HomeBriefings – Foreign Press Centers...25th Anniversary of the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art: Best Practices & the Way Forward

# 									25th Anniversary of the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art: Best Practices & the Way Forward							

FPC Briefing

Stuart Eizenstat, Special Adviser on Holocaust IssuesBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Ellen Germain, Special Envoy for Holocaust IssuesBureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Gideon Taylor, President, World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference)

Lord Eric Pickles, United Kingdom Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues 

 Tuesday, March 5, 2024, 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Washington, D.C.

March 5, 2024

## 								Summary							

        -  
The global work to resolve issues relating to Nazi-confiscated art during World War II and the Holocaust is still on-going. On March 5, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken released “Best Practices for the WashingtonConferencePrinciples on Nazi–Confiscated Art,” which outlines effective steps toadvance theimplementation ofthe restitution of Holocaust-era art, books, and cultural objects in line with the landmark1998 WashingtonConferencePrinciples, which, while voluntary, have been transformative, creating a moral and ethical obligation on the holders of Nazi-looted art. In conjunction withthe March 5 release of theBest Practices, theWorld Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO)willalso beunveiling a report on “Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Property, A Current Worldwide Overview” that analyzes the extent to which countries that embraced theWashington Principles and the2009 Terezin Declarationhavemade progress in addressingissues of Nazi-confiscated art, with some still facing unresolved challenges.
 

**THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.**

**MODERATOR:**So good afternoon, everyone.  Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center’s briefing on the release of the Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.  My name is Jake Goshert.  I am the moderator for this briefing.  As a reminder, the briefing is on the record.  We will post a transcript of the briefing and a video on our website at fpc.state.gov.  For the journalists joining us via Zoom today, please make sure to take a moment to rename yourself with your name, your country, and your outlet so we know who is joining us.  

Our distinguished briefers today include Ellen Germain, the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues at the U.S. State Department; Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, the Special Adviser to the Secretary of State Blinken on Holocaust Issues; Gideon Taylor, the president of the World Jewish Restitution Organization and Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany; and Lord Eric Pickles, the United Kingdom’s Special Envoy on Post-Holocaust Issues.  Before their opening remarks, one quick reminder:  Views expressed by briefers not affiliated with the Department of State are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the department or the U.S. Government.

With that, I am going to turn it over to Envoy Germain to begin this with some opening remarks.

**MS GERMAIN:**Okay.  Thanks very much, Jake.  This is on and working, yeah?  Okay.  So I want to talk about – this morning we held an event at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to mark the 25th anniversary of the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.  And the purpose of this was to provide some momentum to the process of restitution and compensation for art that was seized, looted by the Nazis from Jews and others during World War II.  And unfortunately, almost 80 years since the end of World War II, that process of restitution and compensation is still unfinished.  

And so one of the big things we did this morning was we introduced a Best Practices document: Best Practices for implementing the Washington Principles.  And that document – the Best Practices – is the result of some very intense international collaboration among countries that have appointed a special envoy or its equivalent, like myself and like my colleague Lord Pickles of the UK – someone to deal specifically with Holocaust issues.  And as of this morning, we had 22 states endorsing the Best Practices document, and we are continuing to encourage other countries to do so.  And so this informal special envoys for Holocaust issues network was started in 2023 by the World Jewish Restitution Organization, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. to try to deal more effectively with remaining issues of Holocaust-era restitution.  

And in our first two meetings, which were last year in London and then here in Washington, we decided to take the landmark 1998 Washington Principles as a starting point and think about what we could do to try to reinforce their importance and their utility.  And so we thought it would be useful to examine the lessons learned in the last 25 years of applying the Washington Principles and try to develop a set of legally nonbinding best practices that would help implement these fundamental and timeless principles of art restitution.

And that seemed like a really appropriate way to mark the 25th anniversary of the Washington Principles and to highlight how important it is to resolve remaining claims.  Because restitution and compensation for property that was seized by the Nazis matters not only because it can provide a measure of justice for Holocaust survivors and their heirs, but also because it shows perpetrators that there are consequences for their actions.  And so making sure that there are processes and that there are widely accepted principles for implementing restitution and compensation is the real-world application of rule of law to those who used antisemitism as an excuse to murder 6 million Jews as well as to perpetrate the greatest theft in history.  Thanks.

