Interview: Branko Horvat, economist

How do you see the part of the Hague agreement referring to the economic situation?

I think it unfavourable. I do not know who it was devised by, probably by someone from the EC. It is not functional. Apart from this, the 1992 Community programme is differently shaped. It is rather strange that the programme for Yugoslavia should differ so markedly from their own. I am of the opinion that they were strongly influenced by our warmongering bigoted politicians, who led them to believe that is the most they could do for the moment. In a nutshell, it covers the familiar preaching without effective action. I think they should have done what they did within the EC. They call it a committee, but it, in effect, represents their government. But this is no political government. It is a professionally elected government where all member states appoint competent professionals covering specific areas, who in their turn deal with the problems of Europe as a whole and who do not need special permission from their national governments. When they become Committee members, they only have the interests of Europe as a whole at heart. The key strategic decisions are being made by the Council of Ministers. Each country has a representative here, whereas the decisions are being arrived at by consensus. In 1993 the simple majority rule will be applied in the decision making process. Thus, as you can see, they haven't applied the same mechanism in our case. I repeat again that this is due to our chauvinistic nationalist leaders like Milosevic and Tudjman. Is the Community about to grasp the essence of our problems, regardless of the influence of our politicians?

No. The Community itself is to blame here, since its starting point is that we had democratic elections her and that, consequently, the elected politicians represent the will of the people. The only step the Community can take, is to, in the view of this, try and make the politicians sit down and talk. The European Community can not be expected to do more than this. But something that the Community does not realize, which came to my notice while I was in Brussels, is that they misguidedly believe that we had democratic elections. In Serbia, Milosevic used mass media to obtain majority, whereas in Croatia Tudjman won with the help of a two to three million dollars, which is how much his election campaign cost, although this has never been published. He got more than all of the other parties put together. In such a climate, there can be no talk of democracy. This is something which is inadmissible in Europe today. You are not allowed to be sponsored by domestic companies, let alone by the ones from abroad. In Europe such a political party would immediately be disqualified.The EC representatives have, until present, been unable to contact the Yugoslav intelligentsia. Of course, I hereby exclude the intellectuals of Isakovic's and Crncevic's standing, who are common everywhere and concern myself with the really creative individuals in science, art etc. Can people of this profile be found at all, since even the ones who were repulsed by nationalism are now singing the nationalist tune?

No, because Tudjman is helping Milosevic. The HDZ (The Croatian Democratic Union) propaganda claimed that the Serbs are striving for hegemony, that they are barbarians and would want to exploit Croatia. This is exactly what Milosevic is doing. His behaviour confirms the HDZ allegations. This has now become an obvious fact. Let's talk economy. You once said that, as a professional, you would very much like to see the creation of a single market encompassing the area from the Baltic to the Balkans. Do you really think that the Western Europe will gladly allow the formation of such a market, bearing in mind the enormous natural and intellectual potential which already exists there?

This is exactly the advantage of the economic competition. Nowadays, you can only stop competition by introducing some other form of competition. Thus, if Western Europe, as you have suggested, decides that it would be dangerous to create a countermarket with around 150 million people, it will make it easier for these countries to enter the Community, which works well for us and Eastern Europe as well. What,in your opinion could benefit Yugoslavia in this context, bearing in mind the processes of disintegration which are prevalent in our country?

We will benefit by being able to break into the West European markets. Thus, if the market economy is introduced, the firms will direct their interest towards the markets where they can get the raw materials and sell their goods, which are the ones where people speak the same language and where they already have connections."INA", a Croatian oil company, had its subsidiaries in Serbia."INA" would, without doubt, even if the war did not happen, benefit from keeping its fuel in Serbia, at least to show that it has petrol, whereas "Jugopetrol" (a Serbian oil company) does not. This is what I mean by competition. It is always present. How do you see the end of the present Yugoslav crisis, considering that the war in Croatia is still going on?

By overthrowing Milosevic. And what about Tudjman?

The downfall of Milosevic will automatically mean his downfall as well.