THE SERBS AS A BURDEN AROUND CROAT NECK

AIM Zagreb, February 14, 1996

Will the Serbs who fled at the time of operation "Storm" return to Croatia or not is not a question of choice any more, because they must return if Croatia wishes itself any good. That is what some people say, those who are convinced that financial and all the other future of Croatia depends precisely on the way "the issue of the status of the fled Serb population is resolved". One of them is Gregory Vuksich, former military attache in Belgrade and lecturer of international studies at Georgetown University, who clarifies for the weekly "Feral Tribune" that "(...) the position and meaning of Croatia in American foreign policy (and therefrom its access to Western financial cashboxes) in the future will depend mostly on two fundamental elements" - first being success or failure of the roguish "Federation", in general sincerity in signing of the Agreement (he means Dayton), and second, but not less important, "(...) to what extent official policy and daily practice in Croatia will vertify the adopted fundamental principles of human rights", which are in western consciousness, whether Croatia wishes to acknowledge it or not, linked to the issue of the Serbs who have fled, and whose return is one of the preconditions which must be met if inclination of the West is desired, and which is an obligation accepted by Franjo Tudjman when he signed the peace papers in Dayton and Paris.

Yet, it might happen that America, for reasons of real politik, will give up on human rights, forget about high moral principles and allow development of a primitive society in Croatia, not only in general outlines, but even in details, and on the other hand of the same pathology, an autocratic regime (with methods of fascism) grown on intimate feelings of fear and despotism which will primarily be cherished by the strategic position of Croatia in Western political calculations.

Washington is, namely, prepared to tolerate "a powerful regime in Croatia, perhaps even a little beyond its own standards, to the extent to which it will contribute to maintenance of peace and stability in the region and be cooperative with American interests (...)". Vuksich is convinced that international involvement in Bosnia (especially American) is mostly motivated by preservation of the "fundamental values of civilization founded on democracy and human rights", and that because of that, antidemocratic haughtiness will not be tolerated to Croatia and other Balkan states.

In the same issue of the weekly "Feral Tribune", Steven L. Burg, American Balkanologist and professor at Brandeis University gave a similar critical contribution claiming that American administration "is not pretending not to see violations of human rights and strengthening of autoritarianism in Croatia", supporting this with a statement that America "on the example of Bosnia and harsh condemnation of Serb war crimes is trying to show that without reservations it speaks in favour of human rights and punishment of their violations". But, that is exactly why, the highly esteemed Balkanologist believes, it will not tolerate roughness to others, especially now when there is no big war, and he therefore advises Croatia to get ready for political temptations which are quite certainly in line for it.

One of the temptations is indeed the already mentioned return of the Serb population to Croatia. As known, the idea acquired its form in the Presidential Statement of B.B. Ghali (in the end of December last year) which made Croatia annul all time limits for "return of the Serbs in order to reclaim their property" with a (less visible) message not to be slow about it. The Statement also advises that Croatia amends the law pursuant to which property of the Serbs who have fled became the property of the state.

A few days later, another UN Security Council Presidential Statement followed, which spoke highly of Croatia for having agreed to abolishment of the time limit for return of the refugees, but that was not all. Despite praises, B.B. Ghali demands that parts of the Constitutional Law on human rights and freedoms and rights of the minorities deleted after operation "Storm" be returned to where they used to be, in order to welcome the minority for the sake of which they were written in the first place. That is what it is like in documents. But, what is it like "on the ground"?

All such attempts to put things straight were not welcomed with sympathies in Croatia, which becomes clear when one knows that the concept of sovereignty is understood extremely adversely, pathologically even, as a possibility to do loathsome things on one's own territory (by laws, the military and the police), while foreign observers (European institutions, for example) have all the rights to disinterestedly look on, because anything more than that would indeed mean meddling in the sovereignty of an internationally recognized, independent and bla, bla... state, especially if motives of supervision and correcting are "anti-Croat", that is "pro-Serb", and such is every motive which the ruling party does not like. Ghali's statement was understood in the similar manner, as meddling in something Mr Arab should have passed over, since in this way, and there is the catch, the militant part of the Croat authorities were nolens volens, forced to become aware of their position which is for many of them quite painful.

Nevertheless, despite his old-man's obstinacy, Mr Tudjman as an experienced general-staff personnel officer, finally realized that he would have to dance in the rhythm kept by more powerful factors, that he must abide by the rules he had not created. And this is not easy, because many dreams disappear in such situations. For instance, had there been no international disciplining by means of "the carrot and the whip", the problem with the Serbs who had "taken their dirty underwear and dinars with them" would have been settled once and for all this spring when temporary taking over of their property would have become final, and therefore, the possibility of return of those Serbs who wish to return at all costs (if they have where to return) would have been put ad acta and blown in the wind, as it was (and still is, but less possible) the open aim of Tudjman and his team.

Nevertheless, the Government has inventively drawn out a joker according to which, return of the Serbs will be resolved along with other issues in the package marked as "normalization of Croat-Serb relations", meaning with great difficulties, filthily, and "gradually", which implies that refugees (of all colours and patterns) will remain outsiders in someone else's game, caught between two violent and insane national-chauvinisms, in other words, their position will remain unchanged. For a long time they will be what they have been from the beginning - people who can easily be forced to believe any nonsense uttered in their name. On the other hand, Croatia believes, not without a pinch of salt, that this concession will be worth the while, because it will enable it to grab more easily (as much as common decency allows it) from the european piggy-bank, as comfort for the sore made by its frustrated national fantasy evident in the slogan - "Croatia without Serbs".

If Tudjman agrees to such a game, with reluctance even, to joy of many, he will open quite a reliable road for the return of banished Croats to their homes. Among other, in this way, Croatia would finally be able to play a smart move. By agreeing to take back the Serbs who have fled and accepting them as its citizens which they are without any doubt, it could destroy all Serb strategic schemes to continue its haggling with space and people by colonization of Eastern Slavonia with the Serbs who have fled from Bosnia and Croatia, in order to at least keep up the illusion of a reason why people had to go to war.

Facts show that since Mr Ghali's statement, no significant step has been made in Croatia concerning return of refugees, or perhaps Mr Tudjman is carefully concealing results of his "success" from the public, in order not to disturb it. But, it is also a fact that out of the 180 thousand refugees (a few thousand more or less), only little below 600 have returned to Croatia (in fact, their applications for return have been approved which does not mean that they have actually returned), and about 4,000 applications are still awaiting the mercy of the Office for Banished Persons and Refugees of the Government of the Republic of Croatia.

How false humane and legal efforts of the administration are, only mere hipocrisy elevated to the level of high politics, is best illustrated by a recent example. A few days prior to Mr Ghali's statement, in mid December last year, deputy head of the Office for Banished Persons and Refugees, the well-known Liberal turncoat Damir Zoric said at a press conference that Croatia would do everything "a legal state is obliged to do according to international conventions" in order to have the refugees return. But, Mr Zoric added, "(...) four years of the war cannot be forgotten". But, let us add, maybe that very inability to forget is the reason why Croatia has remained at the entrance of the Council of Europe for who knows how many times. And once it is allowed to enter, it will most probably be together with Serbia, which is shocking even as a presumption for the Croats, namely, because in this way, the aggressor and the victim would be placed on the same level.

ALEN ANIC