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**Thank you all for coming.  I want to make two major points about this 25th anniversary of the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which I was instrumental in negotiating.  First, while what – much remains to be done and to show what remains to be done, estimates are that over 100,000 of the 600,000 paintings and many more of the millions of books, manuscripts, ritual religious items, and other cultural objects stolen have never been returned.  And yet this is also a time to reflect a satisfaction at how much has been accomplished.

When we negotiated the Washington Principles in 1998, skeptics immediately felt that they would have no effect since they were purely voluntarily – voluntary and non-legally binding.  In fact, they have totally transformed the art world beyond anything we could have imagined, creating a moral and ethical obligation on holders of Nazi-looted art to return them.  They stand in a way as a symbol of what international principles, even if not legally binding, can do if they have a sound foundation.

Let me give you examples of what has been accomplished.  Thousands of Nazi-looted artworks and tens of thousands of books and religious objects have been restituted or compensated.  In addition, we have strengthened the Washington Principles by the 2009 Terezin Declaration to include forced sales – forced sales and sales under duress, because oftentimes these were necessary in order for people trying to exit Germany to get exit visas and pay for them; and by the 2022 Terezin II Conference.  

Third, the WJRO’s survey, which Gideon will talk about, indicates seven countries have made major progress in implementing them, and three others substantial progress.  In addition, five European nations – Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, and the UK – have established formal art restitution commissions to help resolve claims to Nazi-looted art.  They now publish their decisions and they formed for the first time a network to share experiences, in effect creating the beginning of a body of precedents. 

Next, no longer can you simply rely upon your immediate seller, but provenance research has to be done for the full history of any art, particularly if it went through European hands between 1933 and 1945.  It’s created a whole new profession of Holocaust provenance researchers and, more broadly, of research provenance experts.  

Next, Christie’s and Sotheby’s, the two great auction houses, have full-time staffs that vet all paintings passing through European hands between 1933 and 1945.  They have totally changed their whole consignment contracts, giving them the right to hold and not sell anything with a cloud on it.  They’ve satisfactorily resolved over 300 claims.

In addition, a number of countries have recently strengthened their implementation of the Washington Principles, including France, which just passed a de-accession law allowing their public museums to de-access art.  Their state senate allowed 15 paintings to be restituted.  But in addition, the Netherlands ended their balancing test, which had allowed their museums to keep Nazi-looted art if they had a greater interest in keeping it than the claimants; that’s now ended.  Belgium has made real progress recently, and Luxembourg agreed on a major restitution program, and Germany is considering legislation to do so.

Last and very important going forward is what I call the ripple effect of the Washington Principles, something I have to say we never could have imagined not only in 1998 but even a couple of years ago, by which I mean the impact of the concept of the Washington Principles has led to the beginning of returning colonial-era art from colonialist countries.  Germany, for example, recently gave back two priceless Benin bronzes to Nigeria.  France has set up a special office in the prime minister’s office to look at their colonial-era possessions, and so have the Netherlands.  And recently, UCLA’s Fowler Museum just within the last week – literally within the last week, inspired by the Washington Principles but not obligated by them – researched all of their provenance and returned a whole set of artworks from Ghana that had been taken by the British.  The Smithsonian Museum, just a stone’s throw from here, is going through their entire exhibition to look at any that have suspicious origin. 

So that’s the first point.  The second is the best practices themselves, released today, which, as Ellen mentioned, have been endorsed by 22 nations.  They are a tribute to the vision and determination of the WJRO and to the leadership of Gideon Taylor and Mark Weitzman and their team, Lord Eric Pickles of the UK and his team, and our State Department led by Ellen Germain.  They have worked tirelessly for a year, since the first meeting in London, and have created a new special envoy network of nations, and we expect that that – which has met once in London, once in Washington, and I won’t announce it ourselves but we have a country that volunteered, one of the 14, to host the next special envoy network.  

The whole point was to clarify fundamental points in implementing the Washington Principles, and these include the following:  

The Washington Principles refer not just to art, but to other cultural property of Holocaust and other victims of Nazi persecution.  Nazi-confiscated and Nazi-looted refer not only to what was taken by the Nazis, but also by other fascists and their collaborators.  

