SOCIAL - DEMOCRATS HAVE A CHANCE

INTERVIEW: MIKO TRIPALO, President of the Action of Social Democrats of Croatia

AIM, SPLIT, December 10, 1994

AIM: What are your main reasons for initiating the establishment of a new left Social Democratic Party? Moreover, although you yourself occasionally say that you are fed up with politics, why did you accept to be at its helm?

TRIPALO: There is no need to point out that a grave crisis has beset the Croatian society and Croatian state. I am by no means negating the merits of the HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) and Tudjman in the creation of the Croat state. They were the first who most clearly formulated the stance on a sovereign Croat state and I take off my hat to them for that. However, all that they have done after that was, in my opinion, profoundly wrong. A third of the territory was lost and we shall, and I say that openly, have enormous difficulties in integrating that territory into Croatia. People are promised coffee in Drnis, roast lamb in Knin, while the exiled Croats are in an extremely hopeless situation. The creation of an unscrupulous capitalism of the Latin American style, which is cruel to the working population, is still at work in Croatia. The minority uses the Croatian state, the Croatian people is disunited, fear and lack of any perspective are gaining hold. More and more young people are going away without hope, and if youth is without hope there is no hope for the homeland.

Croatia is not immune to totalitarian tendencies either. In such circumstances, a strong left modern Social Democratic Party is needed, which would have to be an important factor of stabilizing the political scene in Croatia and extending resistance to these extremely negative political and social processes. The need is felt for such a party and I yielded to pressures coming from the Socialist International and important leftist political circles, individuals and intellectuals in Croatia, and attempted to help create such a party. Although I separated myself from the former regime, I never separated myself from the idea of social justice and social democracy, which were and still are my lasting political option.

AIM: Do you think that the existing left parties, if conditions and possibilities for the strengthening of left political parties and programmes in Croatia exist, are not adequate to make use of that?

TRIPALO: My main idea, when I embarked on this, was to unite the existing Social Democratic Parties in Croatia, because otherwise the strengthening of the left could not be expected. But, not only that. I am deeply convinced that the coverage of a new united left Social Democratic Party would be far greater than the simple sum of these parties. We have a large number of left-oriented people, who are in such a social position that they objectively gravitate to the left. But, many of them have neither in the past nor now been able to find the real political vehicles for their option, and this calls for a strong and resolute left party.

AIM: With respect to unification no significant results have been scored so far. The strongest left Croatian party, the SDP (Social Democratic Party), has explicitly refused that. Why?

TRIPALO: Although in the very process of forming our Action, we did not succeed in winning the SDP over for unification, we continued our efforts along those lines. For instance, to create a coordinating committee which would work for such unification over the long term, or we proposed cooperation in Parliament, and possibly the setting up of a Joint Deputy Club, which would be open to other independent deputies with similar political options, etc. However, we only got another reply to the effect that they were not in favour of unification, but that they would cooperate with us like with all other parties. I think that this clearly reveals who is against the unification of the social democrats in Croatia. Already earlier I had long talks with Racan, in which I explained and advocated the idea of the unification of the social democrats, but I only got the reply that it was a conspiracy against the SDP and Racan personally.

Nevertheless, at any time, at a Convention of Unification of the Croatian social democrats, I would be ready to resign the office of President and leave it to the new party to elect its new political leader. The problem, however, is not one of conspiracies, but of very clear leadership ambitions, material interests and property and positions which have nothing to do whatsoever with social democracy. And, what perhaps seems most important are wrong political estimates. The SDP and Racan are constantly propounding the thesis that the right in Croatia is growing stronger and that in case of large-scale social and political upheavals, the authorities are ready to settle accounts not only with the citizens, but also with the political parties expressing their interests.

That is why the SDP underlined that it was not interested in the unification of the left, but that political cooperation should be established with the center and some of their representatives said that they were interested neither in the left or the right, but in power. This, in my opinion, is aimed at saving one's own head, and not representing the interests of the endangered population. This is a compromising and capitulating stance, very dangerous for the future and development of democracy in Croatia. Our stance is completely different and we wish to oppose the ruthless plunder of the Croatian society, which is going on under the patronage of the ruling party, the vast impoverishment of the broad social strata, the completely eroded social security, which has fallen below all European standards and we are ready to share the destiny of that endangered population in case of repression on the part of the authorities.

AIM: How do you see, in that context, the recently held Parliament debate on ownership transformation in Croatia, i.e. the situation itself in that regard?

TRIPALO: To my mind there is no more centralized state in Europe than Croatia. All the finance and decisions on people are concentrated in the Presidential Palace. In that way the ruling party exercises unlimited power over the people and material resources. The Croatian public had opportunity these days to listen to the debate on the transformation of social property. I am convinced that such looting of property is without precedent in our history. The HDZ says that only five percent of its members own shares. This is nonsense because it is public knowledge, confirmed by their people too, that behind the names of the buyers stand completely different people. Naturally, when major, not minor shareholders are in question.

Nothing of this kind could happen without the participation of banks, in particular of the "Privredna banka Zagreb" (Commercial Bank Zagreb), which is the center of all the malversations surrounding ownership transformation, and through which the top echelons of the ruling party keep their finger on the situation. How far things have gone is best illustrated by the fact that Croatian President Tudjman had the cheek, during his visit to Chile, to accept a dinner invitation from Adronik Luksic, one of the wealthiest Chileans, disregarding the fact that earlier he personally had interceded to have the Karlovac Brewery sold for chikenfeed precisely to that Croatian emigrant. I do not know whether the President himself materially benefited from this, but that is an example of the practical giving away of Croatian property.

