Washington Principle #11: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, on November 26-28, 2018 and entitled "20 years Washington Principles: Roadmap for the Future," it would be worthwhile to revisit these Principles and to put them through a linguistic, methodological and substantive meat grinder, and see what comes out of this critique. There will be eleven articles, each one devoted to one of the Principles enacted in a non-binding fashion in Washington, DC, on December 3, 1998.]

Principle #11
Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.

This principle, to put it mildly, translated into a big zero plus one. It escaped absolute zero because of Austria’s decision to pass an actual Art Restitution Act. However imperfect it may be, it’s a law, it’s been effectual, and it still exists.

The same cannot be said for the four other nations hosting a restitution committee of sorts focused on cultural claims—France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany never followed in the footsteps of the Austrians. Apparently, the stakes were sufficiently high for the Austrians to pass their law, prompted by the physical seizure of works of art by an iconic “national treasure” named Egon Schiele, while on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Seizure, sequestration, were the tools that provoked mayhem among Austrian lawmakers, politicians, and museum administrators to “act”. Does the same scenario have to unfold for other countries to pass a restitution law? The answer may unfortunately be yes.

The failure of Principle #11 underscores the overall failure of the legacy of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era assets of December 1998. Not one of the signatories to the Washington Principles saw fit, once he/she returned to their respective homeland, to set in motion a national debate on the notion of restitution of art objects looted during the Nazi era, which would lead to comprehensive legislation and/or decrees establishing some form of mechanism with which to address those claims. Not one.

To make matters worse and, perversely, ironic, those nations which are so anxious to recover their State cultural losses—Italy, Belgium, Poland, are standouts—refuse outright to return to the rightful owners art objects in their public collections which clearly have been proven to be looted, no questions asked, historical evidence on hand to support those claims. The double standard is brazen but real and continues to function unabated, despite international calls for these nations to honor restitution claims. To paraphrase government officials from those nations, they are happy to restitute the objects as long as the claimants don’t mind coming to their country to “visit” with the object while it is still on display in a museum collection.

The most important hurdle that these nations face when confronted with a restitution claim is how to de-accession these objects from State-run collections. Few of those nations have on their books a comprehensive de-accession law that extends to the return of objects claimed by individuals, as opposed to nations.

Principle #11 could be rewritten as follows:

Nations shall enact directives, laws and decrees as appropriate to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to the resolution of ownership issues. These directives or laws should include comprehensive de-accession procedures that apply to art objects looted or displaced during the Nazi era which are the subject of a restitution claim.

Washington Principle #10: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, on November 26-28, 2018 and entitled "20 years Washington Principles: Roadmap for the Future," it would be worthwhile to revisit these Principles and to put them through a linguistic, methodological and substantive meat grinder, and see what comes out of this critique. There will be eleven articles, each one devoted to one of the Principles enacted in a non-binding fashion in Washington, DC, on December 3, 1998.]

Principle #10
Commissions or other bodies established to identify art that was confiscated by the Nazis and to assist in addressing ownership issues should have a balanced membership.

This principle is one of the few in the set of 11 where there has been some implementation effort. However, it is written in such a way that it almost consists of two distinct parts: one dealing with commissions “or other bodies” and the other, somewhat puzzling, recommending “balanced membership” in these here commissions “or other bodies.”

1/ commissions or other bodies:

Since the Washington Conference of 1998, five European nations managed to establish some form of commission or “other body” designated to address cultural claims and in some countries like France, claims for other types of looted assets including cultural claims. They were established in five countries—France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany—between 1998 and 2003. Interestingly, the Austrian government was the first to establish such a commission, largely motivated by the seizure of two paintings by Egon Schiele at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in early January 1998. The seizure put o the fast track plans for a restitution law, Austria being the only country in the world with such a law which set in motion a mechanism by which Federal Austrian museums do not need a claim against them to conduct research into their collections. The opposite is the reality.

1998: Commission for provenance research, Vienna, Austria,

1999: Commission pour l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations [CIVS],

2000: Spoliation Advisory Panel, London, UK,

2002: Dutch Restitution Committee, The Hague, Netherlands,

2003: Limbach Commission.

Whether these commissions have been effective since the date of their creation is another discussion entirely. Suffice it to say that, if we were to rank their overall impact and effectiveness at resolving claims, we could provide the following tentative ranking from worst-1- to (relatively better)-4- by nation:

1: Germany
2-3: Netherlands
3: France
3-4: The United Kingdom and Austria

Relative because these commissions are far from being perfect, their concept of justice has often clashed with the realities of history, enforcing a delicate balance with their desire to protect their State museums and their commitment to be “just and fair” with the claimants based on the evidence provided to them. Some have chosen decided biases against certain categories of claims, namely those for items sold under duress, while others have been mired in the bureaucratic cultures of their national governments. But, all in all, there are five standing commissions as opposed to non which have been active for now twenty years, in part as the result of the Washington Principles.