Next, they refer to individual and communal property.  There are a lot who said, well, the Washington Principles didn’t apply to private collections.  They did.  But this clarifies and makes it clearer that they should, and communal property – that is, property owned by the Jewish communities, like synagogues, Torah scrolls, ritual objects, Kiddush cups and the like.  And such communal property should be returned to an existing communal institution and, where appropriate, also to an Israeli institution, if that is an appropriate designation for them, where other Jewish cultural heritage already exists.  

In addition, the best practices indicate that countries should consider reducing barriers to recovery from accession laws, statute of limitations, latches, and other restrictions.  They recognize – the best practices – that provenance research is seminal to the entire process and must be more strongly supported.  Gideon, I’m sure, will go into detail about this.  And the key phrase in the Washington Principles, “just and fair solution[s]” – that was Principle 8 of the 11 principles that we developed in 1998 – that means first and foremost, as the best practices indicate, that the just and fair solutions are for victims and their heirs, not the holders of confiscated art.  The primary just and fair solution should be restitution, although there can be other creative ways – compensation, long-term loans, and the like.  

So the long and the short of it is these best practices released today underscore our strong and continued commitment to accelerate our progress in implementing the Washington Principles, and will add momentum to doing so.  

**MR TAYLOR:**  Okay, thank you.  I’m privileged to be here with folks who’ve played such a major role in this issue.  I think a couple of points I just wanted to make briefly:  Firstly, I think what’s particularly important about this issue of art and cultural property is that it’s not just about the very well known, world-renowned paintings hanging in major museums.  This issue is about ordinary items, small things – an etching, a drawing, a shofar, a Torah scroll, everything that went into the culture of the Jewish people.  

The report that was issued today by the World Jewish Restitution Organization and the Claims Conference – and we’ll ask Jake to make sure that that’s available to you if you haven’t seen it, and we’re going to circulate the link to it – just very quickly, five main general findings:  Firstly, that most countries have carried out at least some historical research, so we certainly know a lot more than we did.  Secondly, the provenance research on individual items has grown greatly and become more advanced.  However, museums in many countries continue to ignore the need for provenance research, and in most countries, it’s still not seen as an essential part of museum practice.  Thirdly, the claims processes are now in place in many countries, but the numbers of cases handled and resulting restitutions remain low.  There are, as Stu mentioned, five countries that have established restitution commissions, but most have not.  Fourthly, the Washington Conference Principles have focused, as you heard, on public collections; far less progress relating to items that are currently in private hands.  Fifthly, there’s much greater awareness now of the special status of cultural property that belonged to Jewish communities – not to individuals, but to Jewish communities, and – but in many cases that still remains in private hands.

So overall, of the 47 countries that were surveyed in the report, seven have made major progress, as you heard; three have made substantial progress; 13 had made some progress; and 24 countries have made little or no progress.  That’s sort of the overall picture of where we’re at: substantial progress, but a long way to go, in summary.

And finally, on the best practices, I think for us the WJRO represents the Jewish community, the Jewish world, and Holocaust survivors.  And for us, the best practices are a roadmap.  They’re a roadmap to the future.  They’re the next step forward, and they tell us how we in a wider community of governments, of auction houses, of private owners, of individuals involved in the world of art and culture, can move forward, can take the challenge that was laid down by the Washington Principles and take it to a place where we can start to make significant impact beyond where we’ve got today.

**MR PICKLES:**  Well, good afternoon.  My name is Eric Pickles.  I’m delighted to be here.  And I think you need to understand that these – this confiscation, this looting, wasn’t a byproduct of the Holocaust; it was a fundamental part of the Holocaust.  The Nazis were essentially thieves.  They stole your identity, stole your property, they stole your house, they stole your job, they stole everything from you.  And when – because there’s no honor among thieves, they stole from each other.  And we should bear in mind that this was an important part of the Nazi economy, street auctions and the like.

So we go back to the point that Gideon was making:  It’s possible we might be looking for Picassos, it’s possible we might be looking for the – I don’t know.  But that isn’t main the purpose.  It’s these small things.  It’s maybe a book with a name on the fly cover, and that’s the only evidence that your great grandmother ever existed; it’s the only proof of life.  It might be a small candelabra used at Shabbat, or a pen and the like.  

