This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L  WARSAW 002265 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
TREASURY FOR OASIA 
FRANKFURT FOR TREASURY JIM WALLAR 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/16/2015 
TAGS: EFIN KNAR PGOV PHUM PL BE BO EZ HU IS UP WJRO
SUBJECT: HOLOCAUST ISSUES SPECIAL ENVOY EDWARD O'DONNELL IN 
POLAND: HOLOCAUST EDUCATION TASK FORCE AND RESTITUTION 
CENTER OF DISCUSSION 
 
REF: A. 2004 WARSAW 5224 
     ¶B. WARSAW 2061 
     ¶C. WARSAW 1928 
 
Classified By: Charge Cameron Munter.  Reasons: 1.5 (B) and (D). 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: During his May 4-7 visit to Poland Special 
Envoy for Holocaust Issues Ambassador Edward O'Donnell 
discussed with key Polish officials and leaders of the Jewish 
community Poland's ChairmRmQqMQnd 
plans for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ). 
ITC discussions centered on the question of expanding 
membership (especially to Ukraine), disputes over 
International Tracing Service records (ITS) and the selection 
of the next chair.  Regarding private property restitution 
legislation, O'Donnell emphasized the need for fair and equal 
treatment of U.S. citizen owners and the need to consult with 
NGOs representing U.S. citizen claimants, especially the 
World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO).  The Polish 
side expressed openness to consult with NGOs (including the 
WJRO), explained the likely Sejm timetable for the 
legislation that foresees passage in late August and noted 
that provisions for in rem restitution will be considered in 
the sub-committee working on the bill.  Jewish community 
leaders noted that communal property restitution continues at 
a slow pace, with better progress in Warsaw and Lodz, and 
presented their position on the controversy surrounding the 
Poznan Synagogue.  Discussions on MPHJ centered on a recent 
visit by U.S. Members of Congress regarding the museum and a 
presentation of the museum project. End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) During his Warsaw visit, on May 4 O'Donnell met with: 
 
a. Jewish Community: Andrzej Zozula, Deputy Chairman, Union 
of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland (ZGZ); Michael 
Schudrich, Chief Rabbi of Poland. 
 
b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Ireneusz Kotarski, Advisor to 
the Minister; Karel Francapane, ITC staffer. 
 
c. Polish Parliament (Sejm): Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, 
Chairman, Committee on State Treasury. 
 
d. Museum of the History of Polish Jews (meeting on May 6): 
Jerzy Halbersztadt, Project Director; Ewa Junczyk-Ziomecka, 
Director for Development; Agnieszka Rudnicka, Deputy Director 
for Development. 
 
O'Donnell also took part in the March of the Living at the 
site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Camp on May 5 and 
attended a Shabbat dinner sponsored by the U.S. 
Anti-Defamation League in Warsaw on May 6. 
 
International Holocaust Education Task Force 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) The dominant point of discussion on ITC was the 
question of adding new members.  Kotarski explained that 
Poland "wants to enlarge ITC as much as possible," especially 
in regard to countries that were once in the USSR, especially 
Ukraine and Belarus (Ref A).  While Poland wants to invite 
Ukraine to join soon, membership for Belarus under the 
Lukashenko regime Kotartski mused, despite cooperation 
between Polish and Belarusian NGOs on Holocaust education, 
would be very unlikely.  Francapane noted that both Slovakia 
and Croatia had declared their interest in membership, but 
had not yet taken concrete steps in this direction. 
O'Donnell stated that the Croatian Minister of Education had 
confirmed Croatian interest to him.  O'Donnell added that 
Belgium was also a candidate and was taking steps to meet the 
membership requirements. 
 
¶4. (C) Francapane pointed out that there was a discussion in 
the ITC as to what position to take on new members.  He said 
that the Israeli government, in particular key Israeli MFA 
official Nimrod Barkan, strongly supported raising the bar 
for membership.  Barkan told Fracapane that the ITC should 
"not be seen as a respectable club that diplomats just try to 
get into for political reasons" but as a group of countries 
truly dedicated to excellence in Holocaust education. 
O'Donnell responded that at some point there would be a limit 
to growth, as it was difficult to imagine that all 55 members 
of the OSCE would become members of the ITC.  Kotarski 
agreed, in theory, that at some point membership may need to 
 
be limited, but added that this time was far in the future. 
 
