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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 VIENNA 000630 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EUR/OHI, EUR/AGS AND L/LEI 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KNAR PHUM PGOV AU
SUBJECT:  SPECIAL ENVOY AND AUSTRIAN MFA LEGAL ADVISOR 
DISCUSS HOLOCAUST AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 
 
REFS:  A) 2005 VIENNA 3852  B) VIENNA 136 
 
This message is sensitive but unclassified. 
 
¶1.  (U) INTRODUCTION: U.S. Special Envoy for Holocaust 
Issues Edward B. O'Donnell met Austrian MFA Legal Advisor 
Ferdinand Trauttmansdorff (successor to Austrian 
Holocaust negotiator Hans Winkler, now MFA State 
Secretary) on February 23 to exchange views on the 
 
SIPDIS 
remaining issues in implementation of the January 2001 
Washington Agreement.  O'Donnell first thanked 
Trauttmansdorff for Austria's efforts to provide a 
measure of justice for Holocaust victims, in particular 
the nearly one billion dollars in restitution and 
compensation that the GoA had made available through the 
various funds.  O'Donnell praised Chancellor Schuessel 
for having moved quickly to proclaim legal peace after 
dismissal of the final class-action suit (ref a). 
Austria had also done the right thing recently by 
accepting the judgment of the arbitration panel in the 
Altmann case and agreeing to restitute the five Klimt 
paintings (ref b).  END INTRODUCTION. 
 
GSF payouts 
----------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) O'Donnell noted that one fund, the General 
Settlement Fund (GSF), had experienced long delays, 
principally because of the lack of legal peace.  There 
were approximately 10,000 U.S. citizens who had filed 
claims and were now hoping for expeditious settlements. 
However, press reports were now emerging that placed the 
settlement amounts in the range of 13-15% of the losses 
(converted into today's dollars).  O'Donnell said that 
the U.S. had never anticipated that the ratio would be so 
low; this was bound to cause problems with the victims' 
groups. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Trauttmansdorff conceded the need to pay more 
attention to public affairs aspect of the GSF 
settlements, now that they were underway.  O'Donnell 
recommended greater transparency: the letters going out 
to recipients were couched in opaque legalese that would 
be hard for many to understand.  It might be better to 
employ a simpler language that would clarify the 
different basis for equity-based claims (based on loss of 
income or education rather than property per se), for 
insurance claims, etc. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) O'Donnell also noted that the interest accruing 
to the $210 million fund could be the source of an 
additional special payment, possibly to Holocaust 
survivors among the 19,000 claimants who could be 
identified. 
 
Curran professional liability policy 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Trauttmansdorff then raised the problem of 
professional liability insurance for the U.S.-nominated 
GSF panel member, Dr. Vivian Curran.  The GoA had looked 
into the matter and proposed a policy that would cover 
legal fees to defend against a possible suit.  Curran had 
responded this was insufficient; the policy must also 
cover the amount of any eventual judgment. 
Trauttmansdorff said he had written to John Bellinger 
(Bureau of Legal Affairs, L) seeking advice.  He had also 
asked GSF panel chairman Frank Berman to look into a UK- 
based policy. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) O'Donnell said that the Office of Holocaust 
Issues and L were also checking into the insurance policy 
carried by the International Commission on Holocaust Era 
Insurance Claims (ICHEIC) to see if it might be a model 
for this situation.  In any case, the U.S. considered 
this coverage to be Austria's responsibility as part of 
the administrative costs of the GSF.  Trauttmansdorff did 
not argue the point, but said that is would be in the 
spirit of the 2001 Washington Agreement if the U.S. did 
not leave the GoA "alone and exposed to the U.S. legal 
system."  O'Donnell said that the State Department would 
continue to work with Professor Curran and the GOA to 
identify a suitable insurance policy that would meet her 
needs so that she can continue to provide her expertise 
to reviewing claims. 
 
ICHEIC claims 
------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) O'Donnell raised the issue of GSF denial of 
claims for policies issued by the Prague office of Anker, 
citing the language of the 2001 Washington agreement and 
a subsequent (2003) agreement between ICHEIC and the GSF. 
Both of these tended to indicate that the treatment of 
insurance claims was an exception to the general 
principle that the GSF would address injustices committed 
on the territory of the present-day Austria. 
Trauttmansdorff said that he would look more intensively 
into the matter.  It was certainly a question of law.  As 
a practical matter, however, there seemed to be very few 
such cases.  The same seemed to apply to other questions 
regarding the different filing deadlines for the GSF and 
ICHEIC and differing valuations of certain policies. 
Trauttmansdorff said it was up to National Fund Secretary 
General Lessing to explain to the GSF board how the Fund 
sees these issues; he would try to see that it came up at 
the March GSF Board meeting. 
 
McCAW