Now, if they’ve taken your Picasso, it’s pretty obvious, because it’s up on a wall.  But if they’ve taken a small item, that’s almost certainly going to be in storage.  And that’s why it’s important to get good understanding of what museums have, what’s – what is there in public collections.  And we need to be – it needs to be part of the process, that you look at provenance as a process of – if it’s been through that, so that people can look and can see readily where their property is.  

A number of countries publish property, but – do research but don’t publish it.  And what we’re seeking is to recognize that sunshine is the best medicine, that transparency works, that it’s a way of getting that information out there.  People can’t find their property unless they know where it is.  

And the final thing is that perhaps resolutions have been too litigious, too expensive for ordinary people to take on board.  And the thing that we’re – countries that have commissions have the advantage is it’s a process of mediation.  And mediation is a much better way of resolving this than lengthy and expensive law cases, which – you’re trying to get back your property that’s been stolen from you; having to pay to get it back does seem to me to be a breach of natural justice.  Thank you.  

**MODERATOR:**  Thank you all for those opening remarks.  We’re now going to open the session up for questions.  For the journalists joining us on Zoom, please make sure you rename yourself with your name, country, and outlet.  And if you have questions on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand with the raise hand icon.  But we’ll start here in the room, if anyone in the room has any questions.  Stefanie.  And please introduce yourself. 

**QUESTION:**  Stefanie Bolzen, I’m the Washington correspondent for Die Welt (inaudible).  First question to Ellen Germain.  You said you were looking for momentum today at the conference.  First of all, why does this need momentum?  And secondly, you were talking about legally non-binding approaches.  But if you look at the slow progress, wouldn’t it be better to have legally binding approaches? 

And to Lord Pickles, if I may, why do you think are museums so reluctant to allow the sunshine into their back stores?  Thank you.

**MS GERMAIN:**  Okay.  On why we still need momentum, I think there are a lot – we’ve addressed some of the reasons.  There’s a lot of ignorance about, first of all, where artwork and other cultural objects have ended up, what their history was, who they belonged to.  And that’s why the stress on provenance research that the best practices have is so important.  It’s important to shed light, as Lord Pickles said, figure out where objects were, what is their history, can we make public all the information that we know about their history, not only in the last 10 years, 20 years, but since the 1930s.  

So one reason momentum is slow is just that there’s not a lot of knowledge about what was the origin and the provenance of many articles that are now in public collections, in private hands.  And so the best practices are an effort to kind of give a bit of a kick in the pants to efforts to speed up and focus governments, private institutions, auction houses, museums, all those who are interested in trying to, as I keep saying, achieve a measure of justice for Holocaust survivors and their heirs and for all whose possessions were seized by the Nazis during World War II.  So it’s always necessary to refocus the world on an issue like this, and the 25th anniversary of the Washington Principles seemed like the right time to do it.  

On legally not – these are legally non-binding principles, and they are legally non-binding because we’re trying to get the greatest – trying to find the best possible balance between getting the most buy-in to these principles and making the principles practical and implementable.  And I think we’ve done a pretty good job of acknowledging that countries have different legal systems and obviously have to be bound by those, but at the same time these are pretty specific best practices that are, yes, legally non-binding but morally and ethically important. 

And they state straight out some – to me, some things that seem obvious but needed stating, like artwork seized by the Nazis doesn’t just mean paintings and sculpture; it also means the everyday cultural objects that we’ve talked about.  Obvious things like “seized by the Nazis” doesn’t just mean literally taken by the Nazis after the Jews were rounded up and deported to ghettos or camps; it also means those forced sales that happened throughout the 1930s and the 1940s.  And clarifying fundamental points like that I think make it easier for governments, organizations, institutions, and people to actually take action to implement restitution.  

**MR PICKLES:**Well,the last one is easy, because she’s largely answered your question for me as well.  But when – we need to understand quite a lot of this stuff is there in plain sight; it’s hidden in plain sight.  It’s there, and often you might even find references to the fact that it was looted.  

So why don’t people sort of get with the program and say this a wonderful thing?  Well, it involves a lot of work, it’s very difficult, and you get the guy coming up from accounts and the guy from legal and say, yeah, we’ve got stolen property.  If we admit and send it back, is there some damages?  Do we have to pay damages for having returned this?  And that’s why the non-legally binding is really good, because mediation is a good way of resolving that. 

