Background Analysis: The Reparations

Restitution of the private property nationalized by PPR (Poland People’s Republic) is a heated topic both among Poles and Jews. There has been a multitude of attempts to solve the problem, numerous Polish prime ministers, committees and organizations promised, and consequently worked on the appropriate legal acts, but none of them was put up to ratification. In September 2008, the Polish government led by Donald Tusk had drawn a final draft of a legal act which would finally put the reparations process into motion, but because of the global financial crisis which broke out the following month, all of the extra expenditure projects had been sojourned.
The Act of 20th February 1997 on the State’s relations with the Jewish Belief Communities in the Republic of Poland was the first act regulating the legal status of Jewish communities as well as allowing the communities to recover the lost property like cemeteries, synagogues, schools etc. The process of re-privatizing those properties is going relatively slow but is being carried on. The situation is much more complicated with the private persons’ properties. Poland is the only country of the Eastern Europe who did not authorize the compensations for the lost private property. It should be noted though, that only 20% of the private property nationalized in 1944-1962 by PPR is Jewish. The rest of the property was owned by ethnic Poles. The legal act which is being tried to be ratified in the Polish parliament is not about the re-privatizing Polish or Jewish property but Polish citizens’ property. There have been some important actors in the discourse, both Jewish and Polish, who took extremist position on this issue causing frictions and slowing down the reconciliation process.
The history of Polish-Jewish negotiations on restitutions can be divided into two eras: WJC era, and post-WJC era. WJC, World Jewish Congress, for years was playing a role of the representative of the Jewish side. It tried hard to obtain an agreement with Polish government, but the negotiations were dominated by threats, lack of will for concessions and controversy, which definitely deteriorated significantly public support in Poland for restitutions, and led to a conviction among the majority of Polish society that restitutions are solely a Jewish affair. The most controversial incident which infuriated millions of Poles was a comment made in 1996 by Israel Singer, the General Secretary of WJC, that ‘Poland will be humiliated on international arena’, if Polish government will not resolve the issue of restitution and will not meet the demands of 100% property value compensation. The hawkish policy of Israel Singer and Edgar Bronfman towards Polish continued, causing a plethora of arguments, rumors and accusations. By 1999, the American-Jewish groups, most notably WJC, attempted to condition the access of Poland to NATO on resolving the restitution issue. In 2001 “Gazeta Wyborcza” reported that the NY City Council wants to allow the boycott of Polish airlines at the JFK airport.
Although in years 2000-2007 nobody, apart from nationalist camp, advocated freezing negotiations with WJC as long as Israel Singer continues to be its secretary, newspapers expressed public’s unease with Singer’s radicalism. Witold Gadomski, a journalist of “Gazeta Wyborcza” rejected a general, out of the context of WJC, oversimplification of the problem in his article “Reprivatization – how to pay back the debts of history” (Gazeta Wyborcza, 12.07.2003):

In the historical aspect [of restitution issue], it is hard to justify the demands of the so called “displaced ones” – usually children and grandchildren of the old inhabitants of present Western Territories of Poland [Pomerania and Silesia]. It was not Poles that started the war and we didn’t decide of shifting the borders westwards – losing the lands east of Bug river and receiving compensation for it in the West. It is difficult to understand historically, why the lost property of Zabużanie [Polish population that lived in the regions that before 39’ were in Poland and now are in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine] should be paid for by III Republic of Poland. The republican agreements were signed by non-sovereign entities, PKWN [Polish Committee of National Liberation], that relinquished any reparation demands from USSR and did not represent the interests of Poland. The properties stolen 60 years ago, were nationalized by a Soviet state, so why today, Polish state and its taxpayers should pay for it? And what about the properties destroyed in Central Poland? What about the burnt villages, lost chances of growth? The Repatriants deserve respect and compassion, but one can imagine a situation when some grandson of Zabużanin managed his life pretty well in PRL [PPR – Polish People’s Republic], he collected the fruits of 80’s and 90’s privatization and now he demands a restitution of his grandpa’s property, which will be paid by a taxpayer whose house was burnt in Warsaw Uprising and later on was persecuted by the communist government.

***
There were 2 attempts of passing the appropriate law by Polish government, when Israel Singer was a secretary. First time, in 2002, the draft act was submitted by Jerzy Buzek’s government and was even passed in both chambers of parliament, but then was vetoed by President Kwaśniewski. The reason the President vetoed the act was the amendment added by AWS (Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność – the remnant of Solidarity movement) deputies, which stated that the act applies only to Polish citizens, which obviously was in breach with international law.
The second attempt was taken in 2007 after the Restitutions Conference held in Warsaw, under the government of Jarosław Kaczyński. However it failed since the government coalition collapsed and new elections were announced. Before the conference, Polish Union of Property Owners and WJC issued together an appeal to Mr. Prime Minister to solve the problem of the lost property.
The same year saw a turning point caused by a scandal over Israel Singer’s alleged felony and mismanagement of Congress’s money. Edgar Bronfman (head of WJC) fired Israel Singer from the WJC and shortly after - resigned. The new CEO, Ronald Lauder adopted a much milder stance on restitutions issue, but the huge reputation blow that WJC suffered, put Lauder in no position to negotiate as a partner with Polish government.
The elections of 2007 were won by the centre-right pro-European Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO) and Donald Tusk became the Prime Minister. He did not continue negotiations with WJC, but upon his visit to Israel in April 2008 in a meeting with Polish Israelis, he declared his willingness to pass the legislation.

There were many politicians before me who promised that they will give back 100%. If someone says that he will give back everything, it means that he would have to take it from somebody else. It will not be a property revolution.[…] If someone will apply to the state and will justify his claims, then we will be paying back for long, long years. (from: www.rp.pl , “Tusk bez rewolucji własnościowej” 11.04.2008)

He also stated that the compensations will reach maximum 15-20%, paid back in cash, and because of complicated legal and ownership state of affairs a re-privatization of land will be virtually impossible. Donald Tusk also reiterated that the restitution issue is not a subject to inter-state negotiations but it is solely an internal affair of Poland. What seems paradoxical is that the project received more criticism from Polish claimants in the country than from the Jews in America and Israel. The Polish Association of Landed Gentry called the compensation rate “unacceptable” and demanded 50% instead. In September 2009, the act was drafted by the Ministry of the State Treasury and was submitted to the Lower Chamber of the Parliament for voting. The act was not put in to vote though, because of the credit crunch and government had to concentrate on saving the economy, rather than planning more expenditures.

Gazeta Wyborcza’s voice dominated in the ongoing debate. Its writers advocated a prudent and cautious resolution to the problem, based on equal rights of everyone involved. The only groups who tried to give an image of the restitutions as a purely Jewish affair, and therefore being alien and unnecessary or even harmful, were the anti-Semitic groups – the usual Radio Maryja, NOP (National Renaissance of Poland), JR Nowak and his friends, but those voice were marginalized from the mainstream media and could propagate their views only in closed isolated circles of Nationalists. There were cases when during a sermon priests would express anti-Semitism in a reference to the restitutions issue.

The issue is still not resolved, causing controversy, and leaving thousands of people with a feeling of injustice. However, the current government seems to treat more seriously the restitutions act than the previous ones. Hopefully, when the final end will be put to the financial crisis, Donald Tusk won’t forget to resume the efforts to pass the law. It would certainly wipe away the last grudge born ever since the painful and sinister past of Communist state-sponsored Anti-Semitism.

Sources:
gazeta.pl
rp.pl
wprost.pl
gazetaprawna.pl
bip.msp.gov.pl