“Switzerland held continued and close relations with South Africa during the entire period when the National Party institutionalised and then reinforced the apartheid system. We were given extremely limited access in both Switzerland and South Africa to archive material from 1970 onwards, in particular that of a financial nature.” “Research was seriously affected in both its form and content by the particular conditions under which it was carried out. Swiss-South African relations covering the period 1945-1990 were the subject of a 2005 report by the Swiss National Science Foundation’s National Research Programme. Sommaruga would also like to see victims of apartheid receive reparation: “It’s surprising that after the Jewish Holocaust funds controversy Switzerland has not anticipated this latest development with South Africa.” This is one of the multiple expressions of the banking secrecy syndrome where Switzerland will not move unless someone comes along and kicks its butt.” But he is under no illusions: “This kind of proposal would not gain a majority. Her colleague Carlo Sommaruga thinks parliament should intervene to change the law concerning access to archives. It can no longer react the same way as it did to previous parliamentary questions.” It’s a good time to act, as there is tremendous pressure on the cabinet. Truth is the condition for reconciliation.”ĭespite the cabinet’s reply, Jacqueline Fehr, a fellow Social Democrat, is preparing to lodge a new formal question in the House of Representatives on the same issue: “I think that with Mandela’s death the situation has changed. But the basis for this reconciliation was South Africa’s Commission for Truth and Reconciliation. “In its condolence message following the death of Nelson Mandela, the Swiss government underscored the former president’s reconciliation skills. It’s unbelievable that Widmer-Schlumpf still defends it today,” replied the senator. “This position dates back to former finance ministers Kaspar Villiger and Hans-Rudolf Merz. Although no Swiss firms have been directly concerned by a collective claim in the US since 2009, this was the argument Swiss Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf gave Rechsteiner in November. The official justification was that if a Swiss firm found itself on trial in the United States it should not be penalised “due to a liberal practice in Switzerland regarding access to archives”. While archives are normally only made available after 30 years, all matters concerning exports of capital and merchandise to South Africa have been subject to an embargo since January 1, 1960. On July 16, 2003, the Swiss government decided to temporarily restrict access to official archives. Their reply is linked to a collective claim filed on June 19, 2002, by New York lawyer Ed Fagan against a number of banks, including UBS and Credit Suisse, on behalf of victims of apartheid, which was subsequently extended to other Swiss firms. But the news was not that unusual as the Swiss authorities have been giving the same reply for the past ten years. “Shameful! Censoring the truth is dishonourable and anti-democratic.” Social Democrat senator Paul Rechsteiner was not mincing his words over the cabinet’s recent refusal to open up Switzerland’s archives on South Africa. Switzerland condemned the Pretoria regime in 1968, introduced an arms embargo in 1963 and limited investment in South Africa in 1974, but private business continued to prosper there until the end of the 1980s.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |