LATVIA BACKPEDALING ON JEWISH PROPERTY RESTITUTION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 RIGA 000507

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/OHI (J BECKER),DRL/SEAS (G RICKMAN)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/10/2017
TAGS: PHUM PREL SOCI LG
SUBJECT: LATVIA BACKPEDALING ON JEWISH PROPERTY RESTITUTION
LEGISLATION

REF: A. 06 RIGA 924


B. 06 RIGA 921

C. 06 RIGA 959

Classified By: Ambassador Catherine Todd Bailey for Reason 1.4(d)


1. (C/NF) Summary. We recently met with members of the
Latvian Jewish Community as well as the Government of Latvia
to gauge progress on Jewish property restitution legislation.
Local Jewish community leaders stated that they have reached
a dead end and are now turning to the international community
"to take the lead." The GOL says that it no longer embraces
the heirless private property portion of the draft
legislation agreed to last year--due to "legal concerns" that
a portion of the legislation is inconsistent with prior
denationalization laws and could set a precedent for other
minority groups in Latvia. The GOL is now only willing to
consider the communal property portion of the legislation,
and that on a "case by case" basis. This was the first time
that the GOL explicitly backpedaled on the heirless private
property portion of the legislation, and the GOL's
explanations appear to be cover for what is a pure political
decision that reflects the firm opposition of Latvian
oligarch Andris Skele to this legislation. End Summary.


2. (C/NF) On July 5, PolEconOff met with Arkady Suharenko,
Chairman of the Latvian Council of Jewish Communities, to
discuss the state of stalled Jewish property restitution
legislation in Latvia (ref C) and consider steps forward.
Suharenko stated that the local Jewish community has been
unable to overcome political opposition to the legislation
and has exhausted all channels available to it locally.
Though clearly a bit reluctant to discuss the issue,
Suharenko observed matter-of-factly that the exact reason
that property restitution has stalled is due to the
opposition of one man--Andris Skele, a Latvian oligarch and
eminence grise of the ruling coalition's People's Party. In
a magazine interview in May, Skele quoted (but would not
name) a supposed representative of the Jewish community as
stating that the draft legislation is "the law of modern
marauders" and the "Jews of Latvia do not need this law."
Skele also stated in this interview that those pushing for
this legislation are "not the friends of Latvia." Until
Skele changes his views on the matter, Suharenko is convinced
that Jewish property restitution legislation will not move
ahead. Within this context, the local community is bringing
in the international Jewish community to "give new blood" to
the effort and "take the lead."


3. (C/NF) PolEconOff asked Suharenko if he believes that
meetings between Skele and representatives of the
international Jewish community would help. Suharenko, with
extreme reticence, stated that his sole recommendation would
be that "the General Prosecutor of Latvia become
involved"--implying that, since Skele's oligarch's hands are
so dirty, he should be brought to heel under the law and his
influence diminished.


4. (C/NF) In an earlier meeting with Dmitry Tsymber, a young
leader in the Jewish community, A/DCM heard similar points.
Tsymber stressed that the local community was not walking

SIPDIS
away from the issue but felt it needed outside help. He
pointed to the election of Valdis Zatlers as president as
evidence that Skele was on the ascendency and local forces
could not stop his opposition to the legislation. (Comment:
Zatlers, a political neophyte, has been criticized by some in
the press as a "puppet" for Skele.) Tsymber made clear that
they had no evidence that Zatlers himself was an obstacle,
but the community viewed his alleged ties to Skele as meaning
he would not be helpful on this question.


5. (C) Also on July 5, Acting DCM and PolEconOff met with
Ambassador Gints Jegermanis, Head of Policy Planning and
Ambassador at Large in the Latvian MFA, to discuss the GOL's
position on the legislation. Jegermanis, the GOL's point
person on holocaust issues, called us in to report on
consultations with the Prime Minister's office on Jewish
Property Restitution. According to Jegermanis, the GOL is no
longer willing to embrace the heirless Jewish private
property part of the legislation due to legal concerns that
this part of the legislation is inconsistent with broader
denationalization laws and could set a precedent for other
minority groups. He added, however, that the GOL would
consider the communal properties listed in the draft
legislation on an "item-by-item basis." This was the first
time that the GOL has explicitly told Post it will no longer
consider the heirless property portion of the legislation.
Jegermanis said that this was a political reality--there was
no support for the heirless private property. He said the
Latvian Embassy in DC would brief the State Department.

RIGA 00000507 002 OF 002


A/DCM, noting he had no instructions, commented that he was
glad to hear acknowledgment that this was a political
decision. The legal argument didn't fly considering the
lengthy debates on the draft law last year and cabinet
approval. He also noted that the GOL should be prepared for
the community to be skeptical. What assurances did they have
that in a step-by-step process the government would follow
through on all 14 communal properties.


6. (C/NF) In both this meeting and prior conversations,
Ambassador Jegermanis has intimated his discomfort with the
GOL's current position on this legislation. At the close of
the July 5 meeting, he mentioned that "if the issue were up
to me or the Latvian MFA, we would not be having these
difficulties."


7. (C/NF) Comment. The local Jewish community has not given
up on property restitution; its leaders have simply decided
that the current political dynamic in Latvia (i.e. the
opposition of Skele) is such that they see no viable way
forward with the local community in the lead. As such, they
are hoping that a new push from the international Jewish
community (and support from the USG) will shake up the
political status quo and create a dynamic for progress. The
government's assertion that the property restitution
legislation has been found to be inconsistent with prior
denationalization legislation is clearly an attempt to find
cover for what is a political decision.


8. (C/NF) Comment Continued. Looking ahead, Post and the
Department need to stress to the Latvians that the decisions
they are making are political ones--that a post facto
argument that the draft legislation is legally flawed is
nothing more that a fig leaf to cover the reality of
political decisions. (Note this legislation was vetted and
cleared by GOL lawyers in mid-2006.) However, Post also
wishes to stress that in dealings with the GOL, USG
interlocutors must remain engaged and at least express
appreciation for the fact that the GOL is maintaining
dialogue on the issue and offering something of a new
proposal (the idea of considering communal properties
separately on a case by case basis); we do not want to let
the GOL walk away from discussions entirely. In any case,
the local Jewish community will likely approach any new
proposals from the government with extreme skepticism, given
the events in 2006 when the GOL made assurances that the
legislation would be implemented after fall elections--and
then failed to deliver. End Comment
BAILEY