¶5. (C) Turning to the discussion of access to records held by 
the International Tracing Service (ITS), Francapane stated 
that the French government would put forward a compromise 
proposal that would lead to full access and copying of ITS 
documents.  He added, and O'Donnell agreed, that the German 
position against calls for increased access was unhelpful. 
Francapane urged that the time to reach an agreement was now, 
before the upcoming meeting on ITS in Rome. 
 
¶6. (C) Fracapane stated that the main candidates to succeed 
Poland as ITC chair were Hungary, the Czech Republic and 
possibly Israel.  He declared that Hungary was not the best 
candidate due to lack of progress on certain aspects of 
Holocaust Education and the minute role of the Hungarian MFA 
in Holocaust Education.  He added, however, that the Hungary 
was actively pursuing the chairmanship.  Francapne believed 
that the Czech Republic would be a better candidate, a 
position that Kotarski supported noting the Czech Republic's 
good contacts with Ukrainian NGOs, but the Czechs need to 
energize their campaign.  Fracapane added that he had 
received a signal from Israel that it was considering making 
a run for the chairmanship.  O'Donnell replied that the U.S. 
had not yet taken a position on the next chair and noted that 
we were unaware of Israeli interest in the chairmanship. 
 
Private Property Restitution 
---------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) O'Donnell emphasized to Marcinkiewicz, whose Sejm 
committee is now working on legislation that would provide 15 
percent cash compensation for nationalized property (Ref B), 
that the U.S. supports equal and fair treatment of U.S. 
citizen owners who had their property nationalized. 
O'Donnell stressed the need for consultations with NGOs that 
represent U.S. citizen owners, notably the WJRO.  He added 
that the WJRO has been critical of the legislation in the 
Sejm because it contains no provision for in rem restitution 
and it believes the 15 percent amount to be too low.  He 
explained that while the U.S. does not support a specific 
rate of compensation, it is important that this rate be large 
enough to bring closure to the private property issue. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Marcinkiewicz responded that he had met with the 
WJRO in the past and was open to further consultations with 
them.  He emphasized, however, that the WJRO and other U.S. 
NGOs should also present their concerns to the Democratic 
Left Alliance (SLD), which remained the largest Sejm 
parliamentary club and could play a key role in supporting 
the changes the WRJO wants (especially in rem restitution). 
Marcinkiewicz informed that his committee had just completed 
forming a sub-committee, chaired by Law and Justice (PiS) MP 
Marek Suski, that would work on the private property bill and 
a bill providing compensation to "Easterners" (i.e. Polish 
citizens who lost property when Poland's eastern border was 
moved west at the end of World War II).  He expected the 
sub-committee to finish its work by mid-June, after which the 
Sejm would vote on the modified bills and they would be sent 
for Senate approval.  Barring a rejection by the Sejm or 
floor amendments, Marcinkiewicz predicted that the final Sejm 
vote would take place in August, which would allow President 
Kwasniewski to sign the bill into law before 
September/October parliamentary elections.  Marcinkiewicz 
predicted that some of the modifications being considered in 
the bill, such as the possibility of limited in rem 
restitution, could generate significant controversy in the 
Sejm. 
 
¶9. (C) O'Donnell expressed satisfaction that limited in rem 
would be considered, as this is the top issue for the WJRO. 
He added that consideration of a higher rate of compensation 
would also be good news.  He further informed that, according 
to State Department records, the 1960 compensation agreement 
between the U.S. and Poland provided compensation at a rate 
of approximately 30 percent for U.S. citizens who had been 
owners at the time of nationalization.  O'Donnell emphasized 
that this was a point of information, not a U.S. suggestion 
as to what the rate should be in the Polish law. 
Marcinkiewicz responded that while he could not make firm 
promises, his committee was examining closely the Finance 
Ministry's estimates on resources for compensation and 
expected "that as usual Finance took a pessimistic view," 
which would allow the Sejm to consider a rate above 15 
percent. 
 
¶10. (C) Zozula and Schudrich (protect both) described the 
compensation bill as "something that no one is happy with." 
While noting that the ZGZ took no official position on 
private property restitution, Zozula stated that 15 percent 
compensation was so low that it satisfied no one.  It was his 
understanding that there is a rough consensus among 
organizations representing former owners that a compensation 
rate of 50 percent was the minimum that they would be willing 
to consider.  O'Donnell asked about recent press reports on 
an Israeli government report estimating the value of former 
Jewish private property in Poland to be USD 36 billion. 
Zozula said that this number was "so fantastic that no one 
took it seriously." 
 
