Appeal to the Hague

A form letter circulated by the Székelyudvarhely local government in early January 1998, for supporters abroad to send to the human rights bodies at the Hague:

Dear Sirs/Madam, Human Rights Violation — Courts of Hague,

We all knew that the election of one man does not overnight change a climate where nationalistic demagogues used to make political stock from spreading anti-Hungarian hate. The new climate of European tolerance and respect for the cultural autonomy of the minorities is a fragile one, and we all knew that the forces of nationalism were going to attack it.

Now, such an attack has occurred in Odorheiu Secuiesc (Székelyudvarhely). There, the building intended for 263 disadvantaged Hungarian children has been confiscated. This stealing of city property occurred with the flagrant disregard for all democratic processes — the mayor (Jenő Szász) and the rulings of the City Council have both been disregarded, and outside security forces were used (by Remus Opriș) to accomplish the illegal occupation of the building. This is an obvious case of provocation, where this certain Remus Opriș is testing the will of the government on protecting minority rights.

I ask you to take personal interest in this case and make a precedent out of it, by firmly showing the “Remus Oprișes” of Romania that your government intends to maintain democratic and European standards and will not allow outsiders to confiscate buildings against the will of the elected leaders of that city. Please make that point crystal clear by firing Remus Opriș and returning the building to the 263 handicapped Hungarian children.

The Székelyudvarhely Council’s Action Plan and Investigation Memo

Szőke László, January 2, 1998, Székelyudvarhely — a memo to allies summarizing the local council’s planned response and the questions it was pursuing about the building’s Swiss and Bucharest backers.

The council’s planned program of action:

1. Contact Hungarians in the West and inform them as soon as possible about the Cserehát affair and the Székelyudvarhely council’s appeal for help.
2. Establish a “Cserehát Committee,” ideally in Switzerland, made up of Swiss Hungarians. Several prominent Swiss Hungarians had already been approached; no response yet.
3. With the Swiss committee’s help, approach the Swiss and international bodies that could review the conduct of Cyrill Bürgel, president of the Basel Hilft association, regarding its handling of donations.
4. Invite representatives of the city of Basel to Székelyudvarhely, so they could see for themselves the tensions and problems caused locally by donations originating from their area (an invitation planned for after January 5, 1998).
5. Publish, in several languages, an account of the Cserehát affair from its beginnings to the present.

What we know about Cyrill Bürgel, president of Basel Hilft, and his Bucharest business partner Aristide Roibu, managing director of ARIS INDUSTRIE (the contractor that built the Cserehát complex):

1. Cyrill Bürgel is a Swiss citizen of Romanian origin, ethnically Romanian.
2. Until his retirement, Bürgel worked in a fairly senior position in Basel’s banking sector. Through family connections he has good, influential ties to the Swiss pharmaceutical industry.
3. Bürgel is in business with Aristide Roibu: he is a shareholder in OMEGA PRODINVEST Rt. and managing director of the Swiss company VELINVEST. OMEGA PRODINVEST eventually took over financing of the Cserehát building.
4. Before 1989, Aristide Roibu worked in the foreign-affairs section of the Securitate.
5. Roibu had also served as economic advisor to a Swiss ambassador posted to Romania — an ambassador the Swiss government was ultimately forced to recall over scandal.

Open questions the council was seeking evidence on:

1. How much money was directed to the Cserehát building in Székelyudvarhely, and from where?
2. Who profited, and how much, from the transfers? Could this be money laundering?
3. Why is it impossible to obtain a list of the Swiss donors? (Cyrill Bürgel absolutely refuses to help with this.)

Note: these observations were shared with the government’s secretary-general, with the top leadership of the RMDSZ, and with the head of the Hargita county police, as well as the county Anti-Corruption Committee. No result or investigation has been reported back.

The Székelyudvarhely council’s underlying fears:

1. What becomes of the local and regional disabled children if they cannot be placed in the special school?
2. How will Székelyudvarhely handle the social needs of the orphans aging out of the facility, given its capacity to graduate 100 adult orphans per year?
3. What happens to Székelyudvarhely’s ethnic composition if 100 Romanian-speaking orphans must be settled in the town every year? (The Immaculate Heart Congregation and Basel Hilft intend to bring orphans to Székelyudvarhely primarily from Romanian-speaking regions.)

These are the questions the Székelyudvarhely council was seeking answers to, and it asked for help in pursuing them jointly.

Signed with respect and thanks, Szőke László, January 2, 1998, Székelyudvarhely.