Revisiting the numbers game

by Marc Masurovsky

Since 2011, the Holocaust Art Restitution Project (HARP) has periodically addressed the problematic of quantifying the thefts of art works, art objects, and other items of esthetic value, looted between 1933 and 1945 under National Socialist rule, during WWII and the Holocaust. After the conflict, there was no internationally-sanctioned and organized audit of cultural losses suffered by the victims of National Socialist and Fascist aggression on the European continent. Therefore, experts and amateurs alike have wallowed in the murky waters of estimations of human and material losses from 1945 to the present.

Regarding the scale of human losses, the international community accepts that between 45 and 55 million men, women, and children lost their lives as a direct and indirect result of the continental conflagration between September 1, 1939, and May 8, 1945. That figure includes the six million Jews targeted for physical extermination by the Nazi government. The continental theater of operations included 15 European countries (and North Africa) which were directly involved either as a result of being militarily occupied by Axis powers, annexed by Nazi Germany, or allied to the Axis: Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Soviet Union, North Africa (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia).

Wherever the German Army and the Nazi political and security apparatus went, there followed intense repression, the physical eradication of local populations accompanied by systematic, State-sponsored acts of plunder and illicit displacement of individual and communal properties.

By the time Nazi Germany agreed to terms of unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945, the Allies had realized that “art treasures” (museum-quality objects) were systematically looted across Axis-controlled Europe, stored away in gigantic depots or sold on the international art market to replenish the Reich’s warmongering coffers. Allied focus on “art plunder” went hand in hand with “rescuing the treasures of Europe” and returning them to the countries from which they had been forcibly removed. In and of itself, this task was barely manageable, but if you factored in “everything else” that was stolen, the task was simply unmanageable and would have required several decades of full-time focus by myriad specialists from the victorious nations to sort out what had been stolen by 1945, what was recovered, and what was still missing as of Victory-Day (V-E-Day).

The ex-Soviets always wanted to do things their own way, which, if you look back at the consequences of WWII on the Soviet Union’s infrastructure, human and industrial capital and cultural infrastructure, you might understand some of their reasoning. Their losses for the period of 1941-1945 are estimated in the millions. One snapshot of these staggering figures can be best summed up by their estimation of museum losses: 1,129,929 units of conservation comprising objects, rare books, manuscripts, as well as archival collections.https://lostart.ru/fr/svodnyj_katalog/

Some more elliptical estimates suggest that 20% of European art was plundered “from Jewish collectors and other individuals and organizations.” We don’t know what 100% amounts to, which would represent the universe of “stealable” European art. Hence, the 20% ratio seems a bit vapid and lacking substance. 

We still don’t really know…

In the media-hungry and attention-starved world that we all bask in, there has developed an insatiable appetite to provide numbers that explain the true extent of the plunder and what is still missing. These valiant self-interested pronouncements do not usually come from historians and experts who, for professional reasons, are reluctant to venture in such murky and troubled waters. They emanate from politicians, international personalities, media hounds, and anyone seeking attention for not more than 3 minutes but whose pronouncements will live on forever as random digital factoids on the Internet which end up restated and reposted blindly and thoughtlessly. Repeated enough times, they are true. Fact-checking, go take a hike!

So, what’s the problem exactly?

In November-December 1998, an international conference dubbed the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets took place in Washington, DC. It brought together under one roof 44 nations and a smattering of NGOs to assess where we were with respect to honoring postwar claims for compensation and restitution submitted by Holocaust victims’ families to the governments of their adopted countries and against the main architects and perpetrators of the horrors unleashed upon them and their families—Germany and its allies. Although the results of the Washington Conference were mixed, a set of eleven principles was released on its last day to guide the art market and governments on how to address the possibility that looted art objects may have entered public collections and businesses and how to resolve these claims to everyone’s satisfaction (one would only hope…). These principles avoided mentioning anything about the private art market and—in true diplomatic verbiage—kept the notion of plunder at its vaguest and limited the main perpetrators to “the Nazis.”

Ronald Lauder, who, at the time of the December 1998 Washington Conference, was Chairman of the Board of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York and the chairman of the recently-established Commission for Art Recovery (CAR), proclaimed that 110,000 art works were still missing, half of the total number that was allegedly stolen (or 220,000)-- a figure advanced without a hint of critical insight as to its veracity and on what facts it rested. He also placed a value on the missing works: 10-30 billion dollars (1998 value). This would assign an approximate value per object of 100,000 dollars, give or take 50,000. The average value of art objects looted from Jewish owners could be estimated grossly at between 5 and 10,000 dollars (1998) and that is still an uneducated guess. Only 5 to 15%--again, uninformed guesses based on years spent reviewing restitution claims and Nazi inventories of stolen property—reached or exceeded the values hypothetized by Mr. Lauder.

Mr. Lauder's estimates pale against those proffered by the Polish government. They estimate that their battered nation alone lost 600,000 works of art, many of which remain unrecovered. 

Since 1998, the London-based Art Loss Register (ALR), one of the most important proprietary (privately-owned) databases of stolen art in existence today, proffered an estimate of 200,000 stolen works of art, and even averred that 170,000 had been recovered and therefore that would leave only 30,000 still gallavanting about and waiting to be plucked for a handsome finder’s fee. These figures are astounding for several reasons: 1/ they are unjustified and unverifiable; and 2/ they presume a rate of restitution of more than 85%! A rather extraordinary feat which, it too, is surreally wrong. Of course I invite you all to fact-check this and contact ALR directly to verify or infirm the above.

600,000 art objects stolen, 100,000 still missing

This formula, backed up by no scientific research or historical documentation, has been the most popular mantra proffered by government officials, reporters, and restitution lawyers.

The most notable proponent of this statistic is Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, currently Special Advisor on Holocaust Affairs to the US Secretary of State and an internationally-recognized authority on the diplomacy of reparations for Holocaust victims. He first posited (as far as we can tell) these figures at an international conference held in Prague (Czechia) in June 2009. Mr. Eizenstat repeated those figures as recently as 2018 which were reported in 2019 by the Washington Post.

These figures have also been repeated in the following media outlets:

-history.co.uk,
-Time Magazine,
-the Smithsonian Magazine in 2022,
-Swissinfo.ch
-Deutsche Welle
The DW article contradicts itself when, in the same breath, it posits that 5 million artworks changed hands illegally. Which is it?
-The LA Times, whose editorial board actually wondered whether the estimates might be much higher.
-National Public Radio
-and, of course, the US Department of State

Other far-flung estimates include:

-30,000 looted art works are still missing
-10,000 works are still missing

How do we stop the misrepresentation of one of the most heinous crimes committed against culture, against humanity as part of a genocide of the Jewish people?

