FOREIGN JEWISH NGOS PROTEST LACK OF CONSULTATIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L WARSAW 001225

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2015
TAGS: EFIN PHUM KNAR PL
SUBJECT: FOREIGN JEWISH NGOS PROTEST LACK OF CONSULTATIONS
ON POLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY LEGISLATION

REF: A. 2004 WARSAW 1368


B. 2003 WARSAW 4074

Classified By: Political Counselor Mary Curtin, reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d).

Summary
--------------


1. (SBU) In Warsaw on February 16-17, a World Jewish
Restitution Organization delegation discussed private
property restitution with the Ambassador, SLD party leader
Jozef Oleksy, opposition leader Jan Maria Rokita, Treasury
Minister Jacek Socha and Sejm Speaker Wlodzimierz
Cimoszewicz. The delegation expressed its dissatisfaction
with the GOP,s failure to carry out promises to consult on
private property legislation with NGOs. The delegation
called the current draft legislation conditionally adopted by
the Polish Council of Ministers on February 15 unacceptable
as it contains no possibility for in rem restitution and
provides for cash compensation at the rate of only 15 percent
of current value. They also floated the idea of a separate
settlement for Jewish owners.


2. (SBU) In response to the group's request, the Ambassador
promised to raise again the issue of consultations with the
GOP and advised that public pressure on the Poles may be
counterproductive at this time. Oleksy expressed his support
for consultations, but rejected in rem restitution and a
separate law only for Jewish owners as impractical. Rokita
supported consultations and in rem restitution, but also saw
a separate law for Jews as unrealistic. Socha apologized for
the lack of consultations and unsuccessfully tried to sell
the delegation on the merits of the draft law. Cimoszewicz
offered consultations once the law reached the Sejm. The
delegation, however, could not come to a common position on
his offer. End summary.

Ambassador Offers to Push GOP
--------------


3. (SBU) On February 16, a World Jewish Restitution
Organization (WJRO) delegation consisting of World Federation
of Polish Jews (U.S. Branch) representative Kalman Sultanik,
Holocaust Restitution Committee Chairman Yehuda Evron,
Association of Polish Jews in Israel Chairman Arye Edelist
and WJRO advisor Monika Krawczyk met with the Ambassador.
The delegation complained that Poland remained one of the few
countries in Central Europe that had yet to deal with private
property restitution. The delegation pointed out that
despite promises by PM Miller in 2002, FM Cimoszewicz in
2003, and Deputy Minister of Treasury Andrzej Szarawarski in
2004 (Ref A),the GOP had yet to begin consultations with
NGOs on private property legislation. The delegation called
draft legislation on private property compensation that the
Polish Council of Ministers approved conditionally on
February 15 unacceptable because it made no provision for in
rem restitution and provided for cash compensation at the
rate of only 15 percent of current value.


4. (C) The Ambassador responded that the U.S. had repeatedly
urged the GOP to engage in consultations on the private
property legislation. He stated that he would send a letter
to Treasury Minister Socha again urging consultations with
the WJRO and other U.S. NGOs (note: This letter was delivered
on February 18). He noted that the draft approved by the
Council of Ministers did not have a citizenship requirement,
which was an improvement over the legislation approved by the
Sejm in 2001 (later vetoed by President Kwasniewski). He
suggested that public pressure would likely result in the GOP
becoming even more uncooperative. (Note: At a February 15
dinner, the Israeli Ambassador delivered a similar but
stronger message. He told the delegation to avoid a public
campaign as he believed that this would scuttle any private
property solution and result in increased anti-Semitism in
Poland. The delegation reportedly agreed to hold off on
public pressure for the time being. End note).

SLD Leader Oleksy for Consultations, Against Separate Law
-------------- --------------


5. (SBU) On February 16, the delegation met with SLD party
chief Jozef Olesky. Sultanik expressed the WJRO,s deep
disappointment over the lack of consultations, no possibility
for in rem restitution in the GOP bill and the proposed 15
percent cash compensation. In a surprise move, Sultanik
suggested that as &Jewish suffering had been greater and
unique,8 a separate law to deal with Jewish private property
should be considered.


6. (SBU) Oleksy agreed that consultations should take place,
but urged the WJRO to be favorable toward the GOP,s
legislative proposal as he believed that "once the


nationalist government takes power no law on this issue will
be likely." (Note: Oleksy,s reference was to the
center-right government expected after elections later this
year. End note.) Oleksy said the return of actual
properties was not possible given changes in ownership in the
past 60 years. He called a separate law for Jewish owners a
non-starter as this would cause an anti-Jewish backlash and
would never pass the Sejm. He added that when he was Prime
Minister in the mid-1990s, WJRO leader Israel Singer had
agreed to one law dealing with all owners. He asked the
delegation what percentage compensation would be
satisfactory, but the delegation declined to give a figure.

Opposition's Rokita Backs in rem Restitution
--------------


7. (SBU) Meeting with Civic Platform (PO) leader Jan Maria
Rokita (likely to be Poland's next PM) on February 16, the
delegation emphasized that now is the time to do justice for
all who lost property, especially Holocaust survivors. Evron
was particularly adamant on this point and cited the fact
that the descendants of Holocaust survivors "cannot
understand why democratic Poland has done nothing, they ask
me if Poland is still communist." Sultanik added that
further delay could "hurt Polish-Jewish and Polish-Israeli
relations." The delegation urged Rokita to weigh in with the
GOP in favor of consultations with the WJRO, in rem
restitution and a compensation rate higher than 15 percent.
Sultanik raised the idea of a separate law on former Jewish
properties.