And remember, we’re not always looking for the return of the property.  We could be just looking for something simple as a plaque going up to say where the property came from.  It could be that we might look for some kind of compensation.  Mediation gives a lot of flexibility that litigation doesn’t.  And I think it has proved to be very effective in those countries that have it.  I hope that answers your question. 

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**  Let me give a very practical answer.  I couldn’t have negotiated it if it was mandatory.  After a three-day conference, when the last plenary was about to start, it looked like the whole process was going to collapse because countries did not want the imposition of mandatory restitution on their national laws.  And so by making it non-binding, we were able to overcome those objections.  Now that led skeptics to say, well, it’ll have no effect.  And the fact is that it’s has had major effect even though it’s not legally binding because of the reputational damages.  As one success builds on the other, it has become inappropriate to hold Nazi-looted art and now, as we see with what’s happened with the colonial art, to hold art confiscated anywhere.  

So the more visibility, the more transparency we can give, which is what we’re all saying is critical for the best practices, the more reputational damage is done to those museums and those private collections that are holding looted art.  No one should want to hold something that was looted from Holocaust victims and other victims during the war, or looted even more generally.  And so this was a practical judgment, and it turned out to be the right one.  Philippe de Montebello, who was then the head of the New York Metropolitan Museum, said at the time at the plenary: notwithstanding the fact that it’s not binding, it will change the art world forever.  And he was right.

**MR TAYLOR:**Just to add one sentence.  This – these best practices are not legally binding, but we believe that what the statement of principle of international consensus will enable us as WJRO, as the Claims Conference as regards Germany, to seek specific actions, policies, including legislation.  So we believe that this sets a moral framework, but certainly that legal actions and steps and policies that we will be asking governments to change in accordance with these principles.

**MS GERMAINE:**And just lastly to add onto that, I’ve already had one country come up to me and say, we’re interested in trying to put these best practices into legislation, and we’d like to talk to you about that.  So it leaves open that possibility.  And just to clarify, Stu, you were talking – when you were talking about the history just now, that was the Washington Principles, right? 

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**The Washington Principles, yeah.  

**MS GERMAINE:**1998, okay.  

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**  Yeah, it wouldn’t have got done to begin with if we didn’t have it voluntary at the very outset. 

**MODERATOR:**Okay.  Yes, go ahead.  

**QUESTION:**(Inaudible) Foreign Policy magazine.  I have two questions.  The first is – you mentioned private hands.  What is the problem there?  Is it ignorance, fame, money?  Question number one.  Question number two:  Is there some kind of a maybe a roadmap or blueprint for what’s going on now, like looting in Ukraine, that there would be this awareness and engagement how to deal with these problems?  

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**Well, one of things that I mentioned in my remarks today, again, that Ellen and the State Department have emphasized, is that as we speak, the Russian – the invasion and aggression against Ukraine has included the destruction of Ukrainian cultural objects and art.  So this is going on as we speak.  It’s very live, even though Russia’s actually signed onto the Washington Principles in 1998, and were one of the few countries that passed legislation dealing with it, signed by none other than Vladimir Putin.  They just haven’t implemented it.  

But that – this is going on right now as part of the war, and I think what Lord Pickles said is so important.  It’s really important to understand that the confiscation of art, bank accounts, insurance policies, ritual objects, homes, businesses were part and parcel of the Holocaust.  They were not incidental; they were not accidental.  They were done with the same systematic effort as the killing of people themselves, because the purpose was to destroy the Jewish people root and branch, all aspects.  And so you have to look at the confiscation of art and other property in that context.  It was not just incidental.  And a significant part of the war effort – Ellen alluded to this – by the Nazi Wehrmacht was financed with Jewish and other victim assets.  

**MR TAYLOR:**Just to answer your question specifically for private property, I think two reasons.  One, ignorance, and two, unwillingness.  And I think what this Best Practices seeks to do is to address both of those: to press for transparency, publication of records, making available of dealer – records of dealers, auction houses and so on is addressed in the Best Practices; and also claims processes to make sure that individuals, once they have awareness, once there is this knowledge, have a process to move forward.  

