|
| Enteignung |
| Von Nico Nader - 18.07.2002 |
|
Transscript CSCE Anhörung Teil I |
|
|
Eine hochinteressante Veranstaltung. - Insbesondere auch hinsichtlich der internationalen Behandlung der illegalen Konfiskationen in Deutschland durch die Deutsche Regierung und die Gerichte. Sowohl anlässlich der CSCE Tagung in Berlin vom 6 - 10. Juli wurden die Enteignungen in Deutschland prominent zur Sprache gebracht, als auch in den obigen Anhörungen in Washington, die sich eigentlich nicht mit Deutschland befassen sollten. Der Vorsitzende der CSCE, Senator Bell, hat sich auf das deutsche Thema angesprochen, dahingehend geäußert, dass er über die deutschen Probleme informiert sei!!;- das Thema bisher nicht mit der deutschen Regierung angesprochen habe. Er bestätigt aber gleichzeitig, dass er in kürze diese Sache mit der deutschen Regierung zur Sprache bringen würde. Die Mühe all derer, die sich um die Bekanntmachung unserer Anliegen bei CSCE gekümmert haben, scheint nicht erfolglos geblieben zu sein. Besten Dank, hoffentlich im Namen aller durch die deutsche Staatshehlerei Betroffenen. -
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE HOLDS HEARING ON JULY 16, 2002 START TIME: 2:07 PM END TIME: 4:36 PM COMMISSIONERS: U.S. SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL (R-CO), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ), ALSO PRESENT:
RANDOLPH BELL YEHUDA EVRON OLGA JONAS MARK MEYER ISRAEL SINGER
During and after the Second World War, millions of people fled Central
and For more than a decade now, post-communist countries in Central and
Eastern Today's meeting is the third Helsinki Commission hearing to examine
these
Nonetheless, the Helsinki Commission continues to receive a steady stream of letters from individuals and organized groups pleading for assistance in their struggles to recover expropriated properties. The common thread in these letters is that, despite the laws enacted and the positive efforts that have been made, these governments cannot bring themselves to part with most of the loot stolen by undemocratic predecessors. Governments seeking membership in Western institutions want to be perceived
as reform governments by passing a private property restitution law,
or by touting their efforts to return communal properties. Upon closer
examination, however, one finds lackluster the implementation of the
laws, or exceptions to restitution which severely limits the properties
that Restitution laws are specifically undermined through discriminatory
Property restitution cases are also undermined by the serious rule of law problems in many countries. Thousands of property claimants who have brought their restitution claims to domestic courts discovered that the government entities which stand to lose possession of claimed properties will delay legal proceedings for years and will repeatedly appeal decisions favorable to claimants. Moreover, the courts have failed to play a constructive role in the restitution process, often allowing proceedings to drag on for years, and ultimately failing to resolve cases in a manner that actually results in the return of wrongfully confiscated property. As an extreme example of this occurred in Romania in the mid-1990s
when Art restitution cases further illustrate the reluctance to part with
looted property. In the Czech Republic a law provides for the return
of looted artwork. In several cases, a Czech museum or court has recognized
an ownership claim to artwork seized by the Nazis. While the cultural patrimony excuse may indeed be legally accurate for not returning the property, I would suggest that the Czech Republic rethink any policy which would build the country's collection of national treasures on property that came into the Czech Republic's possession only because of Nazi persecution and plundering. At the end of the day, the property claims of thousands of people, including America citizens, remain unresolved in more than a dozen countries in Central and Eastern Europe. While we will not hear testimony today from every affected ethnic group or regarding every country that is grappling with this issues, we are dealing with basic principles that have application beyond the countries that will be highlighted by our very distinguished witnesses. I'd like to yield to Mr. Pitts -- Commissioner Pitts from Pennsylvania for any comments he might have. PITTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this timely hearing on property restitution in Central and Eastern Europe, the state of affairs for American claimants. As nations in Eastern and Central Europe continue to respond to problems
Unfortunately, there are a number of individuals and communities who have legitimate claims to land and property to Eastern and Central Europe but who have no recourse because of government-created obstacles or because they do not fit specific profiles addressed by current American and other laws.
SMITH: Thank you very much, Commissioner Pitts. Commissioner Cardin ? CARDIN: Thank you very much. Let me thank Chairman Smith for his leadership on this issue and for calling this hearing. Our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly for the last several years have been stressing the need for property restitution laws being enacted in the OSCE states in a fair and a non-discriminatory manner. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your continued leadership on
this issue.
We all know that after World War II much of the property that was confiscated illegally from those who were persecuted, many were in communist states. So those survivors of the Holocaust faced a second tragedy, and that is that they lived -- their properties were in countries that were not sensitive at all to doing what was right as far as compensation was concerned. But then in 1990, we thought things would change with the fall of the
communist era in Europe. When you take a look -- this is our third hearing, as the chairman
has pointed out. If you takea look at the laws in most of the states
of the OSCE concerning restitution, you'll find that there is no model
law.
They established their rightful claim to the property, but yet were denied compensation through the courts because in one case they said the Aryan laws were legal for their time. How outrageous. If it weren't for the fact that we were able to put a spotlight on that case, that our ambassador took a personal interest in it, that we were able to get some publicity, some press on it -- and, of course, Romania was attempting to come into the more normal relationship with its European states -- the Waldmans would still be denied their remedy. They got their remedy because we had to go through all this. Now, there are thousands of other cases out there that don't have the same type of press attention, but the same amount of injustice. So we can do a lot better. And I agree with Mr. Pitts, we need an action plan. We need to come out of this hearing -- as we did, I think, in our efforts on anti-Semitism in Berlin, we need to come out with a commitment that we're going to see change, and we're going to rectify the injustice, at least as it relates to property confiscation during World War II. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. SMITH: Commissioner Cardin, thank you very much. And it was a real honor to join you and Mr. Pitts and Mr. Hoyer and Senator Voinovich and the other members of our delegation. And we, as you know and you were so much a part of it, we offered a number of resolutions on anti-Semitism, on Roma. And property restitution was one of your amendments to the anti-Semitic resolution. And I'm very grateful for that, and Mr. Hoyer as well. I'd like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Crowley, a member of the International Relations Committee, who is joining us today. CROWLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the commission as well. I am a great admirer of the commission's work. And as an advocate for human rights and freedom, this commission is at the forefront of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world. The commission focuses on the behavior of allies as well as adversaries. Its May 22nd hearing on anti-Semitic attacks in Western Europe examined the failures of some of the United States' closest partners to address this critical issue. The hearing was crucial in securing the support of 412 members of Congress when a resolution on anti-Semitism that I introduced was passed by the House last week. And I want to express my thanks to you, Chairman and Congressman Smith and the other commissioners, for sending a clear message to our European allies that anti-Semitism is not acceptable, especially not in the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, this hearing examines the behavior of several other allies and partners in the area of property restitution. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are among our newest NATO allies, and the United States works with Romania and other countries in the region on a host of political, economic and security issues.
Poland has a moral obligation to address the suffering of Polish Jews and others who sufferedduring the Holocaust and under communism. Eighty percent of European Jewry once lived in Poland, though the vast majority either perished in the Holocaust or were forced to flee. Though many atrocities that took place in Poland during World War II, including the horrors of Auschwitz, occurred at the hands of the Nazi occupiers, we know from recent accounts of the massacre at Jedwabne that Poles, too -- excuse me for my pronunciation -- had a role in the suffering of the Jewish community as well. Finally, the past aside, the protection of property rights is a basic requirement for all democratic governments that operate under the rule of law. Poland should be praised for addressing the restitution of communal property to the Polish Jewish community, but as many as 170,000 property owners and their heirs still wait for legislation that will restore their rights. Many of these people are in their 80s or even older. Even their heirs, often the only survivors who still remember the original occupant of a home, are senior citizens today. They cannot wait any longer for the status of their properties to be resolved. The United States is a close ally of Poland. We are partners in NATO.
I strongly urge President Bush to raise this issue when he meets with the president of Poland at the White House tomorrow. The administration should also emphasize to our other European allies that resolution of this issue should be considered a criteria for Poland's entry into the EU. And before closing, I want to recognize the dedication and commitment of one of the witnesses that will be testifying today, Jehuda Evron, who has worked tirelessly to promote the implementation of a property restitution law in Poland. He is here, as well as a constituent of mine from Whitestone, Queens. His efforts have done much to educate the U.S. public, including members of Congress, about the Polish government's failure to resolve property restitution issues. And I wish to commend him for his hard work. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you once again for allowing me to address this commission. I look forward to hearing the witnesses testimony, and to continuing to work in Congress to ensurethat Poland and other European countries do not neglect the rights of those who suffered during the Holocaust. And I thank you very much. SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Crowley, for joining us today and for your statement.
Immediately prior to his current assignment, he served as the director of the State Department's Office of Austria, Germany and Switzerland Affairs. He is currently waiting confirmation to the rank of special ambassador for his role as special envoy. And I would just note personally that when the Helsinki Commission traveledto Prague in the 1980s, we met with Mr. Bell there. He was very helpful as a member of the embassy team. He will recall we met with Charter 77, then the human rights organization that was very bravely standing up to repression there. Father Malley (ph), who was one of those who were part of that three troika of leadership that rotated for Charter 77. And it was great to work with you then. And it's certainly great to work with you now. And Mr. Bell, you're most welcome to the commission and look forward to your testimony. BELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very glad to recall those days too, not merely because it was a shared experience. But also, I think, because it reminds me how we had a shared agenda. And one thing I would like note about property restitution, and all of the other issues that I work on, it is that there is no divide between the legislative and executive branches of government in pursuing these objectives. There is no partisan divide. These are bipartisan objectives. And I like to think there is no divide between the American people and us in whichever branch of the government we're working in. And I am very, very warmly supportive of the commission's engagement in these issues, particularly in property restitution. So I want to thank you for this opportunity to address this commission on the important issue of property restitution. It's one in which the Department of State has been engaged for many years. And I'm pleased to play a part in the work of the commission and of our government generally. I want to thank you, Congressman Smith, for your long-term commitment to the issue of property restitution and for hosting us. It's also a great honor and privilege to represent the United States of America as special envoy. I'd like to open my participation in this hearing by stressing my dedication to continuing the work of my predecessors.
In order to achieve process on the complicated issues of property restitution, we need cooperation: cooperation between Congress and the State Department, between our government and the governments of the former Eastern block countries and between European institutions and aspirant nations, those countries which wish to join major European and transatlantic institutions. The Helsinki Commission and congressional actions have been powerful assets as we work together to further the process of restitution of property wrongly seized by fascist and communist regimes. And I hope to see this cooperation grow stronger yet while I am pursuing this work. At this exciting time in history, a time when former communist nations are yearning to belong more fully to the West, a time when they are open to ideas of reconciliation with their past and fuller cooperation with democratic nations, at this pivotal time in history, we have an opportunity to help these countries to achieve their full potential. The states in Central and Eastern Europe undertake the reforms they must complete in order to qualify for NATO and EU memberships, they are examining the issue of property restitution and looking to the United States for guidance. The United States government has continually and specifically stressed to them that uniform, fair and complete restitution is a prerequisite, both to the adequate establishment of the rule of law and to the safeguarding of religious and minority rights and freedoms. We have stressed that in joining the Euro-Atlantic mainstream and applying for membership in organizations, they are seeking to join a community of values. Membership involves continued and pervasive scrutiny of laws and practices for all of us in this community. And consequently, we stress to them that the process a country creates for achieving restitution will be expected to continue and to achieve results both before and after accession to these institutions. For countries invited to join the alliance, this will be true after their accession to NATO, just as much as it is at the moment. Mr. Chairman, property restitution in these countries arises as a issue because of actions taken by Nazi occupation regimes and the actions of the communist governments that acceded to power under the aegis of the then Soviet Union. In the countries they occupied, the Nazis relentlessly seized property that had an connection to Jews, communal property owned by the various Jewish communities and private property owned by individual Jews, Roma and other victims. Valuable, movable property, such as artwork, soon found its way into the hands of Nazi leaders where it was converted into cash to fund the Nazi war effort. Occupation regime officials took up residence in confiscated homes. And other properties, including synagogues, were used for commercial and other purposes. When the war ended, there was some effort in several countries to return properties to their original owners. But the newly established communist governments soon reversed that process, preferring to use the confiscated property for their own purposes. For the victims, the change in leadership did not alter the availability of their property. They still did not enjoy its use or have access to it. And with minor exceptions, the essentials of this situation remained unchanged for four decades. Collapse of the Soviet Union and of its satellites presented an opportunity to reverse confiscations and to return property, real and movable, to rightful owners. We have supported that process for the last decade. There has been considerable progress in some areas, but less -- significantly less in others. The trend, overall, has been in the right direction. There remains much to do.
He sensitized the leaderships of the newly established democratic governments
to the need The Bush administration has continued to pursue restitution vigorously, engaging the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and particularly NATO aspirants. The State Department takes this issue very seriously; is committed to monitoring and reporting on property restitution in annual country reports on human rights practices. Our embassies, of course, also report regularly. We're also committed, of course, to achieving action. In this effort, we are working closely and cooperatively with non-governmental organizations, including, as examples, the American Jewish Committee, the American Joint Distribution Committee, the Polish-American Conference, Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, and many others. I am in frequent contact personally with NGO representatives. Property restitution is complicated and controversial. I like to note in my travels in Central and Eastern Europe that whenever you take history and you add to it courts and litigation, and then fold them into politics, you're bound to get something which is difficult. But the fact that it's difficult doesn't mean you don't do it. Changing the ownership and use of buildings and land from one party or purpose to another can cause major disruptions that already economically challenged countries can sometimes ill afford. In encouraging restitution, we try to keep in mind the following considerations. Restitution law should govern both communal property owned by religious
and To document claims, access to archival records, frequently requiring government facilitation, is necessary. Reasonable alternative evidence must be permitted if archives have been destroyed. Uniform enforcement of laws is necessary throughout a country. The restitution process must be non-discriminatory. There should be no residence or citizenship requirement. And the policies we are pursuing during this administration in that regard are identical to those that we were pursuing during its predecessor. Legal procedures should be clear and simple. Privatization programs should include protections for claimants.
When restitution of property is not possible, adequate compensation should be paid. Restitution should result in clear title to the property, not merely the right to use it. Communal property should be eligible for restitution or compensation without regard to whether it had a religious or secular use. Some limits on large forest and agricultural holdings may, however, be needed. Foundations managed jointly by local communities and international groups may be appropriate to aid in the preparation of claims and to administer restituted property.
bei dem zitierten RANDOLPH BELL
|
 |
| Zur Hauptseite | Inhaltsverzeichnis |
 |