Waiting For Belgrade to Show the Initiative

The Geneva contacts between you, Mr. President, and the Presidents of Yugoslavia and Serbia were conducted in an optimistic atmosphere. What has happened in the meantime?

We agreed that the war must stop and that a normalization of relations was conditional to thinking on how to reach peace in this part of Europe and the Balkans. We agreed that extremists in both nations must be pacified, that they will have to put down arms and that the voluntary relocation of the population must be allowed. We even agreed to found an inter-state committee, but all that was with former Federal PM Milan Panic's government. What happened? Serbia continued its aggression in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and let's be realistic - against Croatia. We would not have a Serbian rebellion in Croatia if it had not been supported from Belgrade with arms, volunteers led by Vojislav Seselj (Serbian Radical Party leader, editor's note), Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan (leader of Serbia's strongest paramilitary formation), and even mobilized men. The Serbs left Geneva with our draft for a normalization of relations, and we expected their counter suggestions. We are ready for talks, but we are waiting for Belgrade to show the initiative.

How do you see the resolving of the problem in Krajina?

We demand that Serbs recognize the Croatian state, and we offer them all civil rights such as enjoyed by ethnic communities at top European and world standards. In agreement with the European Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, and Badinter's Commission, we have adopted a constitutional law which says that Serbs have home-rule in those places where they are a majority, as in Knin and Glina. They must lay down arms, and recognize a sovereign Croatia, and then let them choose their authority - we have Serbs in Parliament and the government now, we have them in the High Court and the Constitutional Court - they can also become members of the House of Zupans (Prefects).

How do you assess the current situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Even before the outbreak of this terrible war both in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and wishing to prevent this evil, I talked openly with Milosevic and Izetbegovic behind closed doors in Split. I said that the only solution for Bosnia-Herzegovina's survival was a confederal state, acceptable to all three peoples who must be constituent. They did not show any understanding. In talks with foreign leaders, and within the European and world conference on the former Yugoslavia, I said that there were two problems. First, that the Serbian aggression must be stopped. At the beginning it aimed at annexing the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina to Greater Serbia, and then the capturing of big territories. Secondly, that Moslems must be persuaded to agree to negotiate and accept political solutions acceptable to others. That is where we find ourselves today, but now there is the question if, after all the horrors which have taken place there, the three peoples can still live together.

The Croatian authorities are criticized by representatives of the international community such as Human Rights Envoy Tadeusz Mazowiecki. They say that Serbs in Croatia have difficulty receiving citizenship papers (domovnica). Ivan Zvonimir Cicak, (a prominent Croation opposition intellectual- editor's note) said in an interview to a Belgian paper that Croatia was conducting a form of ethnic cleansing...

Dear Sir! Aggression, first by the Yugo-Communist army and then by Chetnik elements against the Croatian authorities was carried out on Croatian territory. It resulted in the expulsion of 300,000 Croats and the destruction of one-fourth of Croatia's territory. During World War Two, and we all know what it was like, it was terrible, only two Croatian settlements were totally destroyed - Boricevac and Spanovac. In this war 350 settlements have been destroyed, including 800 churches and cultural monuments. Under such circumstances it was clearly difficult to contain the anger of the Croatian people, and not only theirs, because there were Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, etc, in territories which are now UNPAs. It was difficult to calm the people, even though we did everything we could to prevent individual violations of norms of a state governed by law and other violence.

We took the stand that all Serbs, who under the general laws have the right to citizenship, must be issued passports and citizenship papers, that families must not be separated. It is true that in such an atmosphere there were departures of Serbs (but not in the measure talked about), and that there were unfortunate cases where people who had lost a family member, or been expelled, started demolishing Serbian summer houses. We tried to stop such occurrences, and we will continue to do so in our efforts at creating a state governed by law. As regards Cicak's statement, those are words spoken by people who have not come to terms with the idea of a sovereign Croatia, and who do not support the democratic order which has been created in Croatia through three, even four free elections. They are people who would wish some other authority, or to be in power themselves.

Croatia is accused of stifling the freedom of the press. The latest example is Slobodna Dalmacija (the Split-based daily, considered to be fairly independent-editor's note) and its new management.

We have several papers which are privately owned. Who says that there is no freedom of the press in Croatia? Those who were the main representatives of the defunct Communist order write for Croatian papers. They take advantage of democracy to say such things. I don't think that freedom of the press is ideal, because freedom is the result of objective circumstances. They can write because of a stable democratic order, they can even make fun of the President in satirical theaters, they can cooperate freely. I think it would be difficult to find a country in war conditions where there is as much freedom of the press as in Croatia.

What do you think of initiatives to change the name of the Victims of Fascism Square in Zagreb, and to name a street after Mile Budak, who was a writer, but who made history as a racist?

To start with, we could create an independent Croatia only after the reconciliation of all Croats. Not all Ustashi in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) were fascists, not all committed crimes, just as from the Serbian point of view, not all Chetniks were fascists and perpetrators of crimes. Historical circumstances led to the division of the Croatian people into Partisans and the Croatian Home Guard (Domobrani) and Ustashi, and in Serbia into Partisans and Chetniks. Both sides had their positive ideas, not just crimes. In Croatia we took the road of reconciliation based on democracy. It seems that we have succeeded completely. With one democratic program we have managed to make extremist currents marginal. When it was thought that the Croatian Party of Rights (HSP) which calls on the NDH and has Ustashi symbols would win 15%-20% of the votes, they managed to win only 5%-6%. Croatia's transformation after leaving Yugoslavia's Socialism is truly democratic. I personally am against Budak's name being given to that street, and when the question reached me, I said that it should all be stopped. I said in Parliament that democratic Croatia cannot be built on symbols of the World War Two and fascism.