Communal Property Restitution 
----------------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) Zozula and Schudrich informed that communal 
property restitution continued, but at a slow pace.  Giving 
the GOP the benefit of the doubt, Schudrich stated that the 
pace of Jewish communal religious property restitution was 
approximately the same as that of restitution of property to 
the Catholic Church, although the Catholics started earlier. 
He added, however, that the situation of Poland's small 
Jewish community was much different than that of the Catholic 
Church in Poland, and that the community did not have the 
financial resources to carry meet its needs furing the time 
it took for restitution.  Zozula summed up the situation 
stating that "for the Jewish community communal property 
restitution is perhaps not a question of survival, but a 
question of financial independence."  They both complained 
that the joint Jewish-community/GOP regulatory commission 
that decides cases is averse to making unpopular decisions to 
return property. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Zozula emphasized that the attitude of local 
government played a significant role in the pace of 
restitution.  He added, "surprisingly we have had more 
success with cities where the right is in power," and pointed 
to good cooperation on restitution with Warsaw Mayor Lech 
Kaczynski and Lodz Mayor Jerzy Kropiwnicki as particular 
examples.  Zozula added that conservative local authorities 
tended to view communal restitution as a question of carrying 
out the law, while the post-communist left local officials 
were more inclined to see it as a question of the loss of 
real estate and, thereby, a reduction of their power. 
 
Poznan Synagogue 
---------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Schudrich raised the issue of the Poznan Synagogue, 
which he said was receiving increasing attention in the U.S. 
He explained that the Jewish Community fully supported the 
WielkopolQi (Poznan) Governor's recent rejection of a motion 
to have the synagogue declared a historic building was 
supported fully by the Jewish community.  According to 
Schudrich, the Nazis, who transformed the building into a 
swimming pool,  had so changed the building that it no longer 
resembled the original.  Historic status would have made it 
more difficult and expensive for the Poznan Jewish community 
(to which the synagogue was restituted in 2003) to make any 
modifications to the building. 
 
 
Museum of the History of Polish Jews 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶14. (U) Halbersztadt and Junczyk-Ziomecka showed O'Donnell a 
slide presentation about MHPJ and noted that approximately a 
quarter of the permanent exhibit at the museum will be 
devoted to the Holocaust.  They briefed on the recent visit 
by four U.S. Members of Congress to Poland to discuss the 
project (Ref C).  They noted that the members were preparing 
a Congressional resolution supporting MHPJ and expressed the 
hope that USG funding will be provided for MHPJ. 
 
March of the Living 
------------------- 
 
¶15. (U)  On May 5, Ambassadors O'Donnell and Daniel Kurtzer 
as well as Krakow Consul General Ken Fairfax represented the 
USG at the March of the Living, an annual event that retraces 
the "Path of Death" taken by prisoners at the Nazi Auschwitz 
Death Camp.  The march is targeted toward youth and it serves 
the dual purpose of honoring the victims of the Holocaust and 
working to prevent genocides by advocating tolerance and 
 
understanding.  This year's march was the largest to date, 
with 21,000 participants, including 7,000 youths from the 
U.S. and Canada.  Polish PM Belka, Israeli PM Sharon and 
Hungarian PM Gyurcsany were the featured speakers at the 
march. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶16. (C) O'Donnell's visit was an excellent opportunity to 
review of our Holocaust issues agenda with Poland and came at 
a exceptionally appropriate time given progress of private 
property legislation in the Sejm and Poland's ITC 
chairmanship.  Marcinkiewicz's signal that the Sejm will 
consider in rem restitution or an increase in the 
compensation rate is welcome news.  The apparent divergence 
between Poland and Israel on expanding ITC membership is also 
noteworthy, as is a somewhat less pessimistic view of 
communal property restitution by the Jewish community than 
that which has been presented in the past. 
 
¶17.  (U) This cable was cleared by Special Envoy for 
Holocaust Issues Edward O'Donnell. 
Ashe 
 
 
NNNN 

 2005WARSAW02265 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL