|
Introductory
speech by Dr. Helen B. Junz at the press conference of
29 November 2001
(Check against Delivery)
As the new kid on the block, I am probably the least qualified to introduce
the set of studies, which are the reason that we are together today.
But perhaps it is useful that - just three weeks less one day before the
Commission's work is done and it presents its Report to Parliament - to
give you a sense of how a newcomer - and a non-Swiss one at that - sees
this work. And perhaps more important, how one sees the questions that
the Commission was charged to research. For while answers may change over
time as we learn more, it is the underlying questions that remain the
same. And for exactly that reason, it may well be that the main contribution
your Government made in setting up the Commission - and the Commission
in responding - is that questions that had remained unasked for half a
century, finally were asked.
You may recall last time we met, I said that the remarkable thing is that
in seeking to know the facts of the Holocaust era, Switzerland did not
remain alone - as of today 25 national Commissions are looking - or have
looked - into their country's handling of Holocaust era assets. The difference
is that Switzerland was the first country to set up a Commission and that
it mandated a wider search and, therefore, gave its Commission a longer
life than any of the other countries.
This of course raised questions in itself: in the beginning many here
asked "why Switzerland?" and even more "why Switzerland
in such critical terms?" Some of the aspects of the "Why Switzerland"
question are for an outsider perhaps a little less hard to consider. After
all, Switzerland was already a center for asset management in the 1930's.
As such it actively sought to attract funds that were looking for safe
haven - a term that later acquired a special meaning, but that describes
motivations quite precisely. In doing so, it offered strong legal protection
of property rights and, uniquely, of anonymity. - In fact, at least three
of the studies being presented today address these points. - But a safe
haven, of its nature, serves a non-resident population. For Switzerland
this meant that post-war problems involving Holocaust era assets and victims
did not have much home grown interest they could engage. Resolution of
these problems, however, depended upon domestic support as they required
departures from business as usual. This, of course, was very different
from the circumstances in which the formerly occupied countries found
themselves. There post-war governments were faced directly and immediately
with the problems of the recovery of assets and their restitution. How
adequately they dealt with these questions, is - or was - the work of
their national Commissions. And it is clear from the results so far, that
they also fell short of a full resolution. Nevertheless, all of them had
walked this road at least part of the way. The point made about Switzerland
was that, for whatever reasons, it was seen as never having begun that
journey in earnest, even though it had been a focal point for the placement
of the assets in question. In that latter respect, it was comparable to
the United States, which also had been a major refuge for the assets of
persecutees. But there were also major differences: first, much of the
assets that had come into the United States before and during the war,
flowed back to their countries of origin and, with them so did any associated
restitution problems; second, the US harbored reasonably large resident
interest groups, Nevertheless, even there other priorities reigned and
many questions remained open. It was not until 1999, two years after the
birth of the UEK, that the US established a Commission to look at its
own handling of Holocaust era assets.
Of course, though many other factors played a role as well, the fact that
Switzerland had never addressed these problems in a comprehensive manner
and that there was little, if any doubt, that there was unfinished business
was one important reason why the finger was pointed at your country. But
why the virulence?
To my mind, this also is linked to the fact that the basic questions regarding
Switzerland's attitude to and handling of Holocaust victims and their
assets had been laid aside - to all intents and purposes - for half a
century. Over that time two perspectives of the Swiss role during the
Nazi period had been allowed to become ingrained: what you would call
the Frosch und die Vogel Perspektive of Switzerland. From one point of
view Switzerland is seen as a country full of profiteers looking only
to their own bottom line, and from the other it is seen as a valiant little
land, that against all odds had resisted the Axis in thought and deed.
I will leave it to you to figure out which is the Frosch and which the
Vogel's perspective. Of course, neither provides a true insight into facts
of the period. It was thus the task of the UEK to surface the facts that
lay buried in the past and to help build what I would like to call a "Mensch"
Perspektive.
Did we succeed? Of course, one should never expect an unqualified answer
to a question like this from an economist. More properly phrased, the
question should perhaps be: would we have done things differently if we
were starting now? To this question, though being well aware that I came
late to these endeavors, and of course, speak only for myself, I can give
an unequivocal answer. It is a resounding "Yes". For only if
we can answer "yes" can we hope to have begun to fulfill our
task successfully. Indeed, the learning process, even for those among
us who started as experts in the field, was enormous. I hope that in conveying
what we have learned, we will - at least - have shown that we asked the
right questions, filled in some gaps in knowledge and, perhaps most important
pointed the way for others to carry this work forward.
In thinking about what motivates our quest, I may, to some extent be parting
company with some of my colleagues here and elsewhere. While it is true
that uncovering the facts of the period is the least we owe the memory
of the victims, I would argue that putting these questions, as uncomfortable
as they may be, and seeking the answers is something we owe ourselves.
And now, I owe it to my colleagues to cede the limelight and the time
as they actually have new facts and insights to convey.
|
|
|