Indubitably, so called ownership transformation in Croatia is rife with plunder and malversations coming from the highest ruling political circles. In any case, shouldn't the Croatian public be entitled to know the origin of the wealth of the Tudjman family, the Kutle family, or the Todoric family and when they amassed it. Where did they get their money when they talk about persecutions, imprisonment and stumbling blocks at every step? Where did they, hence, get their money, if they have to use real not fictitious money? The HDZ is the protagonist of the interests of war profiteers, rich men and scoundrels.

AIM: How do you see Croatia's position today?

TRIPALO: From the international point of view we are not in a good position, irrespective of the fact that President Tudjman claims the opposite. Maybe it is so in Chile and Argentina, wherefrom he brings such impressions. I really do not know, but in the relevant international circles our reputation is undoubtedly tarnishing, and today there are less and less of those who would uphold the exercise of the legitimate and justified rights of the Croatian people for repossessing the currently occupied parts of Croatian territory. It is highly uncertain how all these combinations with different contact groups, the resolution of the issue of UNPA zones and Bosnia and Herzegovina, will end.

It is pitiful that I, together with the leaders of other opposition parties have been informed by the American Ambassador in Zagreb of the contents of the economic agreement between the Croatian authorities and the local Serbs, instead of having been informed of that, as our platform for a political agreement with the Serbs, by our head of state, which would be elementary political courtesy in a normal democratic state, and not have Tudjman order from Argentina that deputies to Parliament cannot be informed of that, while at the same time the Serbian media published that agreement and we, deputies to the Croatian Parliament, learned of it in that way.

We are told that we cannot discuss and vote on these documents as Parliamentary deputies as that would mean the recognition of the so called international legal personality of the so called Krajina, while, in fact this was the avoidance of any broader, primarily Parliamentary debate, on key issues of the Croatian state, which is in Parliament's competence.

AIM: How do you assess the latest developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the role of Croatia in these developments?

TRIPALO: Croatia has, regrettably, committed numerous cardinal, even fatal mistakes in Bosnia and I think that it has repeated them once again by its stand concerning Bihac. For God knows which time, the fate of B&H and also of Croatia was being solved in Bosnia. Namely, if a compact territory encompassing the Cazin Krajina, Bihac and the Una region were created, which firmly links the so called Krajina and Serbian areas in B&H, then Croatia's negotiating positions on the eve of the coming negotiations with the Croatian Serbs on the political modalities of integrating the UNPAs in Croatia will be much more difficult than so far.

Therefore, although I am not in favour of war of any kind, especially not of total war, both because of human casualties and also because I believe that Croatia is not ready for it, either in military or political terms, nor do we enjoy international support for that, I thought that a limited operation of the Maslenica or the Medak pocket type in UNPA zones could, nevertheless, help maintain a certain military-political, and even psychological balance. What worries me is my conviction that the Croatian side has not given up the division of Bosnia, and that a policy is further pursued along those lines which will, naturally, crash on our heads.

AIM: Do you think that the problem of UNPA zones, i.e. the integration of the Croatian occupied territories could be solved in peaceful way?

TRIPALO: I wish to believe that it is possible. For, a military option, no matter how efficient it may seem to some at this moment, would not bring about a final settlement of this problem, but Croatia would, rather, get its Northern Ireland, possibly of a much worse kind, and it is a question how long that would last. And another kind of Croatia's policy towards the Serbs, and not only in Krajina, but in other parts of Croatia too, which is frequently overlooked, might positively influence such a peaceful settlement.

AIM: Do you think that the political platform offered by the so called mini-contact group Z-4 on the integration of UNPA zones in Croatia provides grounds for reaching an agreement?

TRIPALO: I think that Croatia could take that as a platform for talks, which does not mean that it has to accept all the elements of that document. This all the more, because our Law on the Rights of Ethnic Communities contains, as far Serbian autonomy is concerned, most of the proposed things. Naturally, not the proposals on a special currency, flag and some other things, but there is the possibility of creating a legislative, executive and two-tiered judicial authority. Hence, if we proceed from the fact that those offering the document do not take the principle "take or leave it" as their point of departure, but consider it a basis for negotiations, probably both sides would have to make some compromises. And probably, neither will be fully satisfied, but such is the nature of political compromise.

AIM: What do you think about the proposals of Serbian politicans in Croatia, outside the so called Krajina, such as Djukic, Pupovac and others, who think that the qualification of the Serbian people as a constituent people would be the real basis for an agreement?

TRIPALO: I think that that is out of the question. That is a principle which functioned in quite different political circumstances, during the socialist Yugoslavia and the specific relations among the peoples comprising it. However, after its break-up it is completely unacceptable for another people in Croatia to enjoy a status which would enable it, for example by its veto or some other similar instrument, to participate in the crucial issues of political life. That formula would indeed give the Serbs in Croatia a state within a state.

AIM: You were late in joining political life before the first multi-party elections, more by support than by a firm decision to participate in it. Do you think that that was a political mistake and that you could have, perhaps, in a different and more efficient way helped Croatia at those crucial and delicate moments?

TRIPALO: Yes, I think I made a mistake. Our generation of 1971 was convinced that our political time had passed and that the political scene should be left to new, fresher political generations. However, I think that we were wrong, that policies of highly questionable value took over the political scene on which we could have played an important role, had we organized ourselves in time. I am convinced that if we had managed to assert ourselves, and I am equally sure that we could have done that, many things in Croatia would be different and such disastrous mistakes would certainly not have been committed.

AIM: Do you think that with the Action of Social Democrats you can make up for that?

TRIPALO: I am convinced that the social democratic option in Croatia, if it gets a real, strong and organized party, can quickly become a political factor to be reckoned with. Some polls show that united Social Democrats could win up to 30 percent of the electorate. I shall contribute to that to the best of my abilities.

STOJAN OBRADOVIC