Greedy Leaders

What are the main reasons that you formed a new leftist social democratic party? When you know that you've had enough of politics, why did you accept to become its leader?

"I'm not denying what the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and Tudjman did in the creation of the Croatian state. They were the first who clearly formulated the stand on an independent Croatian state and I take my hat off to them. However, in my opinion, everything that they did later was deeply wrong. A third of our territory was lost and we face a situation that will not allow us to reintegrate them easily.

The Croatian people are not united, there's more and more fear and lack of prospects. Young people are leaving without hope in increasing numbers and if the young people are left without hope then so is the homeland.

Croatia is not immune to totalitarian tendencies. It lacks a strong leftist, modern social democratic party that should become an important element in stabilizing the Croatian political scene and resisting extremely negative political and social processes.

My basic idea when I accepted the job was to unite the existing Croatian social democratic parties because you can't expect a stronger left in Croatia without them.

There's a large number of people who are leftists and lean towards leftist parties. Many of them never found the right political mediators for their beliefs and want a strong decisive leftist party."

How would you assess the recent parliamentary debate on ownership transformation in Croatia, i.e. the entire situation in that regard?

"There is no more centralized state in Europe than Croatia. All funds and decisions are concentrated in the presidential palace. That is how the ruling party achieves unlimited power over people and property. The Croatian public heard the recent debate on changes in ownership. I am convinced that this theft of property is unprecedented in our history. It's nonsense, since it's a well known fact, confirmed by their people, that certain names appear as buyers while other completely different names are behind them. Of course, that's in regard to big shareholders. None of that could be happening without the participation of the banks, especially the Privredna Banka Zagreb, which is at the center of all embezzlements and financial abuse in regard to the ownership transformation which the ruling party is using to control the situation. How far things have gone is best illustrated by the fact that, during his recent visit to Chile, President Tudjman had the gall to have dinner with Croatian expatriate Adronik Luksic, one of the richest Chileans, forgetting that he personally intervened to have the Karlovac brewery sold to Luksic at a very low price. I don't know if the President profit personally from the deal, but that's an example of the sale of Croatian property. Undoubtedly, the ownership transformation in Croatia is full of thefts and embezzlements by the top ranks of the ruling political circles. Shouldn't the Croatian public know why the Tudjman family is rich, or the Kutlic and Todoric families, and where they got their wealth. Where did their money come from when they only talk of persecution, jail and obstructions in everything they did? Where did they get the money if everything's paid for in real not fictitious money. The HDZ fulfills the interests of war profiteers, millionaires and robbers."

In your opinion, what situation is Croatia facing today?

"From an international point of view, we are not in a good situation, regardless of Tudjman's denials. Maybe that's the impression he got while visiting Argentina and Chile. I really don't know about that, but in the parts of the international community relevant to us, our reputation is falling and today there is a diminishing number of those who would urge the achievement of the legitimate and justified rights of the Croatian people to the return of the occupied parts of Croatian territory. The big question is how all of the combinations with various contact groups attempting to resolve the issue of the UNPA zones and Bosnia-Herzegovina will end. It's sad that I and other opposition party leaders were informed of the content of the economic agreement between the Croatian authorities and the local Serbs by the US ambassador in Zagreb.

We have been told that we can't debate and vote on those documents as parliamentary deputies because that would mean recognition of the international subjectivity of the so-called Krajina, but actually it's just a question of avoiding any wider, primarily parliamentary, debate on key issues for the Croatian state."

What's your assessment of the latest developments in Bosnia and Croatia's role in them?

"Croatia has unfortunately committed many cardinal, even fatal, errors in Bosnia and I think that it repeated them once again with its stand on Bihac. The fate of not only Bosnia-Herzegovina but also Croatia was being resolved in Bosnia once again. Namely, if a compact territory is created that includes the Cazin Krajina, Bihac and the Una railway, in fact linking Krajina and Serb areas of Bosnia, then Croatia's negotiating position before the coming negotiations with the Croatian Serbs on political modalities of integrating the UNPA zones into Croatia will be much more difficult. What worries me is my conviction that the Croatian side has not given up on dividing Bosnia and that in accord with those intentions it is still leading a policy which will come back to haunt us."

Do you think the UNPA zones problem can be solved peacefully?

"I want to believe that is possible. If it is resolved militarily, however much that seems efficient to some at present, we would get another Northern Ireland in Croatia in perhaps an even worse version and the question is how long it would last. A different Croatian policy towards the Serbs, not just in Krajina but in the rest of Croatia as well, who are often forgotten, could positively effect a peaceful solution."

Do you think that the political platform offered by the so-called mini Contact Group on the integration of the UNPA zones into Croatia provides a basis for an agreement?

"I think Croatia can take it as a platform for talks, which does not mean it has to accept all the elements of the document. The more so, since our law on the rights of ethnic communities includes, with regard to Serb autonomy, most of the things it proposes. Of course, not proposals on their own currency, flag and other things, but there is a possibility of forming legal, executive and a two-tiered judiciary authority. So, if we start from the fact that the people offering the document don't start from the "take it or leave it" principle but as a basis for negotiations, both sides will probably have to make some compromises. Probably either side will be fully satisfied but that's the nature of political compromise."

What do you think of the proposals by Serb politicians in Croatia like Djukic, Pupovac and others who feel that the definition of the Serbs as a constituent nation would be the real basis for negotiations?

"I think that's out of the question now.That's a principle that functioned in entirely different political circumstances during socialist Yugoslavia and specific relations among its peoples. However, after its breakup it is completely unacceptable for another nation in Croatia to have a status that would enable it to veto key decisions in political life. That formula would give the Serbs in Croatia a state within a state."