Swiss President and Foreign Minister, Flavio Cotti, believes the criticism of Swiss conduct during WW2 "is limited to a few geographical areas on the US East coast, especially New York". Cotti spoke yesterday (Wednesday) in an interview with the newspaper "Tribune de Geneve", on the eve of his inauguration today (Thursday) as President, and exactly a year after the previous president, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, made anti-Semitic remarks to the same newspaper.
In the interview, Cotti also hinted about action against Switzerland on the deposits affair by New York senator Alfonse D’Amato, and New York City Comptroller Alan Hevesi. He also directed criticism against the World Jewish Congress, whose head offices are in Geneva. Cotti is responsible, on behalf of the Swiss government, for handling the deposits affair.
Cotti added that his countrymen were justified in being indignant over the international criticism of their country’s WW2 policies. He said Switzerland should be more concerned about their country’s aloof stance toward the European Union than about past actions in the World War. International criticism has focused on the considerable trade in gold between Switzerland and Nazi Germany, and the expulsion across their border of some 30,000 to 40,000 Jewish refugees, most of whom were murdered by the Nazis. World Jewish Congress vice-president Kalman Sultanik responded vigorously, saying he was "pained and stunned" by Cotti’s remarks. Sultanik added: "I wasn’t aware that London, Sydney and other leading cities of the world which have protested Swiss actions were located on the US East coast".
Sultanik said Cotti uses exactly the same language of former Austrian president Kurt Waldheim, whose controversial past in the ranks of the German army was revealed by the WJC, causing him to be almost completely ostracised by the international community. Sultanik recalled that when Waldheim was refused entry to the US, he blamed "interested groups in New York", and "the US East coast lobby". Last year the Jewish organisations considered ostracising Delamuraz, as they did Waldheim, but drew back when Delamuraz apologised for his statements.