When someone asks you how many objects were looted during the Nazi years (1933-1945), 

1/ you do not to provide an accurate figure because there is none. 

2/ You do not know how many objects have been recovered, 

3/ you do not how many have been restituted, and how many are still missing, regardless of style, value, and importance to art world denizens. 

4/ you must err on the side of caution and state in all seriousness: between six and ten million.

For more clarifications, see:

30 May 2011
Analysis of an address by Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat at Prague in June 2009

21 April 2015

The illusion of numbers
10 May 2015

The day after...
23 May 2018

Some frequently asked questions

Diplomatic highs and lows in Paris

by Marc Masurovsky

Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, special envoy on Holocaust affairs for the US Department of State, was one of the most prominent speakers at the 20th anniversary colloquium of the CIVS in Paris on November 15, 2019.

The main point person since the Clinton era on matters pertaining to Holocaust-era claims, Mr. Eizenstat delivered an unusual speech regarding looted art, restitution, France’s treatment of looted art in State collections, and his own legacy.

From year to year, the Eizenstat narrative on looted art and restitution has morphed and been rewritten, not for stylistic reasons but perhaps because Mr. Eizenstat has had a decades-long love/hate relationship with the whole idea of restituting art objects to plundered victims of the Nazis. And he simply does not know how to address it. After all, you cannot package art the way you bundle insurance policies, gold bars and coins, bank accounts and so forth, something that he excels at, which has yielded billions of dollars worth of settlements for Jewish victims and their families. For that reason alone, Mr. Eizenstat's legacy as a reliable and devoted advocate and champion of Holocaust victims' rights is uncontested and admirable.

Here are some of his many statements which were oftentimes punctuated by occasional spurts of ire:

-“France is going from being a laggard to being a leader” on questions of art restitution. That elicited some giggles including from Mr. Eizenstat who appeared pleased by his joke which was not really a joke.

-The CIVS conference symbolized “our last opportunity”. Let’s recall that the Prague Conference on Holocaust-era Assets in June 2009 was also “our last opportunity.”

He reminded us of his infinite capacity to repeat “fake news” about cultural losses during WWII. Unverified, the numbers put forth by Eizenstat are the same ones he has repeated since 1998.
According to him, 600000 paintings were looted during WWII, of which 100000 are still missing. In 1997, Philip Saunders of Trace database had made this unfounded assertion.  (Mr. Eizenstat went on record with those numbers in 2006). The Polish government alone claims that half a million cultural objects were removed from its territory during WWII. Which irresponsible historian or advocacy group came up with these fictitious numbers? Not even the Monuments Men could be bothered to audit the cultural losses of each nation victim of Nazi aggression. The more accurate estimates situate cultural losses in the millions.

Speaking of the Monuments Men, Mr. Eizenstat delivered a paean in their honor, citing their bravery and courage (smoking pipes and sporting tweeds) in Munich and Wiesbaden, while recovering 5 million works of art! No kidding! He forgot to mention that this figure mostly accounts for books, decorative objects and State-owned art. Not much room left for Jews, is there? Moreover, 5 million might be just a tad exaggerated. But who’s counting? You get the idea. Lots of looted stuff was repatriated to countries of origin.

Mr. Eizenstat was on a roll. He posited that it was impossible to identify owners at the end of the war. If so, how did so many objects get returned? The heirless asset problem must be staggering.

Let us now enter fantasy land. In December 1997, Mr. Eizenstat came up with the brilliant idea for a conference on looted art or so he says. That’s really strange because he was firmly opposed to the inclusion of looted art in any international convening dealing with assets during the Holocaust. It was the seizure of the two Schiele paintings at the Museum of Modern Art in January 1998 that provoked the inclusion of looted art in what became the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets.

Speaking of the 1998 conference, Mr. Eizenstat, since November 2018, has changed his tone regarding the 11 Washington Principles that he penned which were supposed to frame an international strategy to identify looted art in public collections (not private) and suggest ways for victims to settle their grievances with current possessors.

Well, as it turns out, these non-binding Principles were mostly based on a set of guidelines developed by American museums earlier in 1998 when faced with mounting criticism over their indifference to the presence of stolen objects in their collections. A funny way of helping claimants by seeking inspiration from the very institutions that are firmly opposed to any form of restitution.

Mr. Eizenstat went on to honor the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) for setting up a task force to address the question of looted art in their collections. To that end, the AAMD issued a set of guidelines in June 1998 which served as the benchmark for the Washington Principles, of which Mr. Eizenstat is the uncontested author.

Mr. Eizenstat proffered adoring words for Philippe de Montebello. The flamboyant former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art was a fierce opponent of restitution but a very savvy museum official who understood the value of pre-emptive strikes on issues of looted art and artifacts. To wit, he promoted the drawing up of guidelines for American museums to follow when confronted with objects in their collections that might be of dubious provenance and negotiated creative settlements with the Italian government over the presence of looted antiquities in the Met’s collections.

Mr. Eizenstat was particularly combative in upholding his legacy and defending his record against critics who have blasted him for “doing nothing” and uttering mere “words.”

Seizing the opportunity in a fiery tone, he shared a long list of recommendations and critiques in Uzi-like fashion. It was hard to keep up. Some of the more notable ones follow:

1/ he denounced the impossibility of de-accessioning restitutable objects from French museums as “a French problem.”

2/ He went on to skewer Dutch museums for having reneged on their commitment to the Washington Principles by equating the cohesiveness of their collections with the interests of Holocaust claimants—the notorious “balance of interest” doctrine approved by Dutch museums in 2016? Verify.

3/ he denounced the German Limbach commission and its 15 cases in 15 years.

4/ Once again, he congratulated the Metropolitan Museum and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts for showing the way on how to handle looted objects in their collections.

5/ Quoting the AAMD and the AAM, he observed that the NEPIP portal was worthless and “outmoded”, in other words, unusable.

6/ He criticized US museums for being so aggressive towards claimants by resorting to technical legal defenses in order to dismiss their claims.

7/ He applauded the HEAR Act as the antidote to summary judgments petitioned by museum lawyers against claimants, whether meritorious or not.

8/ He thinks highly of the JUST Act which requires countries to publish annual reports on the state of restitution in their midst.

9/ he took partial credit for launching “provenance research as a new profession.” As if it was not performed prior to 1998.

10/ He congratulated France for acting as a coordinator between the five standing restitution committees.

Then, Mr. Eizenstat pulled out his foggy crystal ball and peered inside it, noting:

1/ Forced sales and flight sales (fluchtgut) are to be included as part of the Washington Principles (the former are mentioned explicitly in the Terezin Declaration and the latter are suggested implicitly therein);

2/ provenance research is expensive and requires resources.

3/ Public museums should publish on the Internet a detailed provenance for all of their objects.

