These days Mr. Krpina (the Vice-President of the Immigration Committee said that in negotiating with the Republic of Croatia (hereafter RC) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (RY) never raised the question of return of some 340,000 Serbs who found shelter in RY since the outbreak of war in RC. These people are actually welcomed there, in order to preserve the national homogeneity before the Albanians and other minorities.Thus, a thesis - and this is not only a thesis but the fact -that the arranged mass resettlement was at stake - is correct.
You said that this is a fact, not just a thesis; is there any proof of that, any data ?
Investigations that we carried out in Krajina proved that the organised departure of Serbs started a few days before the beginning of the military action "Storm". There is precise data as to when and where the organised evacuations started.
So, the Serb generals knew about " Storm " before the Croatian /generals/?
Yes. Some of them knew; there was obviously a parallel command; therefore, the Serb general Mrksic was sent there in order to start that action. All this becomes clearer when one follows the events occurring in Croatia and Bosnia, that planned emigration wave of Croats. ....And the biggest emigration followed after the military action "Storm" with one aim: to fill up the places emptied after the Serbs fled.
Yes. There is one general in Zagreb - well known by the public - highly ranked in the Crotian government- who had seen and heard the complete record of that deal. I will not reveal his name, but he confirmed - to me and to a few others - that in one foreign ministry he had access to the whole documentation; he even saw the names of the waiters who served the mediators and what brands of drinks they have had.
Where was that? In Washington?
In one of the foreign ministries. I only know that these tapes do exist and who made them. When I spoke about Karadordevo meeting in Der Spiegel (German weekly) a few years ago, I almost got killed. And today, everybody knows that one of the primary aims of this war was to create " the greater Serbia" and "the greater Croatia" as ethnically pure as possible, i.e. all Croats (or Serbs) in one country.
If it is correct that the massive exodus of Serbs from the Krajina region was a part of the deal, was the post-"Storm" harassment in an annexe, too? Are there any grounds for accusations not only for tolerating violence but for planning and implementing it as a part of the government's politics?
Obviously that were two levels of command; the intelligence structures and segments of so-called special war were under the direct command of Tudman and Susak, even out of the Headquarters. This can be perceived in the field, where one segment of the Croatian government carries out certain "dirty" jobs, while another, under the directive from above, tolerates it. But, regardless of who makes plans and who commits crimes, the fact that the government tolerates all this and that it takes no actions for punishing perpetrators, proves that this is the government's politics. Since the outbreak of the war, the Croatian government brought charges against only one Croat - Mihajlo Hrastov, who admitted having killed 16 people in Karlovac bridge. He was soon released, the Supreme court cancelled the ruling - that occurred 3 or 4 years ago - and there was no hearing since.In the meantime he was awarded - together with the Minister of the External affairs, Mate Granic - with a medal.
What do the CHC reports say about results of such a politics in the field?
I cannot give the exact data by heart. But, I'll tell you this as an example: in the area between Gracac and Udbine where there was no war activities and no mine fields, in only one year 15 people have been killed from a surprise mine and more than double were injured. No one reacted, not one perpetrator was arrested ! Isn't that unbelievable !?
Not really, given that this is the politics of the Croatian government ?
It is obvious that the Croatian government is leading the politics of preventing Serbs from returning and the President of Croatia has clearly declared that on several occasions. There is no return and there will be none of it - among other, because these people have no place to return. The houses of the Serb refugees are still being inhabited by other people - even in cases when those Serbs have been staying in Croatia during the war; municipal authorities would then confirm the right to use the houses, by issuing the tenancy right or alike to the new habitants so that everything is " legally clean."
Of course; this is the way of creating "the praetorian guard", because, if you give a house to someone, you can then take someone's factory and those who were given the houses for free, will be the first to defend you. Plundering is legalised and is a legitimate way of behaving; by this, the collective responsibility for plundering is created. As an illustration: there is one secret regulation of the Ministry of Defence Headquarters in Zagreb which says that during the summer season settling and plundering is to be put to a halt! In some places this is not respected though, such as Hvar.
You might be needing more offices than you currently have. Recently an office in Vukovar has been opened; is there much work to be done there ?
Situation is bad; return of Croats is being hindered, plundering is going on - under the same pattern - our field team noticed that those who are leaving , are carrying with them many things, such as TV sets, refrigerators, etc; it is obvious that they are plundering the Croat houses. It will take a lot for the conditions for the safe return to be met.
Isn't it the misunderstanding: Tudjman has brought Croatia to Vukovar two month ago?
Given that he considers himself to be Croatia, this is correct, partially only - he did bring Croatia to Vukovar but has brought it back the same day! Those who are not entitled to call themselves "Croatia", well, they will have to wait. Let's be clear: if the multiethnic environment was not created in Krajina, what makes you think that it will be feasible in Vukovar? Especially considering the fact that Vukovar is a wound for all Croats, because of what Serbs did to Croats there but also because of what some Croats did to the prominent Serbs before the military actions had started. I think some people will have to explain their deeds before the court.
Who are they?
I will not give the names.
Mercep?
No names, but this was a group of those who tried to cover classical criminal acts with the " in the name of the nation" motive.
Compared to what you say, the already famous official report from the Croatian government on human rights sounds like the Croatian tourist slogan.
Yes, but Mate Granic, at the session of the International politics committee denied the same report, by saying that the human rights situation in Croatia is bad. So, one Vice President is denying another. Lj. Mintas Hodak, in "Obzor", explained that she was misunderstood, that she was talking about the 1996 report....
....which is known as an excellent year regarding the human rights situation?
Yes, and this can be seen from our 700 pages report on the human rights situation in 1996.
And on the basis of what are they to come to the conclusion, if not on the basis of the individual cases ? I was saying once about her incompetence to discuss human rights. I will not repeat it except this: the basic principle of human rights is that they are always individual and can not be otherwise, this is what are the human rights are all about.
She must know that, she has Ph.D. in international affairs and is at the head of the government's Coordination body for human rights ?
The one who has given her the Ph.D. is worse than she is. When someone talks about national and ethnic rights of Croats in the Croatian national state, then he/she knows nothing about human rights; human rights exist to protect those of the minority in one country!
As Serbs, for example. There are some objections that you care more for their rights than for those of Croats ?
I think that we showed not enough of that concern towards Serbs. But with what we have (staff, money, etc.) we cannot do more. We do not deal with Serbs only, we protect human rights to a wider extent: Radio 101, police harassment in cities, etc. It is normal that we protect those who are most vulnerable and in this situation the Serb minority is the one that is being killed, plundered, etc. The Croatian Republic is not doing that to Croats, at least not yet and not to that extent. So, it is self-explanatory why we are protecting Serbs. One who claims that we only protect them - being that we protect human rights - explicitly claims that only a Serb is a human being.
You are accused of denunciating the county abroad. Have you got any contacts with Hague?
Yes, by phone; the intelligence office is recording my conversations and is forwarding them after to "Vjesnik".
Who is paying those phone bills? The CHC or The Hague Tribunal?
I will not answer more questions about The Hague, except one principle answer: When Karadzic will arrive in The Hague, all forms of co-operation with the court will be possible, desirable and necessary.
Until then, the co-operation is deemed to be the first class betrayal of national interests?
This is stupid. Cooperation with The Hague is an obligation for the national interest. The whole discussion about subpoena has been led because the Croatian government has submitted only 11 documents to date; this is an attempt of one group in power- with Tudjman at head - to make the whole Croatian nation responsible for the criminal deeds of some individuals. The fact that the Croatian government is paying lawyers, travel expenses, etc. for Tihomir BlaÜkiµ accused for crimes committed in a foreign country, this means taking a responsibility for his crimes, if he will be found guilty. And we are then surprised when we are accused collectively!
Is it possible that they will be at the top of the guilt ladder, if they were not at the top of the military one?
Judging from what I know, the Tribunal will have much to do with us, not only because of the Serb aggressors, but for what many Croats did in the name of Croatia. At least five of the retired generals of the Croatian Army plus some ten active ones could appear before the judge. Not to talk about ministers, former and current, and those above them.
You don't mean Tudjman, do you ?
Read carefully the prologue of the prosecutor in the process against Blaskic and you will see that he was, together with Boban and others, only the executor of Tudjman's political ideas.
I can understand that someone discusses the national interest, but I can not approve of talking about moral dimensions by incorporating moral norms and judgements into the nation as a supreme idea and criteria, as the Vice President Ms. Ljerka Mintas-Hodak does. She then discusses from the standpoint of nazism. The question here is only whether he - Mesic- spoke the truth.
The thesis is that testifying about human rights violations is equal to the national betrayal and this has roots in a very popular thesis which says that violating human rights damages the image of Croatia in the world. Why is there never a word about the damage for a very concrete person, which is concretely killed?
That thesis was articulated by Zivko Kustic, who, at the conference in the CHC about the events in Krajina at that time asked whether we were taking into account the facts that this - information about harassing of the Serbs- could be useful for our enemies. He did not ask whether this was true or not. This is where the evil lies, in that thesis. The discussion is about whether being "ustashi" was bad because of the crimes committed or was is bad because the West objected to it. In my opinion we have to fight the evil because it is the evil and not because the world would think that this is evil and will object if we don't fight against it.
Or to put it short: is it in the national interest to testify about crimes committed in the name of that evil?
Evidently. It is awful to hear colonel Steward saying in an interview that he never heard Bosnian Croats feeling ashamed of crimes committed in the name of Croatia. The historical feeling of shame for the committed crimes ought to be one of the ultimate criteria when establishing the Croatian national interest.
Would you testify in the Tribunal?
I would, and if it will be needed, I will testify as any other citizen who is bound to do so in front of such a tribunal.
You don't have to be afraid that you will be proclaimed a traitor, since you already have been, a long time ago.
Yes, but the one who will accuse me for that, forgets that subrule A and C of Article 77 of the Proceedings before Trial Chambers; subrule C provides that : "......any person who attempts to interfere with or intimidate a witness may be found guilty of contempt and sentenced in accordance with subrule A".
Could it be that the Vice President ends up in jail, due to the pressure on witnesses?
This is up to judges to decide, not me.
It seems that you don't know how long you will be in this human rights business ? What is the future of Croatia after the war?
First, the war is not over yet. The reason for the pressure from the international community is their awareness that the war has not come to an end and that in the case of SFOR withdrawal new conflicts are likely to emerge. Let's assume this scenario : Milosevic remains at his position as the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia, Seselj is chosen as the president of Serbia. Could you imagine what would happen?
I can. Tudjman would first congratulate Seselj.
Probably. Another thing; if you drive through Bosnia - and I recently did -you will see the Federation forces exercising intensively. The relentless position of all parties in conflict gives little hope . I do not see who will first make a reconciliatory step.
Are the events getting out of the control of the negotiators and the main creators of the scenario or is it only a part of that scenario?
I think that the events are outrunning the negotiators. The ruling party, the most responsible for violating the basic human rights is currently very often discussing the issue; not that they wanted it, but they are forced into doing so by the international community. Or, this will lead to the conflict with the extremes of the Croatian society, those not willing to accept the change in the course of the politics.
Why would Tudjman face resistance? Untill now, many times he backed out and the public celebrated an obvious diplomatic defeat as glorious victory.
Yes, but he succeeded in that by virtue of only one argument and this is the argument of war. That is why I repeat that the war has not ended yet; those who participated in the war, would play with their arms whenever they deem necessary; the war in Croatia was not only a means for gaining independence but a means for preserving the power acquired. What does the disposition of the military centres in the country, from Pula to Zagreb - tells us? Why such a concentration of military force near the Hungarian or Italian border? Why are the troops not concentrated there where the for now enemy is ...and this is Serbia and Republika Srpska ? We want to join NATO and the troops are concentrated toward its member states ! This means that the Croatian government sees the enemy within, in Croatia itself, not there where it really is, in Serbia. It turns out that the concept of the army is not only the defence of the borders, but the defence of the regime as well.