So that’s what lies behind this effort to open up what has been a rather opaque market.  The art market tends to operate in – sometimes with limited transparency.  I think that’s a key part of the best practices, is to open that up or to give information and transparency, and to create a way for people to be reconnected with their cultural treasures.  

**MODERATOR:**Yes, Paul.  

**QUESTION:**Paul Jansen, De Telegraaf.  As I understand also from Secretary Blinken, there are, like, millions of objects of art still unaccounted for and not wanted to give back.  Is there a figure of how many of those objects are actually known where they are but have not been given back?  For instance in our museums, a big part in that.  That’s one of my questions.  And the second one, being from the Netherlands, is there anything that – as I understand, the Dutch Government has made some remarkable steps, but is there anything else they didn’t do yet that you would recommend that the Dutch Government still has to make progress?  Thank you.

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**  So on the – the best estimates from experts are that 600,000 works of art were stolen.  The best of those were to be in a Fuhrermuseum in Linz, Austria, which was Hitler’s birthplace.  In addition, on cultural objects, the most precious were to be in a museum to a dead race in Prague.  Of the 600,000, the so-called Monuments Men, the art curators who were embedded into the U.S. Army as they went east to Berlin, got around 100,000 of those pieces, cataloged them, and then, under direction of President Truman and a military order, repatriated them not to the individuals who owned them – because in the chaos of war, it was impossible to know – but to the countries from which they were taken and they in turn were supposed to deal with.

So for example, in France, some 60,000 paintings were repatriated.  Of that 60,000, around 45,000 were ultimately returned to owners, but the balance were sold, auctioned, or put into their MNR collection.  So what happened just within the last couple of months is when the French senate de-accessed 15 artworks, that was part of the so-called MNR collection.  The same thing happened in the Netherlands and in other countries.

Now, again, it is estimated that there are another 100,000 unaccounted for of that 600,000, and even more of books and ritual objects and the like.  It’s impossible to know the location of those, and that’s why everyone has said – Lord Pickles and Gideon and Ellen – that the key is transparency and provenance research.  It’s letting people know where they are so that they can potentially make claims.  If there’s no provenance research done, there’s no way for a potential heir to know to even make a claim.  

And once they make a claim, there are, as Lord Pickles said, many creative ways beyond restitution.  Compensation – in the Schiele case in Chicago, the University of Chicago Art Institute, of a famous painting, one of the solutions was that the museum paid part of the value and the original owner – the heir of the owner – allowed the museum to keep the balance.  So there are all sorts of creative things that can be done, and Christie’s and Sotheby’s have come up with those kinds of creative solutions as well, but the key is the visibility.  And if that is not done, then this recedes into the mists of history and it’s impossible to know where they are.

**MR TAYLOR:**  I know we have very little time.  Why don’t we afterwards talk about the Netherlands, so we’ll —

**MODERATOR:**  Okay.  We do have a question online from Alex.  Alex, I’m going to ask you to unmute yourself and ask your question on camera if you can.

**QUESTION:**  Yes, Jake, thank you so very much.  I appreciate it.  Alex Raufoglu from Turan News Agency.  I thank the speakers for their time.  We have seen the list of states endorsing the best practices.  As of today, there are 22 of them, if I am not mistaken; that includes the United States.  Can you please speak to some of the countries that are – have been invited or you have been working with who are refusing to endorse it?  And if there’s any reasoning you could share with us, I would appreciate that.

And secondly, regarding the timing of it, the Secretary mentioned in his speech that Holocaust distortion is on the rise, and he said that efforts to resolve restitution claims are now more important than ever.  Can you please expand – little bit expand on that?  Given the narratives that we are hearing from Moscow, Tehran, and other capitals these days, how significant it is to have these best principles sorted out now?  Thank you so much.

**MS GERMAIN:**  Yeah.  On the countries that have endorsed so far, really it’s a – an artifact of how we started the discussions on the best practices.  As I mentioned, about a year ago, the WJRO, the United Kingdom, and the United States, we were talking and we thought it would be useful to try to set up an informal network of special envoys, representatives who deal specifically with Holocaust issues.  