4/ research should be conducted in all museums—private and public.

5/ De-accession laws need to be changed in order to accommodate restitution of looted objects.

6/ The Washington Principles apply to private collections

7/ Every country should designate a point of reference for claimants

8/ there should be no time limits on claims.

9/ he denounced the European Union as being “behind the curve.”

10/ with regards to so-called heirless assets, Eizenstat reiterated the need for “just and fair solutions” which amount to selling off these unclaimed assets after giving research one more try. Meanwhile, the institutions holding such objects should educate their public about how they ended up in their collections. As an aside, Eizenstat lauded the Austrian solution to the heirless assets question, embodied in the National Fund run by Hannah Lessing. In short, if Austrian federal museums identify objects in their midst for which there are no identifiable owners, they are transferred to the National Fund which follows up with its own research and posts the objects on its website. After a period of time has elapsed, the Fund sets aside those objects for sale, the proceeds of which are disbursed amongst needy families of survivors. Ms. Lessing begged to differ during the question and answer period.

That was enough for one day.

Historians vs. lawyers

by Marc Masurovsky

The past two decades have witnessed hundreds of restitution cases whose purpose is to reclaim the return of objects looted during the Nazi era. Although the claimants are located around the world, the legal actions are concentrated in so-called market nations, namely in North America, Europe and occasionally in Japan.

These cases set out to fix, to repair historical wrongs. Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat came up with what turned out to be an enduring catch phrase to describe such actions: “just and fair solutions”. It’s anyone’s guess, frankly, what constitutes “fair” and “just” solutions. They vary greatly whether you are the current possessor or the victim’s heir/heiress.

Still, the wrongs being repaired took place during a historical act of genocide that spanned the greater part of 12 years, from 1933 to 1945. It was aimed principally at the citizens of European countries of Jewish descent. Thus, art restitution is an act of justice seeking to repair a historical wrong.

To establish the facts and circumstances surrounding the “historical wrong”, lawyers—who are not trained historians—rely on those who have made it their career to examine the historical past, understand its many sinews and meanders and interpret it for a larger public. Hence, lawyers need historians to compile evidence and build a persuasive case to convince a current possessor of the looted object either through mediation or before a judicial authority that the looted object should be returned to his/her client.

If lawyers need historians, historians do not need lawyers.

And yet…

The variegated ways by which art objects were forcibly removed from the ownership and control of their rightful Jewish owners can give us pause. Here are some, not all by any means:

-forced sales
-duress sales
-confiscations
-seizures
-sales while fleeing the site of persecution (flight sales or fluchtgut).

These complex “transactions” were deemed illicit by Allied powers fighting the Axis (Germany, Italy, and Japan) in a series of declarations during and after WWII making it clear that those responsible for aiding, abetting and/or provoking such illicit acts of forcible removal would be held accountable after the Allied victory over the Axis.

These illicit acts, in the eyes of those who study them—the historians—need to be clearly defined and all of their possible variations fully delineated and outlined so that their many permutations can be factored into legal proceedings.

By some perverse twist, American lawyers have increasingly opposed historians’ efforts to come up with clear definitions and delineations of these historical wrongs because any definition might impair their ability to successfully prosecute a claim against a current possessor.

The world is a strange place especially when, in order to repair a historical wrong tied to an act of genocide, a historian is asked to be silent on the exact details of these illicit acts.

Let’s be very clear here: historians need to do their jobs which is to apprehend the complexities of the past and explain them to the public in order to promote greater knowledge and enlightenment about what human beings do to other human beings so that, hopefully, we might not repeat such heinous acts in the future. Nice thought, I know.

Likewise, lawyers must do their job and protect their clients’ interests. For that, they need historians and other specialists to help them harness the facts of a case.

One thing they cannot do is order historians to censor themselves, just like historians do not ask lawyers to censor themselves.

Therefore, historians and researchers steeped in the tangled webs of persecution and exploitation of Jewish members of national communities between 1933 and 1945 will continue to study, examine, share in public and in private their findings and publish them where appropriate so that the many can have access to such knowledge.

Lawyers are intelligent people; they will surely find a way to adapt to such a state of affairs. After all, they cannot control the dissemination of knowledge anymore than governments can. And should not, under any circumstance.

Facts, ma’am, just the facts.

Some of the main Allied declarations:

"Inter-Allied Declaration on Axis Acts of Dispossession" (London Declaration) of 5 January 1943
Bretton Woods Resolution VI of 20 July 1944

 

When is “just and fair” fair and just?

by Marc Masurovsky

(updated on 5 July 2025)

It is difficult to pin down precisely the genesis of the concept known as “fair and just” or “just and fair” solution in matters pertaining to the restitution of art objects looted during the Holocaust. Who and when are almost impossible to trace.

A valid starting point is principle #8 of the “Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-confiscated art”. The “Washington Principles” were passed on December 3, 1998 at the close of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets.


“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."

Two years later, on October 5, 2000, a declaration came out of an international forum on Holocaust issues held 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 conference without getting into any specifics, diplomatie oblige, as to what would constitute 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. Hence restitution {again, without being properly defined] was invoked in the same breath as “just and fair solution.”

Eleven years after the Washington Conference of December 1998, a similar conclave of 40 odd nations and international NGOs gathered in Prague under the auspices of the hosting government of the Czech Republic. The International Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets issued a declaration, called the Terezin Declaration on June 30, 2009. In it, one can find multiple references to “just and fair solutions” without understanding at all what they are and how to achieve them. They do stipulate, however, that the Washington Conference of December 1998 established the moral (and non-binding) principle whereby looted art and cultural property should be “returned to victims or their heirs in a manner consistent with national laws and regulations [emphasis added] as well as international obligations, in order to achieve a just and fair solution.” Unless I am completely mixed up here, I read this as meaning that the restitution of looted cultural property achieves a “just and fair solution.”

In the years following the 1998 conference in Washington, DC, where the Principles were formulated, the tendency was to sharpen the link between restitution and “just and fair” or “fair and just” solutions. And yet….the word “restitution” was not defined in these declarations. If it was to mean the physical return of the looted object to the rightful owner and thereby transfer of legal title away from the current possessor to the rightful owner, many art market players like auction houses and museums, as well as governments, have violated the principle of what is just and fair by insisting that “just and fair” in all likelihood means upholding the good faith of the current possessor and asking—no, convincing—the claimant that financial compensation of some sort or another is the best result that can be achieved in the spirit of the Washington Principles of 1998. Best to invoke the trinity of Washington, Vilnius and Terezin in order to enshrine the physical return of the object.

