used without permission, for "fair use" only

Hague Spokespersons

by Z. Tomac

Glas Slavonije, Osijek, Croatia, December 15, 2000

Dignity, firmness and decisiveness, pride and consistency, as well as refusal to give in when one is right, even in spite of suffering, are all characteristics of a man who is respected even by those who disagree with him, even by those who are his fierce opponents. Conversely, a man without pride, a "yes" man who bows to the powerful is not respected even by those whom he serves. The same applies to nations. A nation that knows how to defend its interests, its pride and rights, is admired even by those whom that nation opposes. Conversely, a nation without pride, a nation with servile mentality prepared to bow its head to unprincipled pressures and to resign itself to injustice is not respected even by those to whom it humbly kowtows. The Croat people was in the past a proud nation and that is why it survived on this geopolitical open space in spite of all difficulties and threats. That open space could be called a historical geopolitical scourge even today. It will not be significantly different in the future.

Although we have our own state that we haven't had for centuries, both today and in the future it is necessary to know how to defend our interests. Both the government and the opposition, as well as the Church, trade unions, associations, and finally every single citizen, share responsibility in the defense of national interests. Consequently, regardless of differences between us with respect to many internal issues, it should be expected that an overwhelming majority of the Croat people and all the Croat institutions will support the Croatian government which has clearly and publicly defined yet again relations with the Hague Tribunal, by which it demonstrated that accusations that this government does not care about national interests and is furthermore betraying them are baseless.

The views of the government are not a fallback to the HDZ's policy of isolation of Croatia and conflict with the international community, because exactly HDZ's policy of flirting with Milosevic is to be blamed for the fact that so far no one has faced the Hague Tribunal for the aggression against Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, that crimes in Vukovar and Srebrenica are still not a part of the indictment of Milosevic who for years, until Kosovo unfortunately, was a preferred partner of powerful foreign officials, and even a part of the former authorities in Croatia, who saw in him a partner, in addition to an opponent and the aggressor. That is why the Croatian government insists that the responsibility must be established starting with Vukovar, rather than with the "Storm". That does not mean that the government, unlike a part of the former authorities, believes that individual crimes were not committed by the Croat side and that these individual crimes should not be processed. Therefore, it is clear that the new authorities cannot be accused of falling back to failed HDZ's policies. The new authorities demand individualization of guilt, and opposes attempts of a part of the international community that would after the fact like to change history and the truth, that would like to treat the victim and the aggressor in the same manner. The Croat authorities demand that the Hague be just, so that it can stabilize peace with its activities and open space for forgiveness and coexistence. Rightfully, we demand that trials and investigations must start with Milosevic and Vukovar, and those who planned and implemented the Greater Serbian aggression, to whom crime was a goal, and not means, and who murdered 200,000 persons and forcefully displaced more than a million.

I think that the Croatian authorities very precisely defined their views and consequently it is important that all of us support them without any reservations. I do not doubt that the principled views of the Croatian government, that I advocated last summer in Vukovar, because of which I was strongly attacked by certain forces in Croatia, will receive overwhelming support by the Croatian people and all significant political and social forces in Croatia. However, I do not doubt that some will try to on the one hand satanize such views and on the other try to portray them as identical to HDZ's policies. Those who until now lead a huge campaign against us who in time demanded that mentioned and similar views be publicly defined, will probably now attack the Croatian government, and especially Goran Granic, which many have already done. Those others who desire isolation of Croatia, who do not wish that crimes committed by the Croat side be processed in Croatia, will try to abuse clear government's views by claiming that the new authorities are falling back on their old policies.

The new authorities and the government do not wish to start a conflict with the international community and even less an end of cooperation with the Hague Tribunal. They do not in any way wish to defend anyone on the Croat side who committed a crime. These authorities view cooperation with the Hague Tribunal as a dialog in which both sides are equal. These authorities have the mandate to continue to develop Croatia as a democratic and sovereign state and to integrate it in European and Atlantic organizations. There is no doubt that a part of the international community will try to pressure the new government and will be dissatisfied that we are not prepared to accept everything they ask from us. Already, of course, Graham Blewitt has piped up and expressed regret because of the views of the Croatian government and complained because of public criticism of some actions of the Hague Tribunal. I agree that a media war between Croatia and the Hague Tribunal is not good and that it would not benefit anyone. But both sides should be in the same position in public defense of their respective rights and interests.

Blewitt is well known because of his statements and big interviews in Croatian media in which he unnecessarily opened numerous problems. For example, Blewitt in the media speculates and states that he allegedly has enough material to issue an indictment against the first president of Croatia, if he were still alive today. We have the right to tell Blewitt that, instead of dealing with ghosts, he would do better to apply himself to the prosecution of the main culprits. Slobodan Milosevic is still not indicted for crimes in Vukovar and Srebrenica and Sljivicanin is teaching at the military academy in Belgrade. We have the right to demand that the determination of guilt start with the chief culprits, instead of with the "Storm" which was necessary to end the war in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. That does not mean that all those who committed crimes in the "Storm" should not be prosecuted. But, if the secret indictments of the military leadership of the "Storm" are issued, that immensely helps Serbia, even though Milosevic is making a political come back. Then, obviously something is amiss.

The question of all questions is why some gentlemen from the Hague are doing all this to us. Even more importantly, why are some in Croatia in all ways defending such actions, which do not contribute to democracy and peace in this region but are instead opening new conflicts and even harming inter-ethnic intolerance?

The author is a SDP representative in the Croatian Parliament and the head of the Croatian Parliament Foreign Policy Committee.


Translated on January 24, 2001
Glas Slavonije