US administration's goal is to undermine the Orban government

An English translation of the title of Vince Szalay-Bobrovniczky's second book reads: The Waldheim affair and Austria. The volume by the deputy state secretary for civil and public relations of the Prime Minister's Office deals with the case of Kurt Waldheim, the former Austrian president accused of Nazism and blacklisted by the United States during his time as head of state. In an interview for Magyar Nemzet, the deputy state secretary pointed out that this is not a one-off incident, as Hungary is facing mounting pressure from the Biden Administration, whose goal is to weaken the Orban government.

Szalay-Bobrovniczky Vince Magyar Diplomata és Politikus 20230925 Magyar Nemzet Fotó: Bach Máté

Former Austrian President Kurt Waldheim giving a speech on June 21, 1991. Photo: AFP/APA-PictureDesk

Waldheim's candidacy for head of state was much debated, but he did see out his six-year term. Although he did not run for another term, would there have been a chance of him being re-elected?

- In 1986, the entire Austrian public was aware of who they were voting for and Waldheim was elected by the highest margin of all Austria's presidents. I think the Austrians would have elected him in 1992, if only out of defiance, saying that nobody should interfere in their internal affairs. However, not standing again was an infinitely wise decision, as it protected Austria from further attacks. Then came the next round, the Schussel-Haider affair in 2000, when EU Member States imposed sanctions on Austria because the Austrian People's Party (OVP) had joined forces with the far-right Austrian Freedom Party (FPO). This was the second time after the Waldheim affair that Austria had been caught in the crossfire and once again - quite rightly - had to face up to its past. From the time of the Schussel-Haider government, Vienna has been paying reparations to Holocaust survivors to this day.

- How does the Austrian public view Kurt Waldheim and the Austria of that time?

- This is one of the most sensitive parts of my book. An Austrian historian has to be very brave to write a book like this, because he has to live in Austria and the media is the champion of political correctness there. I, as a Hungarian, claim to be able to see Waldheim objectively, with all his faults, including his failure to admit. Can what he is being accused of be proven? No. Did he have any choice once he was caught in this spiral? The scandal had already blown when he became the presidential candidate, yet he was elected. Did he have a choice politically? No, if he had resigned, it would have been political suicide for both him and for the People's Party. We are back to the realm of what-if questions: was the People's Party right to put Waldheim forward as a candidate for head of state, despite his past? I am not sure that there would not have been another, perhaps more correct, decision. My assumption is that he was nominated for head of state, with a record as foreign minister and UN Secretary-General behind him, because the then OVP chairman, Alois Mock, wanted to be chancellor.

Austria, like Hungary, is a parliamentary democracy with strong powers vested in the head of government, a largely representative role for the head of state, and somewhat stronger powers vested in the constitution than in Hungary. Like all party leaders in general, Alois Mock was interested in the position of head of government, even though he would have been a logical candidate for head of state, but then he would have had to give up on the post of chancellor. Instead, he took a gamble and put Waldheim's candidacy through the caucuses, hoping to emerge victorious and take the chancellorship soon afterwards. However, when the scandal broke, this was not what happened. The country was soon plunged into a long period of social democratic leadership under Chancellor Franz Vranitzky. Mock's plan did not work and the whole People's Party came out of it badly.

Deputy State Secretary Vince Szalay-Bobrovniczky. Photo: Mate Bach

European and global elites did not really condemn Waldheim, as his political activity did not go against the ideas of liberals and globalists - for example, he did not criticize the federalist notions of the EU. Can we conclude that if a politician does not go against the European mainstream, even a possible Nazi past can be forgiven?

- What we know for sure is that Waldheim was a member of Germany's Nazi apparatus and a soldier in the Wehrmacht. We have seen before that although someone's past was not particularly clean, they were still well within the mainstream, but in Waldheim's case we cannot yet speak of that. At that time, Austria was far removed from European communities, and Waldheim himself was basically an absolutely conservative figure.

The Nazis prepared a file on everyone, and in his they wrote that he was from the National Socialist movement's perspective an unreliable, classical arch-conservative person - because of the latter, he had many disputes with the Social Democrats.

The case of Wolfgang Schussel is more interesting. He risked a lot by entering into a coalition with the Freedom Party and thus gain power. He was Chancellor of Austria for seven years, but he paid a heavy price for this, because what he really wanted was to become president of the European Commission, which he did not achieve. Despite winning the support of the majority of his coalition partner, the Freedom Party, and even taking the People's Party to unprecedented heights once in power, his path was cut short by entering into that coalition. It's a shame, as he was a brilliant talent on the horizon of  European politics.

Under pressure from the Austrian Left, the United States also entered into the campaign against Waldheim. Do you see any similarities with today's political situation?

-  Indeed, Washington came down pretty hard on the case, banning Waldheim. There was a similar instance in Hungary, the Goodfriend case [Andre Goodfriend served as the US embassy’s acting chief of mission in Budapest from 2013-2015 - ed], when the Americans put ten Hungarians on a barred from entry list. To this day, the public does not know who they are and what the reason or reasons are. I can see parallels between the two cases, both times the banning lists were tried. What is different between the two - and I think it very interesting - is that America had a conservative government in Waldheim's time. Ronald Reagan was the president, who has a statue in Budapest, then to be followed by George W. Bush, who also has a statue in Budapest. We have a great deal of respect for these American politicians, but they consistently decided - bowing to the denouncement of him by American Jewish organisations, Israel and the Austrian left - to get involved in the Waldheim affair and to bar from US entry the then sitting president of the Austrian Republic. Despite the initiative of the head of state, the ban was not lifted until his death in 2007. At that time, there were very close ties between the Republicans and the American Jewish organisations, which were needed in Washington and were also the biggest critics of Waldheim - rightly so, I think, from their point of view. The reason for the blacklisting of the ten Hungarian citizens is still unknown.

Since the United States again has a democratic government under the Biden Administration, they are once again trying to exert pressure. The aim at the least is to undermine the Orban government.

Cover photo: Vince Szalay-Bobrovniczky, Deputy State Secretary for Civil and Public Relations of the Prime Minister's Office (Photo: Mate Bach)