The failure to implement Principle #10 in the United States reflected the deep polarization between government officials, museum directors and their trade associations, lawyers for both possessors and claimants, restitution groups and politicians. Despite a succession of “town meetings” and symposia held in the wake of the Washington conference (1998) and Vilnius (2000) to define the contours of an American restitution commission, no consensus could be reached, no one knew where to place such a commission in the tangled mess known as the US government. Even restitution lawyers ended up opposing the creation of such a commission and preferred to maintain the status quo rather than impose a toothless entity in the art restitution discussions within US borders.

2/ balanced membership

Aware that the Washington Principles were conceived to protect the interests of the current possessors while taking into account ways of being fair and just to claimants, the issue of a balanced membership for those commissions adjudicating or hearing claims for restitution of looted art, must give us pause.

What’s the worry? What does the word “balanced” infer? That discussions would be too biased and should reflect a balance of what kinds of opinions exactly? Does it mean equitable representation for all stakeholders in the restitution discussions and an assurance that they will have a seat on these commissions and be able to proffer their views fairly?

Opinions on this question differ wildly. If you represent the interests of current possessors, you want to make sure that the claimant voice on the commission is minimal, at best, but present enough not to be accused of partiality. If you represent the interests of the government of the nation where sits the commission in question, your interests invariably collude with those of the possessor because the government is most oftentimes the possessor acting as defendant against a claimant. If you are a claimant, you want to ensure that claimants’ representatives, independent historians, maybe even ethicists have a seat on the commission. The latter never happened.

Hence, the preoccupation over balanced membership betrayed, then and now, a general fear on the part of the possessors—therefore, governments and museum associations-that claimants’ voices would become too loud and mar the “just and fair” discussion and tilt it towards the rights of the claimants. It is largely palpable in the recent reform of the Limbach commission which ushered into the commission’s board two members of the Jewish community, a notion that even the German minister of culture opposed initially, for their presence might inject bias into the commission’s proceedings.https://www.artforum.com/news/germany-appoints-first-jewish-members-to-its-limbach-commission-for-nazi-looted-art-64667

In sum, keep the commissions and strengthen their mandates. Do not regress like the Dutch Restitution Committee in accepting the views of the Dutch museum community that the cohesiveness of their collections was far more important than a claim for restitution.

Principle#10 could be rewritten as follows:

Commissions or other bodies shall be established to assist in addressing ownership issues for unrestituted artistic, cultural and ritual objects confiscated, misappropriated, sold under duress and/or forced sales, subjected to other forms of illicit acts of dispossession by the Nazis, their supporters, profiteers and Fascist allies across Europe between 1933 and 1945; these commissions or other bodies shall have a balanced membership consisting of, but not limited to, members of the art trade, civil servants, current possessors, claimants and their representatives, historians and specialists.

Washington Principle #9: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, on November 26-28, 2018 and entitled "20 years Washington Principles: Roadmap for the Future," it would be worthwhile to revisit these Principles and to put them through a linguistic, methodological and substantive meat grinder, and see what comes out of this critique. There will be eleven articles, each one devoted to one of the Principles enacted in a non-binding fashion in Washington, DC, on December 3, 1998.]

Principle #9
If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis, or their heirs, can not be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution.

There are several elements in this principle which require our full attention.

1/ unidentifiable pre-war owners of looted cultural assets:

No cultural, artistic or ritual object is produced out of thin air. It requires one or more creators and one or more owners. In other words, every object is owned by someone. The question is to find out who owns what. Ownership records are, most oftentimes, generic, fragmentary or they do not exist, because the people owning objects possessing a recognized esthetic quality and value which can be passed off as “art” do not necessarily feel compelled to record the fact that they own the object in question. When falling victim to acts of State-sponsored and sanctioned persecution and terror accompanied by thievery and plunder, the strands of ownership, however weak they might have been at the outset, are gone forever. Out of the millions of objects which changed hands illegally during the Nazi years across Europe, one can argue that a high percentage of those objects ended up in 1945 as having “unidentifiable” owners, not because they were all murdered, but because ownership traceability proved to be a daunting task which Allied planners and Jewish relief organizations alike were in no measure to pursue. Instead of looking for owners, procedures and policies were put in place across post-1945 “liberated territories” to consider those objects as “heirless”, not likely to be claimed and, therefore, they should be sold to benefit postwar governments and Jewish survivors. The speed at which the decision to sell off those assets was made is simply vertiginous.

Today, the discussion over the fate of “heirless” assets, those for whom no pre-war owners can be found, continues to divide and produce acrimony on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and as far as Israel.

2/ just and fair solution

How can one achieve a “just and fair solution” when there are no owners around who can speak for themselves and, in their absence, those deciding on the fate of such "heirless" assets do not take seriously the arguments of specialists in matters pertaining to cultural plunder and restitution? 

This principle was conceived to establish a framework within which Jewish organizations could negotiate, as successor organizations to the victims of the Holocaust, with auction houses and museums a mechanism by which objects in their collections or consigned to them could be singled out and transferred to Jewish organizations. No thought was given to finding alternative, non-monetary, solutions to the question of “heirless” assets. In the case of a museum, whether private or public, the objects designated as “heirless” in their collection could be highlighted as such and their histories, or at least, how they ended up in the museum’s collection, could be revealed and presented to the public as a pedagogical, teachable opportunity, to discuss the fate of such objects during periods of mass conflict and persecution. It would also outline for the public the ways in which these objects evolved over time and space during and after WWII, in order to help museum patrons understand how art travels and survives war, plunder, genocide.

In sum, the fate of Principle #9 rests with how Jewish groups, governments, museums, auction houses, lawyers, lawmakers diplomats and historians wrestle with what constitutes "heirless property" and how best to treat heirless cultural objects. The work has barely begun.

Principle #9 could be rewritten as follows:If the pre-1933 owners of artistic, cultural and ritual objects confiscated, misappropriated, sold under duress and/or forced sales, subjected to other forms of illicit acts of dispossession by the Nazis, their supporters, profiteers and Fascist allies across Europe between 1933 and 1945 that are found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, cannot be identified, processes shall be put into place with all stakeholders so as to find an equitable solution as to how to treat these objects with due consideration to their artistic relevance and to their individual history.

Washington Principle #8: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference to be held in Berlin, Germany, on November 26-28, 2018, and entitled "20 years Washington Principles: Roadmap for the Future," it would be worthwhile to revisit these Principles and to put them through a linguistic, methodological and substantive meat grinder, and see what comes out of this critique. There will be eleven articles, each one devoted to one of the Principles enacted in a non-binding fashion in Washington, DC, on December 3, 1998.]

Principle #8
If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.

On October 5, 2000, a declaration came out of an international forum in Vilnius, Lithuania, which placed heavy emphasis on the search for fair and just solutions “to the return” of looted art and cultural property. It went a bit further than the Washington Principles but did not specify what constituted a just and fair solution to a claim for restitution. Forum participants did ask that “every reasonable effort be undertaken" to “achieve the restitution” of looted cultural assets. What constitutes reasonable effort?

On June 30, 2009, at an International Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets in Prague held under the auspices of the Czech Republic, its participants issued a declaration, called the Terezin Declaration . Among other things, the declaration reiterated the implicit value of the Washington Principles, whereby looted art and cultural property should be “returned to victims or their heirs” but added that such returns be framed “in a manner consistent with national laws and regulations to achieve a just and fair solution.” The ambiguity remains since it is not clear whether restitution is a “just and fair solution” or if “restitution” is a stretchable concept that includes the non-physical return of the claimed object in exchange of a financial settlement with the claimant.

If the return of cultural assets looted during the Nazi years should be consistent with national laws and regulations, most of the signatory countries in Washington, DC in 1998 and in Prague in 2009 have not yet passed any laws or decrees framing the process of restitution of Holocaust-era looted cultural assets.  In fact, their courts and legislatures have repeatedly upheld the rights of current possessors against such claims.  Moreover, those nations’ cultural policies share one thing in common: the de-accession of objects from State collections is not feasible. If it must be considered as a "just and fair solution", that decision must be brought up before the legislature and/or the competent ministries. In that context, a fair and just solution does not work in favor of a claimant but rather it upholds the sanctity of State-owned or controlled cultural property over the individual rights of claimants. Put simply, the claimants have no control over what is fair and just.

Another way of looking at the logic behind the Washington Principles is that its framers could never have reached a consensus over their issuance without gutting them from the outset, thus protecting the art market, private and public museums alike at the expense of the claimant class, perhaps viewed even in 1998, as a nuisance which already riled governments with legal assaults against the Swiss banking sector over the misuse of private Jewish assets on deposit in Swiss financial institutions.

In retrospect and in anticipation of future discussions, a Holocaust claimant seeking the physical return—restitution—of his/her lost property from the possessing institution, be it public or private, would never have agreed to the notion of ‘a just and fair solution’, if it were to be anything but restitution. On the eve of the November 26-28, 2018 Berlin Conference on the Washington Principles, it is fair to ask whether current possessors, for whom the Principles were framed, have been fair and just to Holocaust claimants? Current possessors are public and private entities

Principle #8 could be rewritten as follows:

If the pre-1933 owners of artistic, cultural and ritual objects confiscated, misappropriated, sold under duress and/or forced sales, subjected to other forms of illicit acts of dispossession by the Nazis, their supporters, profiteers and Fascist allies across Europe between 1933 and 1945 and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, are identified, steps will be taken expeditiously to initiate restitution proceedings or any other solution deemed just and fair by all parties concerned, according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case. In each and every case, the interests of the claimants will be placed on an equal footing with those of the current possessors.