Is that really what was meant or inferred at Vilnius in 2000 and at Prague in 2009? The answer is inconclusive, because most of the drafters and endorsers of these declarations were well aware that “national laws and regulations” would interfere with the actual physical restitution of the claimed object, especially in areas where the Idol of Good Faith rules all.

Hence, the apparent contradiction between settlements and the various declarations of Washington, Vilnius and Terezin disappears by stressing that the return of the object should be consistent with national laws and regulations. The emphasis of "fair and just" shifts in favor of the rights of the current possessor at the expense of those of the claimant.




"Dedham from Longham", by John Constable

An interesting twist to the Washington Principles involves a painting by John Constable being claimed by Alain Monteagle, representative of the Jaffe family’s restitution claim. The painting is presently located in the Fine Arts Museum of la Chaux de Fonds which is in the canton of Neuchatel in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Historically, the Swiss federal government has always deferred to local governments’ discretion in the way that they manage or dispose of their cultural assets. If one should apply to the letter the principles enshrined in Washington and reiterated in Vilnius and Terezin, the museum at La Chaux de Fonds, which is municipal, should return the painting to Mr. Monteagle. However, if the return is subject to the “national laws and regulations” of Switzerland and the canton of Neuchatel, as well as the municipality of La Chaux de Fonds, Mr. Monteagle does not stand a chance, because civil law in Switzerland worships the good faith of the current possessor and no foreigner can come into Switzerland and claim what he/she feels is his/her rightful property, at least not since 1949, with a notable exception last year. At least, that is the impression that we are left with, if history serves as a valid reference point.




La Chaux de Fonds 

Interestingly, in a 3-page report issued in January 2014, the Swiss Federal Office of Culture commented that “just and fair solutions must be sought—both when it has been possible to trace the victims and when identification has proved impossible.”

Hence, the principles of Washington, Vilnius and Terezin are not helpful in the real world and, more often than not, municipal governments and their national representatives heap scorn on them so as to safeguard their “cultural property.” If Mr. Monteagle wants his painting back, he has to wage total war against the Swiss government, the city council of La Chaux de Fonds which has oversight of its fine arts museum and the cantonal authorities in Neufchatel. To be successful, the battle for restitution must involve all aspects of civil society and should be waged inside and outside the legal system in order to "achieve a just and fair solution" consistent with Washington, Vilnius and Terezin.

Update of 5 July 2025

Since 1998, the concept of "Just and Fair" as applied to the resolution of Holocaust-era claims for Nazi looted art (encompassing losses suffered from the advent of Hitler to power on 30 January 1933 to the unconditional surrender of the Third Reich on 9 May 1945) has been embraced by governments, lawmakers, auction houses, museums (public and private), dealers and collectors, and many lawyers involved in looted art cases. It has become what lawyers and lawmakers describe as "soft law."

When "just and fair solutions" are invoked, they pave the way for a financial settlement allowing the current possessor to explain why it is not fair and just to them to relinquish the claimed object to the heirs of the victim who lost them. Moreover, these solutions undermine our understanding of the trauma of duress as experienced by those who lost their cultural goods as well as the rest of their belongings and assets.

As a historical footnote, the concept of just and fair was wholly concocted by Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, organizer of the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets and the US Government's chief negotiator and diplomat on matters dealing with reparations for Holocaust victims and their families. The American Alliance of Museums (AAM)--at the time known as the American Association of Museums--played a role in guiding Ambassador Eizenstat to formulate this concept which ended up being a gift to the class of current possessors at the expense of the interests of the claimants in their quest to obtain restitution (the physical return of their property).

Is it fair to ask whether Ambassador Eizenstat and his colleagues in major Jewish organizations involved in Holocaust reparations ever thought to sit down with claimants and restitution advocates about the implications of a "just and fair" approach to their request for restitution?

As for the Swiss government, it is on the brink of creating a Swiss commission inspired by those already in place in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Austria.

Funeral for the idea of a US Commission on Looted Art at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, on November 27, 2012

Absurdity funeral, Francisco Goya
Source: Wikipaintings

No one likes to be the bearer of bad news. US Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, Douglas Davidson, is no exception.

Davidson’s highly anticipated delivery at the “Fair and Just Solutions” International Symposium held in The Hague, Netherlands, on November 27, 2012, was cryptically dubbed “New Developments.” Fitting irony: the symposium was held at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

What new developments might have arisen in American government circles which had eluded most specialists and “insiders” in the contentious field of restitution of art stolen during the Holocaust and the Nazi years? It could certainly not be the creation of a US Commission on Looted Art, since the person who gave rise to this idea was former Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, envoy extraordinaire on all matters pertaining to the Holocaust since the Clinton years.

The idea for a US Commission on Looted Art was first announced at the end of the Holocaust-Era Assets Conference held in Prague in late June 2009. This conference, which produced its own declaration—The Terezin Declaration—was the “follow-up” conference to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets held in Washington, DC, in early December 1998, which brought us the now-ubiquitous and oft-cited Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.

Since the Fall of 2009, the US Department of State, in concert with Ambassador Eizenstat and then Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues, Christian Kennedy, organized a series of “town meetings” whose purpose was to foster dialogue amongst all parties interested in the creation of a commission which would provide resolution mechanisms for claims filed by individuals whose families had suffered cultural losses at the hands of the Nazis and their Fascist allies more than sixty-five years ago and who wished to recover their lost property from American museums.

The sense one gleaned from these town meetings was that Ambassador Eizenstat was intent upon keeping his word—the creation of a US Commission on Looted Art—no matter what this Commission looked like and what it actually accomplished, as long as he could not be blamed for having made an empty promise.

The body language during those town meetings was unmistakable: any US Commission on Looted Art would require the approval of American museums, their directors and legal advisors in order to pass muster. That alone signified that this Commission might end up being a dead letter owing to museums’ steadfast refusal to acknowledge the validity of Holocaust-era claims for looted objects in their collections.

As for Ambassador Eizenstat, his constant references to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust-Era Assets (PCHA) from 1998-2000, the London Conference on Looted Gold of the late 1990s, created the impression in those town meetings that his ideas about Holocaust justice had not evolved since 1998.  During those meetings, Eizenstat would make continual reference to the so-called International Committee of Eminent Persons, a group of … well, eminent persons who sat around and pontificated about matters which involved complex historical evidence, complex forensic evidence, and far more complexity than anyone might be ready and willing to absorb in order to decide the fate of a family’s claims for property lost during the Holocaust.

The model proposed by Ambassador Eizenstat—occasional meetings of such a grouping of eminent persons who would be asked to review “meritorious” cases brought before them with respect to looted art in American museums—required that the reviewers of such cases be impartial and not at all connected with the issue of looted art and its postwar restitution.  That suggestion alone even raised the hackles of American museum lawyers who rightfully argued in tandem with art restitution lawyers, specialists, researchers, and claimants, that the adjudication process for looted art claims would be badly served if the fate of those cases rested on a poor understanding of historical research.

