Open dialogue needed

RIGA - Latvia cannot be held responsible for the Holocaust in its territory because the country was occupied during the Holocaust, announced Andris Skele (For a Good Latvia) during foreign policy debate in Saeima on Jan. 27, reports news agency LETA. The former prime minister pointed out that Foreign Minister Girts Valdis Kristovskis (Unity) must explain this position abroad.

“It is absolutely clear that Latvia was occupied. And it is also clear that Latvian Jews suffered irreversible damage: 70,000 Jews, citizens of Latvia, were killed. However, Latvia was occupied then, and it cannot be held responsible for this crime,” said Skele, adding that everything possible will be done to always remember these tragic events.
Skele also expressed support for the restoration of the Latvian Jewish community.

President Valdis Zatlers believes that Saeima and the government are responsible for solving the problem of Jewish properties confiscated during the Holocaust. Zatlers sees the meetings between the U.S. Department of State Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues Douglas Davidson and high-ranking Latvian officials last week as a dialogue where both sides express their opinions and seek solutions. Zatlers previously said that the question of restitution is very important.

Davidson told reporters after the Saeima Foreign Affairs Committee session on Jan. 25 that Jewish properties confiscated during the Holocaust era must be returned to Latvia’s Jewish community, not compensated with money.

The question is not about the amount of compensation, but about properties that formerly belonged to Latvia’s Jews, said Davidson. He also allowed the possibility that a legislative solution would be necessary to resolve the problem of properties that now belong to other people.

Davidson added that he was an ordinary American, and in his country people had the right to reclaim properties confiscated from them, adding that he hoped Latvia had the same legal system in this regard.
The Special Envoy visited Latvia to discuss the restitution of Jewish communal and heirless property confiscated during the Holocaust era. The estimated value needed to compensate the Jewish community for the properties in Latvia that it lost during World War II, says Kristovskis, is around 30 million lats (42.8 million euros).

Davidson said in an interview with daily Latvijas Avize on Jan. 28 that he did not come to Latvia with a list of properties to be returned to the Jewish community - his goal was to encourage the Latvian government and people to start a dialogue with the remaining members of the Jewish community on the return of their former properties, at least those that can be returned.
He said that Latvia has acknowledged the Terezin Declaration’s principles on restitution and should act accordingly. Davidson also said that he cannot predict how this issue will affect ethnic relations in Latvia, but it will affect Latvia’s image abroad. Currently it seems that Latvia does not want to conclude the process and put its past in order. However, if the question of restitution is resolved, it will improve Latvia’s image abroad and it would also be morally right. According to principles of democracy, individuals and groups who had their property taken away have the right to reclaim it. Ethnic questions should be put aside here, said Davidson.

He then mentioned Germany as an example, where the government sold the properties that were without an owner and gave the money to the organization ‘Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany,’ which made it possible to pay benefits to Holocaust survivors throughout the world, including the United States and Europe.
Saeima Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ojars Eriks Kalnins (Unity) said on Jan. 25 that he currently does not have a solution to the problem of Jewish properties confiscated during the Holocaust era; however, Saeima members and the government will try to find a fair solution to this problem.

Kalnins pointed out that the government and Saeima members must work together in order to resolve this question, that restitution must be considered from moral, historic and legal perspectives. Society must be open to dialogue on this matter, pointed out Kalnins.