It is obvious that Tudman made the decision on when, where and about what he would be interviewed, although journalists of the Novak-Srzic or Ivankovic type are urgently being prepared in the state-controlled media; these journalists are surprisingly similar to little heads of state, but only in the sense that they demonstrate the same arrogance with respect to the public and coworkers as that demonstrated by Tudman with respect to the opposition and its supporters (one detects here the well known syndrome of a "cyclist" who firmly steps on those below him while bending in front of those above him). In that case, why did Tudman decide to address the Croats at this moment? And to address them with an interview not exactly full of current political material, except for the new-old analysis of the Zagreb crisis, but instead "firmly dug in in the past", as stated by Drazen Budisa? In a short conversation with Feral's journalists Budisa blamed HDZ inner party politics.
Even this intra-party aspect still, it seems, cannot fully account for the timing of the Tudman's new reconciliation offensive and announced repatriation of Tito's, Pavelic's, Macek's and Busic's bones and the conversion of Jasenovac into "a place for all war victims" (in spite of serious warnings from Jewish and even official American circles to Tudman to leave Jasenovac [Ustashe run concentration camp for Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and antifascist Croats] alone and stop his attempts to rewrite the history with a "shovel", and even in spite of calls on Croats to stop their president before it is "too late"). In order to detect other, equally important aspects of that offensive, one has to remember that Tudman in his analysis of the Zagreb crisis said that it was necessary to stop the activities of the "seven-head coalition", whose aim is to "overthrow the only democratically elected authority in Croatia," and all that in order to avoid the repetition of "Wiener Neue Stadts, and Bleiburgs and Jasenovacs." It is obvious that the Croatian leader intends to introduce "reconciliation" in the current political and party life, since it is silly to talk about the reconciliation of the dead while the living are divided into two camps, the one in power and the other one in opposition, between which there is almost no communication.
Therefore, if one wants to borrow something from Spain, that can only be defrancization of the country and not the establishment of the fascist- communist country led by two-part Tudman, one part Tito and one part Pavelic (the ratio depends on political circumstances of the moment). However, it is obvious that this is exactly what the Croatian leader wants and the reason for his continuous attacks on the opposition, among other because in it he sees the competition in "reconciliation" and accuses it for gathering everyone "from communists to fascists."
Therefore, it is unclear why Tudman is allowed to reconcile dead fathers, while the opposition is not allowed to do the same with their sons. But the whole accusation is deliberately constructed, because even the Croatian president understands that in the opposition there are neither greater Communists nor greater fascists than himself. He is afraid of those opposition leaders like Tomac who have truly accepted the idea of "reconciliation"; it seems that in parallel with HDZ another political "association" is growing, but under different leadership.
Non-Croat victims do not deserve a mention, which means that the aim is to turn a multinational execution ground into the instrument of intranational reconciliation, while Tudman obviously does not accept nor recognize (therefore, the stupidities like the changing of the name of Vrginmost and other places can become a usual and ordinary occurrence, as previously happened in Karadzic-Mladic's "Republika Srpska") transnational reconciliation, symbolized by Brandt kneeling in penance.
Finally, this reconciliatory nightmare, into which Tudman is pushing his subjects, has a very concrete and unquestionable result: the more talk about the reconciliation there is the less peace there is among the theoretical objects of the reconciliation. If in the case of Croat-Serb disputes Tudman shares some blame with others, he receives all the blame for Croat-Croat clashes.
Kati Marton, the president of the prestigious American Committee to Protect Journalists (also the wife of, in this region very well known, Richard Holbrooke, who was the "driver" of local politicians in the signing of the Dayton agreement and the end of war in the Balkans in general), is at the moment of a study trip through three former Yugoslav republics, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Serbia; her aim is to get a better feel for the "main object" of her interest: media freedom.