Good research alone was—is, and will always be—the “ad minima” guarantee for any "reasonable" approach to a looted art case. For that to happen, any US commission on looted art worth its pound of salt would have to rely heavily on professional, methodical, and empirical historical research into the circumstances of Holocaust-era thefts and misappropriations of art objects from Jewish homes and businesses.

In this time and age, research budgets do not fall within the purview of the US government, especially when the day-to-day business of members of Congress and Federal officials is to slice and dice budgets. Holocaust research? Forget about it…

Hence, the financing model for a hypothetical US Commission on Looted Art would require some form of partnership with the private sector or a system—as yet undefined—of grant-making that would allow for case-based research to occur as a precondition to reach any decision on a looted art case brought before such a Commission.

At the time of its death, the US Commission on Looted Art, as described by Ambassador Davidson at The Hague, was supposed to consist of two branches—research and adjudication—both separate and distinct so as to preserve their integrity and impartiality. That’s as far as anyone went. At least, that’s as much as we will know for a long time to come.

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, shortly before noon, Ambassador Davidson became the inevitable bearer of bad news, announcing to a surprised and somewhat puzzled international audience that the US government was hoisting the white flag of surrender on the mast of its errant flagship, the "USS Restitution", thereby abandoning all efforts to promote a government-supported mechanism to resolve looted art cases.

Quoting Cicero frequently, Ambassador Davidson waxed eloquently at the Commission’s funeral for an idea that, like the late Generalissimo Francisco Franco of Spain, took a very long time to die.

Needless to say, many delegates from the five standing committees (British, French, Dutch, Austrian, German) dealing with art restitution matters in Western and Central Europe expressed their dismay over the American refusal to share in this unprecedented international effort—however limited—to heal the wounds of genocide by providing mechanisms to allow claimants to be heard and to receive justice-either through compensation or restitution.

What does the future hold?

For families seeking redress in the United States for a historical crime committed within the framework of a genocide, the verdict is: lengthy, tedious and bankrupting legal proceedings in the complex and often unfriendly American legal system which worships private property.

Two questions to consider:

1/ does this decision to abandon the creation of a US Commission on Looted Art mean that the US government is likewise forgoing any public efforts to address historical crimes of cultural plunder? Does this mean that cultural plunder is, once more, relegated to the category of an unfortunate plague of history during which one must “roll with the punches” thus returning the civilized world to its colonial past--somewhere us somewhere in the 19th century?

If so, this bodes badly for the fate of S.2212, which is currently pending in the US Senate, a bill that, if passed, will allow looted art to enter the United States, unfettered by legal claims for the return of those stolen objects, while on US territory.  Since the US presents a more favorable climate under which such claims can be filed, the passage of S.2212 will be the last nail in the coffin of restitution efforts as we know them in the United States.

2/ what role did American Jewish organizations play in the decision to abandon the idea of a US Commission on Looted Art? Now that the post-mortem of the Commission’s demise is upon us, someone will have to examine the critical role played by the organized American Jewish community in ignoring and oftentimes opposing restitution of art looted during the Holocaust years. In fact, one could rightfully argue that, notable exceptions like the Claims Conference aside, the systemic refusal of the leadership of the American Jewish community to defend the rights of Jewish families to recover art stolen from them during the Nazi years and the Holocaust has made it possible for American politicians to cast the principle of cultural restitution as marginal and irrelevant. Hence, if there is blame to assign—this is not an enjoyable assignment—it must be spread equally between Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat and the leadership of the organized American Jewish community.

What now?

Annex:

Links to the five standing committees in Europe which address art restitution matters:

Austria: Beirat of the Commission for Provenance Research
France: Commission pour l'indemnisation des victimes de spoliations

Germany: Advisory Commission on the return of cultural propertyseized as a result of Nazi persecution, especially Jewish property

Netherlands: Dutch Restitutions Committee
United Kingdom: Spoliation Advisory Panel

Jeudi 4 septembre 1997: colloque sur les conséquences juridiques et morales des restitutions d’oeuvres et d’objets d’art, Washington, DC

Un extrait de la conférence/colloque qui s'est tenue le jeudi 4 septembre 1997 à 9h30 sur les conséquences juridiques et morales des restitutions d’oeuvres et d’objets d’art dans la grande salle de l’Hôtel Ritz-Carlton, 2100 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, à Washington, DC.

C’est Ori Z. Soltes, directeur du Musée national juif du B’nai B’rith qui ouvre la conférence. Marvin Kalb, célèbre journaliste et commentateur de la télévision américaine, que l’on peut reconnaître instantanément par la cravate rouge vif qu’il porte, présente les différents interlocuteurs invités à participer à ce colloque. Ils sont :

Konstantin Akinsha, journaliste et conseiller à la rédaction du magazine ‘Art News’ et titulaire d’un doctorat de l’Institut d’histoire de l’art de l’Université d’Etat de Moscou

Monique Bourlet, directrice du bureau qui gère les collections des musées de France, dont 2000 œuvres qui ont fait l’objet de nombreuses discussions récemment.

Stuart Eizenstat, sous-secrétaire d’Etat aux questions économiques, agricoles et commerciales et envoyé spécial du Président Bill Clinton sur les demandes de restitution de titres de propriété en Europe de l’Est et centrale.

Hector Feliciano, auteur du ‘Musée disparu’, fruit d’une enquête de sept ans sur les pillages artistiques du Reich.

Robert Fohr, directeur de la communication pour les musées de France

Michael Hausfeld, avocat de la partie civile contre les banques suisses.

William Honan, correspondant national du New York Times pour les questions de l’enseignement supérieur, et auteur d’un livre qui vient de sortir, intitulé « Treasure Hunt » [Chasse au trésor]

Willi Korte, juriste allemande, spécialiste des restitutions d’œuvres spoliées

Jim Leach, député républicain, président de la Commission bancaire de la Chambre des Représentants

Constance Loewenthal, administratrice de l’International Foundation for Art Research [IFAR]

Nita M. Lowey, député démocrate, circonscription de Westchester, NY

Marc Masurovsky, chercheur et auteur du rapport du Ministère des Finances américain sur le rôle de cette agence durant et après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale dans la quête et l’élimination des biens nazis à l’étranger. Il sert également d’interprète pour les deux délégués du gouvernement français, Monique Bourlet et Robert Fohr.

Lynn Nicholas, auteur du ‘Rape of Europa’

Ori Z. Soltes, directeur du Musée National Juif Klutznick, au B’nai B’rith.