8. (SBU) Rokita agreed that the private property issue needed
to be settled as soon as possible. He declared "the maximum
of good will" in this regard and added that PO was
considering adopting a position supporting in rem restitution
where possible. He noted his personal support for in rem
restitution, provided that a legal mechanism that the courts
would not overturn could be found. He agreed that 15 percent
was symbolic compensation, but added that no more than this
was possible given Polish budgetary limits. While declaring
his support for consultations, Rokita urged the delegation to
approach the GOP directly on this issue. He rejected the
idea of a separate law for Jewish owners as this would be
contrary to the principle of equality before the law and
would likely be found unconstitutional in Polish courts.

Treasury Minister Apologizes for Lack of Consultations
-------------- --------------


9. (SBU) On February 17, the delegation met with Treasury
Minister Jacek Socha, Treasury's Reprivatization Department
Director Krzysztof Pawlak, and Reprivatization Expert
Magdalena Falkowska. Sultanik stated he "was shocked" the
GOP had "broken its promises to consult with the WJRO,"
citing in particular then Deputy Treasury Minister
Szarawarski,s April 22, 2004 promise to consult (Ref A).
Edelist seconded Sultanik, calling the lack of consultations
"contrary to the rules of a democratic system." He repeated
his objections, adding that the bill left out much Jewish
property as it covered nationalization acts in 1944-1962 with
the exception of one from March 1946 dealing with former
German and Jewish property.


10. (SBU) Socha, taken aback by the delegation,s statements,
turned to Pawlak in Polish and demanded, "why did you not
tell me that we should carry out consultations on this before
sending it to the parliament?" Pawlak responded that
Szarawarski had agreed to consultations, but only after the
law had been accepted by the Council of Ministers. Socha
shot back, "it would be senseless to consult then." Socha
apologized for the lack of consultations and said his staff
had not informed him of Szarawarski,s promise. The
delegation interjected that WJRO Chairman Singer had sent a
letter to PM Belka in November 2004 regarding consultations
and that although Belka,s office had tasked Treasury with
drafting a response, no response had yet been received.
Socha again apologized and requested that the WJRO present
its position on specific issues in writing as soon as
possible and that he would attempt to have these views taken
into consideration.


11. (SBU) Socha added he had great sympathy for former
owners, as his own family had lost properties in Buchacz, now
in Ukraine. He stated that in rem restitution was already
possible via Polish courts. (Note: This is true, but only in
cases of gross violation of the stipulations and procedures
of nationalization decrees. End note.) He regretted the
percentage of compensation was not higher, but 15 percent was
the maximum Poland could afford. He added that the GOP had
to be fair to all former owners and that 15 percent was the
same rate that would be in new GOP draft legislation
providing compensation to so-called "Easterners," who had
lost property in what is now Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine


(Ref B). He added that 15 percent should come as no
surprise, as for several years public discussions of
reprivatization mentioned approximately this rate. He noted
that this compared favorably with Hungary, which had only
paid 10 percent. Pawlak explained that in the final draft a
clause had been added to include property confiscated by Nazi
Germany after September 1, 1939, and later taken over by the
Polish state; this clause included former Jewish property.


12. (SBU) Responding to Socha, the delegation stated that the
WJRO had no prior knowledge of the 15 percent figure (Note:
We understand that the WJRO was, in fact, familiar with GOP
guidelines announced in March 2004 that foresaw a
compensation rate of 10-15 percent. End note.) Edelist
objected to the use of Hungary as a measure for comparison,
as "the Czech Republic and Romania are returning actual
properties, Poland should be compared with them."

Speaker Cimoszewicz Offers Consultations in Parliament
-------------- --------------


13. (SBU) On February 17 the delegation met with Sejm
Speaker Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Sejm International Relations
Office Director Krzysztof Szumski, and Cimoszewicz,s
assistant Mariusz Edgaro. Sultanik expressed the
delegation,s shock over the lack of consultations, saying
that such behavior was "unacceptable in the civilized world,"
and repeated his objections to the draft law.


14. (SBU) Cimoszewicz stated that it was "shameful" that the
private property issue had still not been solved, and
expressed his regrets that no consultations had taken place.
Citing his own family,s loss of property in Ukraine, he said
he understood the deep emotional attachment to ancestral
property, however, "history cannot be reversed" and in rem
restitution was just not possible. He rejected the idea of a
separate law on Jewish property as unrealistic. He said that
while it appeared to be too late for consultations with the
GOP, he was willing to offer consultations in the Sejm. He
said that there were two possibilities: rapid consultations
with a good chance of a law being passed or more detailed
consultations with a significant risk that the bill would not
be passed before parliamentary elections (which would require
it to be reintroduced). He pledged to contact interested
Polish and Jewish organizations and send them a copy of the
GOP bill once it reached the Sejm.


15. (SBU) The delegation presented a divided response to
Cimoszewicz,s proposal. Evron, emphasizing that Holocaust
survivors were rapidly passing away, said that the shorter
consultations with a good chance of passage of the law were
the best option. Sultanik disagreed, saying that the Jewish
community needs more time to come up with a common position
on specific proposals. Edelist took a position between the
two, emphasizing that short consultations could be a solution
if in rem restitution would be added to the bill.

Comment
--------------


16. (SBU) The lack of detailed consultations with the WJRO,
despite repeated U.S. requests and GOP promises, is
disappointing. At this point, it appears unlikely that any
consultations will take place before the Council of Ministers
sends the draft compensation law to the Sejm. This, and
indications that the GOP will push for passage of the bill
this term, gives added importance to Cimoszewicz,s offer of
Sejm consultations. To avoid missing this opportunity, the
WJRO will need to better define its interests and prepare to
respond rapidly to the Polish draft law.
ASHE


NNNN

2005WARSAW01225 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL