Wexler Comments

Excerpt from a Radio Free Europe interview with Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who attended the Prague Conference and delivered a keynote address on Monday.

RFE/RL: You're here in Prague to take part in the conference on the assets of Holocaust victims. Are you satisfied with the proceedings?

Wexler: I'm satisfied that the interests of Holocaust survivors are being better addressed in this conference than they would have, certainly, been without this conference. And there has been, I think, urgent discussions on the issues of importance, such as property restitution, the collection of Nazi-looted art, and there's a very limited window of opportunity to help Holocaust survivors in their waning years.

And this conference -- and I applaud the Czech Republic government for sponsoring it -- this conference represents the last best hope to address the needs of Holocaust survivors, particularly in the context of the number of Holocaust survivors in America, internationally, who are in a condition of poverty. And the ability to provide restitution -- the monies to be used for the needs of Holocaust survivors -- is a noble cause. And I think we will be much closer to achieving a measure of justice for these Holocaust survivors, which is what we need to do.

Prague Conference Documents

Conference organizers have posted several documents on their website.

The Terezin Declaration is the cautiously-worded non-binding multinational agreement emerging from the conference. It will be signed on Tuesday at a public ceremony at the former ghetto site of Terezin (Theresienstadt), located 60 km. from Prague.

An additional formal Joint Declaration was issued by the European Commission and the outgoing leadership of the European Union-Czech Presidency.

A video gallery provides links to streaming video of several of the plenary sessions, which are conducted in English.

Word Cloud of Terezin Declaration

Click on the image below to view a Word Cloud of the Terezin Declaration text.

A "word cloud” is a visual depiction of a document that provides a way to describe its content and meaning. The cloud gives greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text. In the Terezin Declaration, the word "property" is much more prominent than the words "survivor" or "victims," which in turn are more prominent than "welfare."

The prominence of words is one way to understand the importance or priority of ideas or commitments reflected in the Declaration.

Things, Not People

Jewish news service JTA today posted an op-ed by the chief executive of B'nai B'rith. It's all about Holocaust material claims, without a mention of survivors as people. Justice for living Holocaust survivors, an appalling number of whom live in poverty and inadequate health care, is not an abstract concept. It has direct consequences for the quality of life of survivors. It is the fundamental reason all this is being done: doing right by and for the survivors.

Sometimes advocates for resolving Holocaust assets issues remember to talk with some compassion -- even if it's just lip service -- about the survivors among us. But today, that seems to have slipped the collective mind of B'nai B'rith's leadership. It makes one wonder about the real motives behind efforts in 2009 to revive the Holocaust assets campaigns. If those claiming to "lead" the effort have such myopia, what moral standing can they really claim?

"Toothless Declarations"

Marilyn Henry, a reporter and author who has covered these topics for a long time, has this commentary in today's Jerusalem Post.

More Than Just "art restitution"

Participants might be surprised to hear that, according to the New York Times, they are at an "art restitution conference" in Prague. It is of course much more than that.

On Friday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives joined the Senate and unanimously passed their resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) supporting the goals of the Prague Conference. The resolution's sponsor was Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), joined by 28 co-sponsors. Wexler will be in attendance in Prague on Sunday.

Wexler issued the following statement:

"Passage of this resolution sends an unequivocal message that Congress and the American people strongly support the goals and objectives of the Prague Conference. It is imperative that the United States and Prague Conference participants resolve outstanding issues, including implementing property restitution and or compensation legislation, and make certain that growing Survivor healthcare and social needs are met as they age."

Wexler's colleague, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), added the following statement in the Congressional Record:

"While it is largely unspoken, many Holocaust survivors lack the means for even the most basic necessities, including proper housing and health care. We have a moral obligation to uphold and defend the plight and dignity of Holocaust survivors and to ensure their well-being. The Prague Conference is a critical forum to effectively address the increasing economic, social, housing, and health care needs of Holocaust survivors in their waning years...I express strong support for the decision to make the economic, social, housing, and health care needs of Holocaust survivors a major focus of the Prague Conference. Finally, this Resolution urges the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which have not already done so, to return looted and confiscated properties to their rightful owners or, where restitution is not possible, pay equitable compensation to the rightful owners in accordance with principles of justice and in an expeditious manner that is just, transparent, and fair."

"Expert Conclusions" Skewed Against Survivors

A set of "Expert Conclusions" was published Thursday in advance of the Prague Conference. They cover findings and recommendations in each of the five issue areas discussed at the conference.

The “Conclusions” addressing the topic of survivor welfare fail miserably to come to grips with the real issues affecting survivors and demonstrate what has been wrong with the conference process from the outset.

Because of the long disagreement and delay over even allowing the topic of survivor welfare on the agenda, the time devoted to developing these "Conclusions" was too short in comparison to the other issue areas, and lacked any significant deliberation and broad input. No formal preparatory meeting was held and key stakeholders were not asked to participate or provide their input.

The Conclusions are objectionable on a number of points:

• There is no commitment to accountability over past and existing restitution-related funds, only calls for more settlement agreements yielding more funds controlled by a narrow, unaccountable group of agencies.

• There is no acknowledgement of the substantial existing amount of unallocated funds such as Swiss Bank Deposited Assets, large reserves in the control of the Claims Conference, and other funds.These funds should be fully accounted for and directed to address the urgent needs of survivors.

• There is no mention of the need to create a centralized fund devoted exclusively for survivor care. Formal recommendations to establish an international fund for survivor care were submitted to conference organizers by economist Sidney Zabludoff, an expert in Holocaust restitution. Some of his ideas are summarized here. Zabludoff was not subsequently contacted by the conference organizers or the coordinators of the “Special Session” on survivor welfare. His recommendations are entirely absent from the Conclusions.

• The Conclusions explicitly place survivor welfare and Holocaust education/remembrance needs on par – in other words, essential food, housing and medical care is seen as of equal importance with the maintenance of memorial sites and cemeteries. This recommendation flies in the face of widespread opposition among survivors in many countries and among agencies providing essential welfare services.

• A call for “permanent funding” of memorial sites and cemeteries directly conflicts with the priority of addressing to survivor welfare. It was pushed by agencies and institutions that do not serve the humanitarian survivors and would result in a diversion of urgently-needed resources to activities other than the care of survivors.

• The Conclusions include shallow, formulaic calls for “coordinated efforts, ” monitoring activities, and greater “financial support” of services for survivors without a mechanism to assess and measure global need, or allocate resources in a transparent or accountable fashion within a broader consultative or decision process. To the great discredit of the authors of the Conclusions, no explicit mention is made of the severe and tragic levels of poverty among survivors, or of the need to include legitimate survivor representatives in decisions directly impacting the lives of survivors.

Together, these “Conclusions” reflect the interests and priorities of established organizations and reinforce the status quo. It does not reflect the concerns of grassroots survivors and signals to them that the conference does not take their welfare seriously.