And so we gathered a group of countries that have envoys or representatives who specifically deal with Holocaust issues, and that was the group that – and there were about 14 of those countries, and that was the group that started first the informal discussions.  And then we came upon the – we decided that drawing up a Best Practices for the Washington Principles would be a way to – good way to provide some momentum for restitution and mark the 25th anniversary.

So we started with the – the 14 countries are the ones who discussed and drafted the Best Principles document, but once we had all reached agreement on that, we of course want as many countries as possible to endorse it.  We don’t say “sign,” et cetera, because as we’ve said a number of times, it’s legally nonbinding, but the best practices provide really helpful guidelines, practical definitions of how to go forward with art restitution.  So there’s still – it’s still open for endorsement.  We are hoping and expecting that more countries will endorse the best practices in the coming days and weeks, and – yeah, so that’s how the numbers and the countries came about.

And I think – oh, and then the other – the – your second question was why is distortion such an issue now and why is it important in this context.  And I think, again, it speaks to what we’ve been talking about as far as transparency, openness, and telling the truth.  I mean, we need to tell the truth about what happened, where items came from, what their history was, how they were stolen, how they were seized, and all of that is one way for us as democracies that believe in the rule of law to show that disinformation and distortion like Holocaust denial, Holocaust distortion, those are obviously wrong, bad.  We condemn them.  And they are things that have become so – have become weaponized in some ways.  And part of our response to that is to speak the truth, to tell the truth, and to shed some sunlight on provenance, on stolen items, and on the whole process of trying to do restitution or compensation.  

**MODERATOR:**Okay.  And seeing no more questions, we’ll go ahead and end the Q&A session there.  I’m going to turn it over to our panelists now for any last thoughts, starting here with Special Envoy Germain.  

**MS GERMAIN:**I feel as though I’ve pretty much said everything that I was hoping to say – just to say that this is the start of a process.  This is indeed – the Best Practices document is not an end; it’s a beginning to provide momentum, provide that push to all of us to do better on restitution and compensation for artwork, cultural objects that were stolen during World War II, and to find the creative solutions that allow survivors and their heirs to receive some kind of acknowledgment that this great wrong was done.  

**AMBASSADOR EIZENSTAT:**I think that the way to look at this is that we want 25 years taking voluntary non-legally binding principles and really giving flesh to them, having a lot of progress, but we realized that we needed a new burst of momentum.  And the 25th anniversary gives us that opportunity.  This should be looked at not as a sprint but as a marathon, and we are dedicated to run that marathon as long as it takes to do more and more justice.  The more visibility this issue has, the more ripple effects it will have.  The more ripple effects it has, the more waves will be created and the more countries will feel that they have to do the right thing too.  

So this gives us a launching pad now to fill in some of the gaps, because some of these were unknown questions.  Where – what did we mean by looted art?  What kind of provenance research needed to be done?  What should we do with accession laws and the like?  And this tries to clarify that and to undergird it, and therefore to strengthen – not replace, but to strengthen – the Washington Principles.  And I think, again, this will hopefully give us a new momentum.  And you can play a very important role too by letting your readers and your listeners understand what happened today and the importance of it.  We depend on you to transmit this so that we do get a new burst of momentum and we take the second breath in our marathon race.  

**MR TAYLOR:**I think today ultimately is not just about the restitution of property; it’s about the restitution of history.  And that, I think, is what makes this unique, it makes it significant.  It’s about property, but it’s about memory and culture and helping connect families and the Jewish people with their history, which in turn tells us where we came from and who we are.  

**MR PICKLES:**We’re not in a post-Holocaust world.  As long as this injustice exists, the Holocaust will continue to claw at our conscience.  But there is a simple three-step approach for us to deal with that, and I have to say it doesn’t matter which order we take these three steps.  The result is the same: the first is transparency, the second one is transparency, and the third one is transparency.  There needs to be a real commitment to getting the truth out there.  No one has anything to fear from the truth, and it makes a lot of sense to ensure that we know what museums have and what their provenance is.  If we do that, we’ll make a very big difference.  

**MODERATOR:**Thank you all for joining us today and thank you to the journalists for joining us as well.  This ends our briefing.  Thank you.  

Tags

District of ColumbiaForeign Press CentersForeign Press CentersNew YorkOffice of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues

Back to Top