Click
an area of the map for world news.
Affiliated Programs: 
World Press Review is a program of the Stanley Foundation.
|
Rebuilding Croatia
An Interview with Stjepan Mesic, President of Croatia
Nina Bilandzic
Hvar, Croatia
Sept. 19, 2001
 |
| Photo:
Nina Bilandzic |
Croatia
has been beset with problems since it declared independence
from Yugoslavia in 1991. It took four years of sporadic, but
often furious, fighting before Serb armies retreated from Croatian
territory, and it was only in 1998 that the last Serbian enclave
was returned to Croatia under United Nations supervision. Ten
years of authoritarian and corrupt rule under Franjo Tudjman's
nationalist regime slowed economic growth and complicated Croatia's
transition from communism to a market-based economy. The middle
class withered. In a country of 4.5 million, 700,000 lost their
jobs.
Today, the country's war wounds have mostly healed, and its
economy shows signs of a slow, but steady, improvement. When
Stjepan Mesic was elected in January 2000, many hoped for a
turning point in Croatia's history. Despite the fact that he
occupied senior positions in Tudjman's Croatian Democratic Union
[HDZ] throughout the early '90s, Mesic has gone to great lengths
to distance himself from his late predecessor. During his first
year in office, he has supported investigations into corruption
under Tudjman's regime, reformed the state-run media, and consistently
stressed reconciliation with Croatia's neighbours. This new
line from Zagreb has generated considerable enthusiasm for Mesic's
presidency. On July 18, 2000, Croatia was admitted into the
World Trade Organization. The country continues to make strides
toward joining the European Union.
On Aug. 13, Nina Bilandzic caught up with President Mesic while
he was vacationing with his family on the island of Hvar, in
the Croatian Adriatic.
The Crisis in Macedonia:
WPR: It
has been 10 years since the war broke out in what used to be
Yugoslavia. Most recently, Macedonia, which had remained at
peace, has been teetering on the brink of a full civil war.
How do you view the future of this situation, and the role of
the international community in its resolution?
I believe that a peaceful solution is possible and will be found,
because the international community learned its lesson and immediately
became active in helping to resolve the crisis. In Croatia and
Bosnia the international community waited too long. With the
help of the international community, first an agreement will
be signed and then implemented. This conflict cannot be resolved
by war. The biggest role of the international community is to
bring the conflicting parties—the Macedonians and the Macedonian
Albanians—to the negotiating table and to let the force
of arguments prevail over the argument of force. And that is
something that the international community can and must do.
It is better to negotiate for 10 years than to wage war for
10 days.
 |
It
is better to negotiate for 10 years than to wage war
for 10 days. |
 |
Macedonia
is going through a big crisis which can be overcome by political
means with the good will of one and the other sides and if the
fact is accepted that Albanians make up 30 percent of the Macedonian
population—this is not a small number—they must be
accounted for in the constitution and equally participate in
the army, police, and public services. And this is achievable
only by negotiations and not arms.
WPR: Do
you think that all the ex-Yugoslav nations are heading in the
right direction, especially considering the current situation
in Macedonia?
I think things will start going for the better in Macedonia
after the radicals are halted on both sides.
Bosnia and Herzegovina remains the problem. Peace has not yet
been fully implemented. The Dayton Agreement [signed December
1995] has halted the war, but it is still not a real foundation
for peace because state institutions do not fully function.
The two entities [Bosnian Serb Republic and Muslim Croat Federation]
behave like states. This is something that should be resolved
in an upgrading of the Dayton agreement. Until then, the international
community has to be present in Bosnia.
I think that in Zagreb now the option of expanding borders,
supported by the HDZ, has definitely been abandoned. There are
no more forces in Croatia that would want to extend Croatia's
borders into Bosnia.
The same thing can be seen in Serbia. Only it would be good
for these messages to be clearer, for Serbs to clearly say that
they consider Bosnian Serbs as a bridge of cooperation and not
as a right to expand borders. Because there is a hidden wish
to expand borders on the account of relations between Montenegro
and Serbia. There are some groups in Serbia and Belgrade who
reason this way: If Kosovo goes and Montenegro goes, then we
should think about extending borders by annexing the Bosnian
Serb Republic to Serbia's territory. It is clear that this cannot
succeed, but it can prolong the crisis and can obstruct European
policy in this area and democratisation of the entire region.
As I said, the war broke out because of the ambition to create
a greater Serbia and a greater Croatia and not because we fought
for religious regions.
Relations with Europe and the United States:
 |
| Photo:
Nina Bilandzic |
WPR:
Mr. President, what is your view on the
new American administration, in particular on the role of the
U.S. foreign policy in Europe and in the Balkans? Do you expect
the Bush administration to change its approach compared to its
predecessor?
I think that American foreign policy will not be changing substantially
though there [may] be some slight shifts. [The Bush administration]
will not depart from the premise that European unification is
in the interest of America. Because only a united Europe can
benefit the world and America.
