Minorities in Post HDZ Croatia

AIM Zagreb, March 5, 2001

According to the Croat constitution, ethnic minorities are entitled to the same rights as the majority nation. But, in reality, the practice of open discrimination of ethnic Serbs and other minorities is still going on in a number of regions. The phenomenon is particularly noticeable when the judicature, employment policy, residence rights and freedom of movement are concerned. Thus, the pattern of constant and, at times, violent harassment and intimidation of ethnic Serbs in the formerly war stricken regions constitute a major problem Croatia is yet to solve. At the start of the year, high officials of the present authorities pointed out their commitment to the non-discriminating treatment of minorities, but, in some instances, these very same state officials failed to condemn a number of serious incidences of discrimination and harassment of ethnic Serbs.

Last May, the government of Ivica Racan adopted a series of laws on minority rights, including a constitutional law by which further nine ethnic groups, including Bosnians, Albanians and Slovenians, were added to the existing list of seven ethnic minorities recognized by the constitution. Some independent observers, as well as the leaders of ethnic Serb organizations, criticized the obvious haste and secrecy accompanying the adoption of this constitutional law. In answer to this, state representatives announced that further amendments on minority rights and local self-government were to be added to the new law. The year went by, but not a single amendment was adopted.

In spite of the constitutional guarantees, ethnic minorities - particularly Serbs and Romanies - are at present still exposed to disproportionate discrimination. At the recent rally in support of General Mirko Norac held in Split, the protesters chanted profanities addressed to Vesna Pusic, the leader of the Croat People's Party, and president Stjepan Mesic, meant to be insulting by naming them Serbs. A banner inscribed "Mesic, gypsy!" seen on the same occasion is a vivid illustration of what some Croats think of Romanies. Yet, in comparison to the predominately strained relations at the time of the HDZ rule (Croat Democratic Union), certain progress in the communication between the present authorities and the Serb minority in Croatia has been made. Still, in spite of the said improvement, the circumstances concerning national minorities in Croatia are a far cry from being satisfactory. University professor and president of the Serb National Council, Milorad Pupovac, believes that the main problem of the actual authorities, as far as minorities are concerned, lies in the fact that they would prefer not to deal with the issue at all.

The government provided further evidence of its indelicate handling of the minority problem when it made a cut in grants allotted to ethnic minority associations and organization in Croatia. More to the point, the state Office for Ethnic Minorities recently assigned 18 million kuna to minority associations and institutions - 9 per cent less than they could count on in the preceding period. The mentioned act of Racan's government provoked considerable irritation, particularly among prominent representatives of the Serb and Italian communities in Croatia. Representative of the Italian minority in Croatia's parliament and prominent activist of the Italian Union, Furio Radin, stated: "Of the new government, we have hoped for a heightened sensibility to the minority problem. What we got, are better laws and less money."

Failures concerning the minority policy of the a little over a year-old government can best be viewed from the standpoint of ethnic-based incidents which have occurred during its mandate, particularly in regions suffering the greatest consequences of the recent war. To start with, two ethnic-motivated murders, characteristic of tensions in the country as whole, took place last year. One concerns the March case of a thirty- eight-year-old Serb returnee to the Adriatic island of Vir after eight years of exile in SR Yugoslavia. A week after his return, three Croats beat him to death while shouting anti-Serb slogans. The perpetrators were soon caught and international observers judged the reaction of the police as satisfactory. But, the official communication condemning the incident was not issued by the authorities until several days later. The very same week, in the West-Slavonian town of Slatina, after a dispute having to do with the war, a Croat stabbed to death a seventy-three-year old Serb woman.

Incidences of harassment and intimidation of Serbs have continued to occur in war stricken regions during the entire duration of the past year. In May, around 50 Croats interrupted the memorial service held in Veljun commemorating the victims of a WW II fascist massacre, chiefly attended by Serbs. Certain Biserka Legardic, a Croat woman, took her panties off and urinated on the memorial tablet. No one called her to account for her deed, nor did she suffer any consequences for the barbaric act. Two weeks later, five Croats invaded the memorial grounds and vandalized the monument. All five were arrested but, due to lack of evidence, charges against them were dropped in August. As for the Croat government, it denounced both instances of vandalism in Veljun - belatedly. During the summer, in Karlovac, Sisak and Erdut, a number of posters with the photographs and names of local Serbs appeared, accusing them of war crimes. The police investigated the cases and identified the suspects, but the prosecutor's office never brought charges against anyone. The motivation behind these incidents was more than obvious: intimidation of all possible Serb refugees who have, perhaps, decided time for return was ripe.

In autumn, the Danube river-basin region of Croatia was plastered over with " warrants " similar to posters accusing local Serbs of war crimes. Some of them appeared on the Internet, most were placed on public view in the said towns, some delivered to home addresses of certain local Serbs. Not one government official found it necessary to condom these criminal acts. In October, 15 ethnic Serbs from the Baranja region were arrested on charges of war crimes committed in 1991, generally believed to be founded on insufficient evidence. This resulted in speculation that the Osijek prosecutor had, in fact, acted upon charges cited in the bogus warrants. At the same time, Marko Rogulj, a Serb judge of the Vukovar court, found himself threatened by an angry mob comprised, among others, of the Catholic parish priest Petar Cobankovic. The incident was brought on by judge Rogulja's ruling that a Croat police commander was to be evicted from a Serb home he had taken possession of. The eviction was never carried out and the case later handed over to another judge. Not a single local or state government official ever publicly took a stand on the matter, nor was the harassment of judge Rogulja ever condemned in any other manner.