Committee to Protect Journalists is a non-governmental organization which was founded in 1991 by American journalists, actually foreign correspondents who experienced until then unexpected difficulties in their reporting from abroad; the motto of the organization is "journalism is a dangerous profession"! Without getting into her ability to personally judge the accuracy of that motto after several days spent in Croatia (which doesn't exactly have a reputation of a media paradise), we asked her to comment the fact that the Croatian leader, Franjo Tudman, confided into her that he was the one who needed protection, not the media.
I've spent two days in Zagreb and during that time I had a very interesting conversation with the Croatian president. To tell the truth, I found it interesting, although I cannot vouch that Mr. Tudman also felt that way.
Why do you think that he might have not liked that conversation?
You see, I openly and emphatically pointed out the necessity that the press in Croatia enjoys full freedom of expression, to which he responded by pulling out of a file a copy of Feral Tribune with a satirical photomontage of himself on the front page and told me that nowhere else in the world that would have been allowed.
I assume that expected that you would agree with him?
I don't know, but I told him that my president Clinton also receives "bad press" at home, but that that is an acceptable and ordinary thing in the USA. Since if my president doesn't like what he sees about himself in the papers or in a TV program he can simply turn the TV off or stop reading that paper.
How did Tudman react to that?
I don't think that I managed to convince him that that was O.K.
While we are talking about the American press, could you tell us if there are any noticeable changes in the writing about our local situation with respect to the last year when the war escalated?
The only significant difference is in connection with Croatian president Tudman. He has become a well known figure in America, object of newspaper articles and editorial peaces; he has recently appeared on the front page of a high circulation magazine. He has actually become the face of Croatia in the USA, since other personalities practically do not exist for the American media. A lot has been written about Tudman's constructive role in Dayton, but also about some other events. I told him, during our conversation in Zagreb, that his approach to the democratization of Croatia was, politely said, imperfect. Besides, the Croatian president, in my opinion, exactly when the media freedom is concerned, has not fulfilled his obligations from Dayton. The freedom of media is not only a decoration but an important characteristic of democracy; nobody has a right to call himself a democrat if he contributes to reduction of media freedom.
Dogma about the supra-ideological "Croatian historic reconciliation", as the cornerstone of the establishment and maintenance of the stable nation and independent state, in principle shouldn't be different from the well known concepts about the national reconciliation whose goal is the homogenization of the national political corpus, which has been used in history by many European nations.
However, in Tudman's interpretation that reconciliation cannot survive as a concept because it is based on the reconciliation of two equally totalitarian Croatian experiences, Communist and Ustashe ones, while it is unacceptable in the contemporary European situation because of that goal. Actually, its author doesn't base his ideas on the reconciliation of red and black totalitarianism in their common defeat, in their bowing to the victorious civic democracy, but is trying to rehabilitate both systems through the reconciliation in order to build on the ruins of those two systems a third, supposedly nonideological copy of totalitarianism: reductionist nationalism.
In other words, Franjo Tudman came up with an amateur formula about national reconciliation on the basis of his own doubts, pressed by the necessity to reconcile his actual communist biography and his wishful thinking Ustashe past (which he didn't dare live through, despite his early disappointment in the Partisans, expressed through his histrionic suicide attempt in 1942!). It is natural that the obscure idea about Jasenovac, as the "collection center" for the bones of all Croatian victims, is added to that formula and that the authencity of two tragic Croatian experiences is denied by disguising them into something else, of the nationalist-totalitarian kind. But we must not be lulled by the bizarre character of that idea because the aim of the amnesty of the two totalitarian regimes is to save from catharsis the hostages of those historical illusions with which there is no healthy civic nation, united in the goals of open society.
All in all, this is a historic ruse whose goal is to attract the attention of the public at the time when for the stability of the Croatian nation and strengthening of the sovereignty of the Croatian republic it would be much more productive to prevent the split to the minority of them, profiteers of the economic-political transition a la wild, and the majority of us, robbed and humiliated citizens of Croliput.