To explain why a united Europe is in America's interest, I use
a sports analogy. Imagine a national soccer team without an
adversary. Without competition, the team would soon lose its
edge. The national team would weaken and disappear. If, on the
other hand, it has other teams to compete with that always represent
a challenge, it becomes stronger and grows.
More importantly, a united Europe rules out war as a political
means because borders will be open and decisions will be made
through a democratic procedure on economic and financial issues.
In such a Europe, every nation will live in its cultural environment.
It will be irrelevant who is on the other side of the border—whether
it is a Frenchman, a Croat, a Serb, or an Albanian. The European
idea on unification must win. The idea on European integration
has matured and the time for European unification is now.
WPR:
In the countries of ex-Yugoslavia, has the same idea matured
as well?
The idea has not matured here quite yet, but it is being realized
to a large extent. People are aware that creation of a new Yugoslavia
would not help European unification, but that each country will
join Europe, like joining a convoy, as soon as it achieves its
integration standards. The ones who achieve the standards first
will join the European Union first. That is why democratization
of the entire area is crucially important.
|
| A
crime is an individual act and must be delt with individually. |
|
Chances
for democratization are much better now because Serbia has a
bigger potential for quicker democratization. Croatia can help
Serbia by enabling the return of Croatian Serbs and in this
way show the maturity of its democratic processes. A democratic
process has started in Serbia, which will assure that Serbs
outside its borders will be seen as a bridge of cooperation
with [Serbia's] neighbors and not as a reason to expand [its]
borders. It is important that Croatian Serbs return because
they can be our bridge of cooperation with Serbia.
Unification will not go very fast if we don't mobilize our economic
and human resources. Europe must realize that it is in its interest
for us [ex-Yugoslav countries] to achieve its standards as soon
as possible and join it.
 |
| Photo:
Nina Bilandzic |
WPR:
What is the greatest obstacle for Croatia to clear before it
joins Europe?
The obstacles are the remaining strong structures of the former
authorities, who have concentrated capital and the media in
their hands. A lot of people from the church participate in
this. They do not want a European Croatia; they want an isolated
Croatia, because only in such a Croatia they can live without
democracy. But these are simply disoriented people who understand
neither democracy, nor European integration, nor are they interested
in the benefit of the entire society. They are guided only by
their partial interests and that is why they cannot succeed.
The
Croatian opposition, which wants to turn back time, is now very
active in Croatia. It wants to bring the HDZ back to power without
taking into account that the HDZ is responsible for agreements
with [former Yugoslav president Slobodan] Milosevic on the division
of Bosnia, one of the main generators of the crisis [in ex-Yugoslavia].
The HDZ is responsible for creating a flawed system of privatization
that has allowed capital to flow out from Croatia through the
hands of various world speculators. They showed up and took
over firms that they did not know how to run.
The Hague Tribunal:
WPR:
What is the proper role of The Hague-based U.N. war crimes tribunal
in this region? What role will it play for Croatia?
It is certain that it will play a positive role and is beneficial
for the nations in this area. The Hague Tribunal will help us
in the individualization of guilt.
A crime is an individual act and must be dealt with individually.
Why should a group assume responsibility? Why should all Serbs,
all Croats, or all Bosnians be responsible when crimes were
committed by individual Serbs, individual Croats, and individual
Bosnians? And it is here that the Hague Tribunal helps us. Because
the domestic judiciary has not done its job. Croatia has simply
not been a state ruled by law—looting and crimes were allowed
and no individuals were brought to account. That is why the
Hague Tribunal is important for us.
WPR:
Will cooperation with the Hague Tribunal provoke more crises,
as it has already, in the Croatian government?
Certainly, there would be some crisis situations but it will
not stop the process of democratisation and the functioning
of a state ruled by law. The radicals will continue being loud
and will obstruct the process. But this is only transitory.
Their time has passed.
Lessons of the Past:
WPR:
What lesson can we take from the war?
I think that on the basis of what happened in the territories
of ex-Yugoslavia everyone should learn a lesson—the international
community, European countries, and the United States—and
that is that war threats should not be underestimated. Eleven
years ago, in Gazimestan, Milosevic said that armed conflicts
lay ahead of us, and people did not take this threat seriously.
Obviously, it was a big danger and ended in disaster. So, in
the future, in other territories also, as soon as there are
threats of force, the international community should join and
halt the aggressor whenever it is possible, and it can do so
only through international institutions.
Everyone has to face his or her own truths. That is where we
have a problem. Everyone sees the other's crimes, the other's
ambitions, but does not want to confront the crimes committed
by members of his or her own nation…Time is needed for
that.
The most important thing for us now is to look ahead and stop
staring at the rear-view mirror. Our problem is that everyone
is looking back, so it is hard to move forward.
|
|
|