Ethnic-motivated incidents of greater or lesser gravity have occurred at a rate of over fifty such cases per month. In approximately two thirds of these cases, the victims were Serbs.. Along with the two homicides, there were also several instances of hand-grenade attacks on private ownership. In March, a group of Croats went from house to house in the Danube-valley town of Erdut, terrorizing local Serbs, including the town orthodox priest and mayor.

The constitution and the package of constitutional laws on minority rights adopted in May have laid down the legal foundation for the realization of the right to schooling in the mother-tongues of the constitutionally recognized minorities. Still, some problems have remained unsolved. For example, in some textbooks, the history of former SR Yugoslavia is still being interpreted from the viewpoint of Croat nationalists and even the new textbooks are not free of abusive terms ascribed to ethnic minorities. In short, the new authorities have not kept their word to provide for more balanced teaching matter.

The procedure for acquiring Croat citizenship differs for applicants of Croat origin and all others. Even in cases involving person who have never been granted citizenship of former Socialist Republic of Croatia, ethnic Croats are entitled to Croat citizenship if they merely submit a written deposition stating they consider themselves citizens of Croatia. Applicants of all other ethnic origins are obliged to meet much stricter naturalization requirements in order to obtain the selfsame status. Even those with valid residence in Croatia while it was a part of former SFR Yugoslavia are obliged to offer proof of their residence in the former country and its citizenship while, at the same time, no such evidence is required of Croats.

Non governmental organizations (NGO) helping Serbs solve their problems in acquiring Croat citizenship have filed complaints concerning local officials making use of the double standards applied. The said legal obstacles in obtaining Croat citizenship have led to discrimination in various fields, including the voting rights of the persons concerned. Furthermore, until their applications are decided upon, the applicants of pending citizenship requests are denied social welfare benefits such as health insurance, pensions, free schooling and employment in the state public sector. On the other hand, in the past, the rejection of many citizenship applications has been accounted for by citing article 26 of the Citizenship Law which states that persons otherwise meeting all other requirements may be denied the said right if they pose a threat to national security and article 8 of the said law which rules that all such persons must offer proof of " loyalty to the legal system and the customary Croat way of life ".

In spite of the 1998. returnee program prescribing multiethnic "housing commissions" entrusted with the restitution of all private ownership, Serb owners of homes invaded by refugees from Bosnia and Kosovo are still denied the right to take possession of their own property. The lack of available alternative accommodation and political will to evict Croats from Serb homes has, in many regions outside of the Danube-valley district, resulted in modest results when such cases are concerned.

As for Romanies, discrimination and violence against them has continued in post-HDZ Croatia, too. The only indication of a positive shift is the fact that not a single case of police brutality towards them was registered in 2000. According to the 1991. census, there are but 6700 Romanies living in Croatia at present. Both government officials and NGO activists believe the figure is too low and that the genuine estimate is somewhere in the vicinity of 40 000. The attitude of certain government structures towards the Romany community is best illustrated by a Human Rights Watch report on a case from the Varazdin district. In May 2000, after having put a ban on the construction of permanent homes for them and the laying of water pipes and electric power installations, the local Varazdin authorities ordered 420 Romanies out of their settlement in the village of Strmec Podravski.

Although, officially, Croatia does not have a state religion, the Roman Catholic Church enjoys the financial support of the state inasmuch as the pensions of Roman-Catholic priests and nuns are paid out of the government pension fund. Other religious communities still do not have a similar privilege, nor is a law regulating the matter yet in existence. For example, in order to secure their retirement rights, orthodox priests and imams contribute to the national health service and pension funds themselves. Nevertheless, representatives of several religious communities believe that, in this respect, the overall situation has somewhat improved following the parliamentary elections from last January. But, the fact remains: a law guaranteeing equal rights for all confessions in Croatia is yet to be passed.

The government insists catechism be introduced into the school system, at the same time defining attendance to religious instruction as non-mandatory. In reality, the lack of funds, scarcity of pupils and qualified instructors belonging to minority religions represent a serious obstacle when minority persuasions are concerned. The result being that, in fact, the only religious instruction offered in Croatian schools boils down to Roman-Catholic catechism. High-ranking representatives of the Jewish religious community have, for instances, noted that the basic facts offered to school children attending religious instruction classes are false and their offers to contribute to a more balanced perspective in forming the tuition matter have all been rejected. A similarly bias handling of the minority issue holds true for the Croat army. Nineteen catholic priests are on the payroll of the Croat Ministry of Defense. Not a signal orthodox priest or Muslim imam enjoys the same privilege. Furthermore, only catholic priests attend and bless the solemn-oath ceremony of new Croat army recruits, as opposed to religious leaders of all other denominations who remain excluded from such occasions.

All in all, religious affiliation and nationality are so closely-nit in Croatia that it is often almost impossible to discern the distinction between them. Nevertheless, a significant number of clearly ethnic-motivated crimes remain a serious ailment of the Croat society to this very day.

IVANA ERCEG

(AIM)