You, personally and HSLS reacted sharply to the repeated Tudman's idea about the reconciliation of the dead and the transformation of Jasenovac into a common memorial to the war victims. Why?
Because those ideas are absurd and cannot be implemented; if the idea about the transformation of Jasenovac is implemented somehow, it would result in grave political consequences and a lot of tension. Already there are sharp reactions from abroad; the dissatisfaction will grow at home, on both sides of the political spectrum. The idea is even more unacceptable because president Tudman bases it on the example of Franco, which is disturbing and unacceptable and also unnecessary. There is no need for a reconciliation if a state is a civic and democratic state. In those conditions its constitution provides equal democratic rights to all its citizens and becomes the only necessary and basic act of the reconciliation.
Along the same lines, it is equally unnecessary and harmful to talk that the present authorities have made peace between "Croatia and the Croatian emigrants." Since when has Croatia had a disagreement with its emigrants so that the two need to be reconciled?! The previous regime had problems with the emigrants, and when it departed the political scene the reason for a reconciliation disappeared.
Why were these ideas initiated right now; are there some less obvious motives for that?
I think so. Tudman solves a problem in his party, which appears because contrary to all expectations that the historical topics will become the exclusive domain of historians, they are still very present on the political scene. You witnessed the recent discussion in the Parliament about public holidays; certain HDZ representatives had totally different opinions, so much that it was hard to believe that Duro Perica, and Janko Bobetko were the members of the same party. If that's the case, I am afraid that we will never move beyond that topic. It is easy to realize how harmful and fruitless all that is if one compares the situation in Croatia with that in other countries. Please, who today talks about the reconciliation in Germany, France, Hungary, Slovakia? All those countries have past experiences which are comparable to ours, if not worse.
Is it possible that HDZ is afraid of competition regarding the reconciliation which is coming from the opposition, which is because of that accused that it has gathered everyone, "from communists to fascists" against the ruling party?
Probably. It is well known that HDZ presents itself as a party which represents the interests of all layers and all political orientations in the society; it can not bear that someone else has a grass roots support in the society. I have a personal experience regarding that. I was the first representative of a political party to visit Bleiburg, immediately after the first post-communist elections; Franjo Tudman criticized me because of that at the meeting of the leaders of all political parties with the former Croatian leadership. He claimed that that was a politically harmful move. I replied that I was really there, but that I left half way through the commemoration unhappy with the behavior of some HDZ members, one of whom, Father Duka was in charge of the commemoration. When Tudman heard that, he shut up.
I have to say that I really didn't feel good at that Bleiburg commemoration because I noticed too much politicization of that gathering and too little respect for the victims. Still, I must say that I had the same feeling when I was invited to the protest rally at the square of the Croatian Greats, the former Victims of Fascism square. I went with the best intentions and feelings, but when I heard some of the speakers I realized that I didn't belong there and again left half way through the rally. Fortunately, the third commemoration that I have visited in recent years did not finish like the two before it. After the visit to Bleiburg I gave my word that I would visit Jasenovac as well. I managed to do that after the liberation of Jasenovac when, together with the HSLS delegation, I went to bow to the Jasenovac victims.
Until now, the idea of reconciliation hasn't reconciled anyone, but only made things worse. Do you see its end in the near future, or do you think that the idea will be promoted at all costs?
It is true that there is so much talk about the reconciliation and we are still to feel any results. That is not surprising since we are talking about a classic example of an illusion, and the more one insists on illusions the more they resist. I have a personal experience about that as well. When I was sentenced to a jail sentence and went to the prison in Stara Gradiska I met there a group of Ustashe prisoners; together with us arrived a group of several partisans jailed, like us, because of Croatian nationalism. Well, you see, those two groups always kept away from each other, they never walked together and only had contact in larger groups together with us, younger prisoners. The relations between them were correct, there were no conflicts, but the only communication went through us, the young ones. If that was the case with the living, what can one say about the dead. No one ever managed to make peace between them; Franjo Tudman will fail as well.