Thomas E. Starnes, avocat qui travaille gratis pour les demandeurs d’œuvres spoliées

Gary Vikan, directeur de la Walters Art Gallery à Baltimore

La séance commence officiellement à 9h40. Ori prend la parole :

« Cinquante ans après la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l’Europe continue de se refaire en posant des questions troublantes qui ressurgissent des pages jaunies de la mémoire de l’Holocauste.

Les victimes, juives et non-juives, l’or volé en dépôt dans les coffres des banques suisses, font partie d’un cadre plus large portant sur les complicités et les expressions d’innocence, d’un côté, et les vénalités, de l’autre.

La Suisse a occupé pendant un certain temps l’avant-scène médiatique, sur les questions de l’or volé… Néanmoins le public devient de plus en plus conscient des spoliations d’œuvres d’art, qu’il s’agisse de toiles provenant de collections françaises retrouvées en Allemagne, ou de toiles provenant de collections allemandes repérées dans l’ex-Union Soviétique… Ces dossiers nous obligent à définir ce que constituent les responsabilités morales et juridiques des gouvernements et des individus—commissaires d’expositions, marchands de tableaux, directeurs de musées, journalistes—face aux mouvements d’œuvres d’art spoliées il y a plus de cinquante ans.

Il faut que l’on définisse la portée historique de ces vols, qui s’étendent bien au-delà de la Shoah et de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. S’applique-t-elle aux antiquités du British Museum à Londres qui furent expédiées de la Grèce il y a plus de 190 ans ? S’applique-t-elle aux œuvres confisquées par la Corée il y a 50 ans, ou à une mosaïque qui fut retrouvée à Chypre il y a 20 ans ?

Est-ce que les lois actuelles suffisent pour fournir des réponses à ces questions ? Est-ce qu’un musée doit être tenu responsable pour produire une provenance absolument parfaite pour chaque œuvre qui se trouve dans ses collections ?

Kalb demande pourquoi se pose-t-on aujourd’hui la question des conséquences morales et juridiques des restitutions d’œuvres spoliées pendant la Shoah. Selon lui, les raisons en sont multiples : le siècle achève son cycle, les survivants et témoins de la Shoah se meurent. Peut-être la Shoah a redéfini les normes qui délimitent l’amoralité de l’homme—un phénomène qui doit être appréhendé, compris, et isolé, à moins qu’on ne lui permette de se répandre tel un virus de la haine au 21ème siècle.  Ou bien nous ressentons maintenant le besoin d’obtenir des réponses à des questions épineuses.

Kalb donne la parole à Monique Bourlet, pour laquelle je sers d’interprète. Elle explique le statut des quelques 2000 œuvres d’art qui bénéficient d’un statut particulier au sein des musées français : ces œuvres leur avaient été livrées à la fin de la guerre, et les autorités françaises examinèrent leur statut jusqu’en 1950. « J’ai dû examiner le statut juridique de ces œuvres d’art bien spéciales. Il est évident qu’elles peuvent être récupérées tant que l’on présente un document qui certifie que la personne demanderesse possède un droit de propriété légitime pour l’œuvre en question. » Elle poursuit : « Sur les 70 000 œuvres d’art découvertes en Allemagne qui furent spoliées en France, nous avons pu en rendre 45 000. En 1949, il y en avait pour lesquelles il était impossible d’établir un titre de propriété. Les musées décidèrent de les vendre en demandant que certaines soient mises de côté en raison de leur valeur. Il y en avait 2000 dans cette catégorie, les soi-disant MNR. » D’après Bourlet, les recherches s’intensifient dans les fonds d’archives pour établir l’identité des propriétaires de ces œuvres, en vue de leur restitution éventuelle. Ces œuvres, il s’avère, avaient été vendues pendant la guerre. »

Robert Fohr, directeur de la communication pour les musées de France, ajoute :

« On nous a accusé d’avoir caché ces œuvres, ce que contredisent les faits. On a fait tout notre possible pour les restituer. »

Kalb demande à Feliciano d’intervenir sur la question des MNR :

« En dépit de ce qui a été dit, il était très difficile d’obtenir un inventaire de ces objets et une provenance détaillée pour chacun. Enfin de compte, j’ai dû tout faire moi-même et j’ai pu retracer le parcours de certains tableaux. Au Centre Pompidou, par exemple, il y a 40 tableaux qui doivent être restitués. Environ 90 pour cent de ces tableaux ont été spoliés. L’un d’eux appartient à la famille Kann. C’est tout ce que je voulais dire pour le moment. Mais je ne sais pas si j’aurai le temps de parler d’autre chose. »

Kalb : « Ne vous en faites pas. Vous en aurez l’occasion. »

Feliciano : « Ah bon ? »

Kalb : « Mais, oui. »

Feliciano : « Ah ! Ce n’était qu’une discussion. Je comprends… »

La parole est maintenant à Konstantin Akinsha qui se spécialise dans les évènements d’Europe de l’Est. Il décrit une exposition d’art spolié qui s’est tenu au Musée Pouchkine de Moscou en 1995, intitulée « Sauvés deux fois. » Akinsha note que ces œuvres ont été volées, tout d’abord, par les Allemands aux juifs hongrois, puis par l’Armée Rouge et expédiées derechef en Union Soviétique à la fin de la guerre. Donc, il propose un nouveau titre pour l’exposition : « Spoliées deux fois » ce qui fait rire l’audience.

Akinsha maintient que des squelettes existent dans toutes les armoires de l’Europe sur la question des restitutions d’œuvres spoliées. A ses yeux, toute solution au problème des restitution se trouve ancrée dans le droit international et au niveau des Etats européens.

Puis Kalb se tourne vers moi, me remercie de servir comme interprète. Toutefois, il me rappelle que je suis présent parce que j’ai quelques mots à dire sur la restitution des œuvres d’art spoliées. Je prends donc la parole.

J’insiste surtout sur le fait que des milliers d’œuvres d’art spoliées ont traversé l’océan et intégrées aux Etats-Unis de nombreuses collections particulières, y compris celles tenues par des musées. « J’apprécie les commentaires de M. Akinsha, mais puisque ces œuvres se trouvent aussi aux Etats-Unis, le problème incombe également aux tribunaux américains où les demandeurs ont le droit de se faire entendre et obtenir gain de cause. C’est tout ce que je vais dire pour l’instant. »

Akinsha : «Vous dites que des milliers d’œuvres d’art ont fait leur apparition sur le marché américain. Est-ce que vous pouvez le prouver ? »

Masurovsky : « Pour l’instant, les preuves sont circonstantielles, mais ce que je peux vous affirmer, c’est que toutes les flèches pointent vers l’est, selon de nombreux documents d’archives. »

Akinsha : « Quels documents ? »

Masurovsky : « OSS, Ministère des Finances, Département d’Etat, documents émanant du gouvernement français. »
Kalb : « C’est très bien que vous puissiez vous interviewer mais ce serait préférable que cela se fasse à la fin des premières interventions. »
La salle s’esclaffe.

Masurovsky : « Avec plaisir. »

Kalb se tourne vers Lynn Nicholas qui remémore ce qu’elle perçoit comme des acquis positifs sur la question des restitutions. Tout d’abord, la résistance de nombreuses personnalités du monde de l’art face aux déprédations nazies, en particulier les administrateurs de musées européens, y compris ceux de certains musées allemands. « N’oublions pas aussi les efforts sans égal des forces armées alliées et des commissions de récupération artistiques organisées par les pays libérés. Leurs activités durèrent près de vingt ans après la fin de la guerre. Tous ces efforts produisirent des milliers de restitutions à leurs propriétaires attitrés. Bien évidemment, les procédures de restitution n’étaient pas toujours équitables, mais pensez donc aux complications résultant du déracinement de ces œuvres et de leur mobilité. Ces jours-ci, on appelle cela, « le phénomène du déracinement mobile. »

Nicholas remarque que le marché de l’art fut en pleine efflorescence pendant la guerre. « Des milliers d’objets étaient achetés et vendus et troqués dans tous les pays occupés, par toutes sortes de gens…Ces œuvres circulaient partout… Beaucoup d’objets ont fini dans les Amériques dès la fin des années trente, et ont été vendues ici, la plupart du temps légalement par leurs propriétaires, mais de temps en temps les mandataires ont trahi la confiance des propriétaires. Des objets ont survécu dans des cachettes improvisées comme les toiles d’une Rothschild qui furent enterrées dans une dune de sable sur une plage française. On ne sait plus laquelle… »

Pour finir, Nicholas met en garde ses collègues avec lesquels elle partage le podium : « En général, lorsqu’on découvre un objet que l’on suppose être spolié, il est trop facile de conclure qu’il doit être restitué sans savoir si son propriétaire légitime l’a récupéré après la guerre et les circonstances de ses déplacements. » Elle conclut en mettant en garde contre les chasses aux sorcières dénuées de fondement.

Tom Starnes, avocat, membre du cabinet d’Andrews et Kurth à Washington, DC, représente les héritiers Goodman contre M. Searle, milliardaire détenteur d’un pastel de Degas qui appartenait à leur grand-père ? ou grand-oncle, Fritz Gutmann, et qui refuse de le rendre. Néanmoins, Starnes pense que les tribunaux américains sont favorables à un règlement des contentieux concernant les restitutions d’œuvres d’art. La doctrine fondamentale à la base de ces procédures stipule que l’acte de spoliation n’accorde aucun droit de propriété au spoliateur, donc le possesseur d’un objet spolié non-restitué n’est pas le propriétaire légitime de l’objet spolié. Par contre, en Europe, les droits de l’acheteur de bonne foi prévalent souvent et accordent au détenteur d’un objet spolié les mêmes droits qu’à un propriétaire légitime.

C’est au tour de Constance Loewenthal, directrice de l’International Foundation for Art Research, future directrice de la Commission for Art Recovery, présidée par Ron Lauder, dont l’annonce surviendra trois semaines plus tard. Selon Melle. Loewenthal, « les vols d’œuvres d’art durant l’Holocauste peuvent être remédiés parce que les chefs-d’œuvre ont l’habitude de survivre aux pires calamités puisque leur valeur ne cesse d’augmenter. »

Le journaliste américain, Bill Honan, nous rappelle tous que 20 millions de personnes sont mortes pendant la Deuxième guerre mondiale (un chiffre bien trop conservateur, puisque le chiffre officiel se rapproche des 55 millions de morts) et qu’il ne faut pas mettre sur le même plan les vols commis par les troupes américains lors de la libération de l’Europe et les spoliations nazies. C’est lui qui dénicha, avec l’aide de Willi Korte, le fameux trésor de Quedlinguen au domicile d’un ancien combattant américain qui s’était retiré au tréfonds du Texas.

Quant à Gary Vikan, directeur du Walters à Baltimore, il s’attarde longuement sur les difficultés qu’éprouvent les dirigeants des musées lorsqu’il s’agit d’acquérir un objet pour leurs collections. Conscients de l’origine de l’objet, doivent-ils le rejeter parce qu’il provient d’une source douteuse ? ou devraient-ils l’intégrer dans leur collection en raison de sa beauté et de son importance historique et esthétique, quitte à embraser certaines personnes ?

Mon camarade, Willi Korte, se veut modeste. Néanmoins …. Affichant un certain scepticisme, Korte prend ses distances eu égard à Akinsha et sa foi en un règlement des restitutions par application du droit international. Comme l’indique Korte, la plupart des pays européens préfèrent invoquer leur code civil pour résoudre les questions de restitutions, ce qui favorise l’acquéreur de bonne foi. Donc, selon lui, il faut faire pression sur les gouvernements eux-mêmes pour qu’ils modifient leurs lois afin que les spoliés puissent se faire entendre dans leurs tribunaux.

Pour la première fois depuis le début de la conférence, Korte fait état des spoliations de biens juifs bien avant le déclenchement de la guerre. D’après lui, documents à l’appui, les ressortissants allemands d’origine juive se voient contraints de céder leurs biens à des prix cassés ou de les abandonner purement et simplement par crainte de représailles ou d’arrestation. Il admet que, depuis qu’il travaille sur ces questions depuis près de dix ans, il est inondé de requêtes d’aide venant d’anciens déportés ou d’héritiers de familles qui avaient fui le Reich, puis l’Europe nazie, laissant toutes leurs possessions derrière eux. Il espère qu’un organisme international puisse prendre en charge les demandes qui affluent sur son bureau pour que la petite vieille dame bien aimable du quartier soit en mesure de récupérer son bien après plus de 60 ans.

Entre en scène M. Stuart Eizenstat qui nous flatte de sa présence car il faut qu’il nous quitte presqu’aussitôt. Son calendrier, voyez-vous, est très chargé. Après un échange de plaisanteries avec Kalb, Eizenstat entame son petit discours qui, je dois le dire, n’a rien à voir avec le sujet de notre colloque, excepté vers la fin lorsqu’il mentionne les spoliations de biens culturels. Mais il saisit l’occasion pour nous rappeler ses travaux laborieux concernant les mouvements de lingots et de pièces d’or monétaire saisis par les Nazis et qui contiendraient les restes des bijoux que possédaient des centaines de milliers d’hommes et de femmes juives anéanties dans les camps de la mort.

