. We have consistently recommended that these parties
work through the Lithuanian Jewish community, or
alternatively, retain local representation to take
administrative or legal actions to stop construction, as
local laws allow. These parties have told us they will do
neither, contending they do not trust the local community and
that they cannot afford to hire counsel.

--------------
Development Plans
--------------

Commercial/Residential Complex
--------------


6. (SBU) The first project under contention, the King
Mindaugas Commercial and Apartment Center, is on the site of
a Soviet-era water sports complex. It is already
substantially complete. The City of Vilnius points to
cartographic evidence dating back to the early 1700s that
show this present construction lies just outside the old
cemetery grounds. Some parties within the U.S. Jewish
Community variously maintain either that the site is within
the official boundaries of the cemetery, that the boundaries
on the City's maps are inaccurate, or that, regardless the
official boundaries, the cemetery actually extended to the
area of the construction site and that formal graves remain.


7. (SBU) The Vilnius Municipality created a commission that
included representatives from the Lithuanian Jewish community
and the Prime Minister's advisor for Jewish Affairs to review
construction plans. The commission determined that the
proposed building would have no impact on the cemetery, and
the Municipality subsequently issued a construction permit.
The Lithuanian Jewish Community accepted the commission's
finding.

Sports Palace Project
--------------


8. (U) The City has released preliminary plans for a major
riverside development on the site of an existing Soviet-era
sports arena indisputably built on the former cemetery
grounds. The project is still in the preliminary stage of
development, but plans contemplate the possible erection of a
monument commemorating recognition of the Snipiskes Cemetery
and/or demarcation of a remaining portion of the cemetery as
parkland. The timetable for construction of the larger
project to replace the Sports Palace is still uncertain, and
the City has not yet found funding for the project.

--------------
The Agreement
--------------


9. (SBU) The Commission for the Preservation of America's
Heritage Abroad (CPAHA),on behalf of the USG, signed a
government-to-government agreement with the GOL on October
15, 2002 entitled "On the Protection and Preservation of
Certain Cultural Properties." (NOTE: Text of the agreement
is available at
www.heritageabroad.gov/agreements/Lithuania.h tml.) Articles
4 and 5 of the Agreement require the GOL to "take special
steps to ensure...protection and preservation of cultural
heritage" and to ensure that properties of cultural heritage
are "protected, preserved, and marked in the manner
stipulated by valid legal internal regulations."


10. (U) Lithuanian law provides for redevelopment of a closed
cemetery if the GOL determines it to be in the public
interest. (Translation of relevant portions of the text is
in paragraph 11.) Although no City officials have referenced
this provision, the law might permit the development of
Snipiskes, with the City promising to incorporate a memorial
(a park and/or monument) that will acknowledge the area as
the site of a historical Jewish cemetery.


11. (U) Begin text of the Lithuanian law allowing relocation
of cemeteries from Lithuanian Real Estate Cultural Heritage
Protection statute.

IV. Abolishment of cemeteries

Section 23

All closed cemeteries and burial places, including all graves
and burial places of solders, partisans and members of
resistance movements are cultural and historical monuments.

In special cases of national importance, city or regional
governments, after negotiations with the senior leadership of
concerned religious communities, the Ministry of Education
and Culture (now Ministry of Culture),the Ministry of
Construction and Urban Development (now Ministry of
Environment),the Ministry of Health, the Cultural Heritage
Inspection Service (now Department of Cultural Heritage),and
the State Defense department (now State Defense Ministry) may
present to the Government of Lithuania materials regarding
the abolishment of the cemetery and transfer of remains.

The Government's approved decision to abolish or transfer the
cemetery must be published in local and national press six
months before action can be taken. An appropriate
announcement must also be placed at the entrance to the
cemetery.

For one year after the Government's decision, relatives of
the deceased, interested persons, and organizations can
transfer remains and grave markers to other cemeteries
according to articles 12 and 18 of this statute.

End Translation.


12. (C) REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE. Post requests guidance on the
applicability and enforceability of the agreement signed
between the USG and the GOL. We have not inquired with the
GOL regarding the status of the agreement or the list and
commissions under the agreement to avoid tipping the GOL off
before we decide on a course of action. We are interested in
exploring the following questions:

-- Has the agreement entered into force?

-- If yes, and if the GOL determines that there is an
overwhelming public need to develop the cemetery or that
designating an area of the Snipiskes cemetery for a memorial
park meets the requirements to "protect, preserve, and mark,"
would the USG consider Lithuania to be in violation of the
agreement?

-- Has the USG intervened to stop construction or otherwise
influence the use/development of cultural heritage sites by
invoking this type of agreement in any of the other eighteen
countries where similar agreements are in place? If so, what
strategies did the USG apply? What was the result?
MULL