Il mentionne les travaux de la Commission Mattéoli concernant les biens spoliés en France. D’après lui, « Il est certain que des œuvres d’art appartenant à des personnes juives ou à la communauté juive se trouvent dans les musées de France, dont le Louvre » et que le gouvernement français s’engage à restituer ces œuvres ou «prendre les mesures nécessaires pour que ces œuvres soient identifiables. »  Ici règne une certaine ambiguïté. Après tout, soit on restitue soit on ne restitue rien. Il est vrai qu’en France, la direction de la communauté juive favoriserait une restitution morale, autrement dit, la reconnaissance du pillage, l’admission du crime, peut-être un acte pédagogique qui commémore la mémoire des victimes, sans qu’il n’y ait de cession de biens favorisant le spolié. Le commentaire d’Eizenstat me laisse coi, car je me demande ce qui se passe dans les coulisses du Département d’Etat et ce que mijote le groupe Mattéoli. Enfin, il faut que je continue d’interpréter pour Mme. Bourlet et M. Fohr.

Tout le monde applaudit le discours élongué de M. Eizenstat qui nous quitte, comme prévu. Kalb annonce la suppression de la pause-café de 15 minutes dans l’intérêt du colloque qui entre dans sa phase de discussion ouverte.

Analysis of an address by Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat at Prague in June 2009

On June 27, 2009, US Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat spoke the following words to the assembled participants at the Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference:

“Like the Holocaust itself, the efficiency, brutality, and scale of Nazi art theft was unprecedented in history. Experts have estimated that as many as 600,000 paintings were stolen, of which more than 100,000 are still missing. When furniture, china, rare books, coins, and items of the decorative arts are included, the numbers swell into the millions.

At the Washington Conference, we obtained a consensus from 44 countries on a voluntary set of Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which profoundly changed the world of art. The guidelines have important moral authority. They called on museums, galleries, and auction houses to cooperate in tracing looted art through stringent research into the provenance of their collections. Leeway was to be given in accepting claims. An international effort was to be made to publish information about provenance research. A system of alternative dispute resolution was to be considered to prevent art claims from turning into protracted legal battles.

Since none of these principles was legally binding, one may legitimately ask whether anything has really changed. The answer is unequivocally yes.

Major auction houses conduct thorough research on artworks that they bring to market, museums examine the provenance of any prospective purchases carefully; and private collectors consider the prior history of paintings they have under consideration. Some 164 contributing U.S. art museums have developed a creative web “search engine,” with over 27,000 works posted, which allows potential owners of Nazi-looted art to input their claim into one place, and have it considered by all the museums linked to the search engine. And hundreds of artworks have been returned to their rightful owners.”

Interestingly enough, the estimated number of looted paintings still to be recovered has now increased significantly since the December 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Looted Assets, from 125,000 to 600,000, and, if one adds all sorts of other things into the mix, we might reach a figure into the millions. Progress has indeed been made.

Ambassador Eizenstat truly believes that something has changed since late 1998 as a result of the enactment of the Washington Principles. He is correct to point out that major auction houses conduct provenance research on works that they offer for sale. At this point, the expression “major” refers to only two houses: Christie’s and Sotheby’s. No one has yet asked DePury, Bonham’s, Butterfield’s, Artcurial, Lempertz, and hundreds of other auction houses if they are applying themselves as dutifully as the two leading global auction houses in order to ensure that stolen art does not come to market through their good offices. In other words, the global private art market is like a gigantic sieve with thousands of holes in the mesh. Christie’s and Sotheby’s are able to plug their particular part of the sieve while looted works are passing through all of the others. Where is the policy that plugs those other holes in the sieve?

Ambassador Eizenstat then refers to the “creative web ‘search engine’” developed by the museum associations in the United States which lists more than 27,000 objects with uncertain or incomplete provenances. Granted, the site has existed now for some time under the odd acronym of NEPIP. However, since the Museum associations do not release any statistics on how many ‘hits’ have resulted from consulting NEPIP whereby potential claimants found their missing cultural possessions there, it is difficult to imagine how there have been “hundreds of artworks returned to their rightful owners.” The United States has, by far, one of the worst track records in the world when it comes to restitution of looted cultural property. Perhaps, Ambassador Eizenstat was alluding to the repatriation of looted antiquities by American museums which, in some cases, have consisted of wheelbarrows full of illegally-excavated objects. Truthfully, it is difficult to count to 30 when it comes to the number of artworks actually physically restituted by US museums to their rightful owners. There is also the likelihood that, unbeknownst to us all, hundreds of objects have been the subject of “settlements” reached by US museums whereby claimants have been obliged to accept some form of financial compensation in return for allowing title to their stolen object to remain with the current possessor. Clarity is needed here.

In sum, after more than a decade since the Washington Conference of December 1998, the only notable accomplishment that Ambassador Eizenstat should report is that the two leading global auction houses which are both based in New York—Christie’s and Sotheby’s—are enforcing well-hewn internal mechanisms to identify and prevent looted art from reaching the open market and they are working diligently to withdraw suspicious items from their sales.

To date, there are no central looted art databases to be consulted, there are no international mechanisms put into place by which art ownership disputes can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and that includes both claimants and current possessors. There have not been significant changes in the laws of nations where stolen objects are currently located, which would permit swift justice to be meted for an unspeakable theft tied to an unspeakable crime of genocide. There are no institutional efforts put into motion which promote historical research and documentation into the losses of countless objets d’art and their recycling during and after the war through private and public hands where such research would be of immense benefit to the public, as well as to specialists in the art trade, art history, museum science, international law, and related fields. To date, there is an absence of coherent public policy pertaining to the location, handling, and return of looted cultural property in all countries where such property is located, despite the 1954 Hague Convention and other international pronunciamentos that provide ethical and legal guidance to effect such returns. In fact, the tide has even turned against claimants as museums, private owners and even national governments respond more assertively to requests for restitution by using a complex array of offensive tools made available to them by the legal system of their respective countries which is by definition designed to protect the current possessor and to eliminate long-standing claims for stolen objects, regardless of the circumstances under which the objects were stolen.

Progress is elusive. However, in order to avoid the label of “Debbie Downer” (a true Americanism depicting a chronically sour individual who can't see any light in any situation), one should also applaud advancements in the critical understanding of Nazi plunder and the increased access—everything is relative of course!—to archival materials. Much has been done in this growing field since 1998, which isn’t saying much, but there is progress. The recent announcement of an “international research portal” which brings together resources from a dozen or so State archives in North America and Europe is a major step forward, albeit a limited one since the portal consists mostly of a web-based guide to building a coherent research plan. Last but not least, we are keeping our fingers crossed that the European Shoah Legacy Institute (ESLI), established as a result of the June 2009 Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference will provide us all with some badly-needed leadership in an area that has been so sorely neglected for so long—the documentation, identification, location, and restitution of cultural assets looted during the Third Reich.