MINORITIES AS A FESTERING SORE

AIM ZAGREB, December 30, 1997

"National minorities are an open sore on mother country's body" - which sounds like a 150 year-old line by the Hungarian poet and revolutionary Sandor Petofi, was a guiding principle in disputes initiated by the recent Constitutional changes. The amendments proposed by President Tudjman first aimed at completely deleting the minorities from the Constitution and after that, when it turned out that the Parliament also needed the votes of some minority representatives, according to the old bargaining principle they left the Serbs, Italians and Hungarians, while deleting from the Constitution the Slovenes, Moslems, i.e. Bosniacs, as well as some other minorities.

Particularly cynical sounds the explanation why was this done to the Bosniacs. Because they are not an "autochthonous" minority in Croatia. Also, no attempt was made to explain the true meaning of this. What is the difference between the "autochthonous" and "non-autochthonous" minorities? For example, since when does a minority have to live in a country to be "autochthonous"? Since seventh century or perhaps, as of more recently? And what is most important, how can Moslems - Bosniacs be an aboriginal, i.e. an "autochthonous" minority when they have been recognized as a nation only recently? They have been registered as a nation for the first time during the 1961 census.

An old cartoon from newspapers illustrates well what censuses were like before this. A census-taker asks: "Haso, are you a Serb or a Croat...?" Haso replies: "Yes!" According to the logic of those in charge of interpreting the amendment which has recently become a part of the Croatian Constitution, the Moslems-Bosniacs would not be autochthonous even in Bosnia and Herzegovina!

The Slovenes immediately accepted the Croatian theory on autochthony. When the omission of their Slovene fellow-countrymen, citizens of Croatia, from the Croatian Constitution raised dust in Slovenia someone came up with the idea of checking the corresponding Slovenian document. It turned out that it specifically mentions Italians and Hungarians, but not Croats. An explanation ensued that it was only logical as they are not "autochthonous" in Slovenia. The offered miraculous formula stated that the Croats came only in 1945, while the Slovenes were in Croatia "from times immemorial".

But: - Why is it important for today's generations of Slovenes in Croatia and Croats in Slovenia when did their fathers, grandfathers or great grandfathers come as settlers to these parts? What has that got to do with human rights, including the right to national affiliation? What about Slovenes who came to Croatia after 1945? According to this Slovenian standard of autochthony, does this mean that there should be two kinds of Slovenes; those who settled before 1945 and are autochthonous and those who came after that and are therefore not a national minority? Do they at least have a right to be recognized as a minority? Does anyone dare claim that there are very few of such Slovenes? Was it not precisely from the Slovenes that we learned the defiant slogan: "We refuse to be counted!" with which they resisted the Austrian nationalists in Austrian Carinthia who wanted to deny them their national rights on the basis of the results of the census?

The answer to all these questions are self-explanatory in a civilized world which has left nationalism in the fog and mud of history. However, on the territory of former Yugoslavia the sound of nationalistic sirens is still the loudest. "One should bear in mind the fact that impartiality is not a virtue in the Balkan historiography", wrote the famous British historian Eric J.Hobsbawn in a footnote on the pages of his (last) book "Nations and Nationalism".

A biassed history (more precisely a history that is understood as a collection of national myths) is but a servant of the same policy. And partiality, double standards, are the very essence of a nationalistic policy. What we are permitted they are not, what applies to us doesn't apply to them, etc. Accordingly, for Milosevic's policy the Albanians are a minority in Serbia, but the Serbs (were) are a constitutive nation in Croatia; for Tudjman's policy, the Serbs (were even before the exodus) are a minority in Croatia, but the Croats are a constitutive nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina...It doesn't matter that there is not much difference in their share in total population. "We refuse to be counted..." We shall only count the others.

    In its letter to the Croatian President Tudjman the

National Community of the Bosniacs of Croatia refers to its "historic foundation in the Croatian state", its "long life" and "presence" which "never stopped on the Croatian soil". They argue that no one can be an exception in times when patriotic songs are constantly sung and national trumpets are blown. How can one nation defend its "national, human, social and economic rights" (says the letter in which they demand to be re-included in the Constitution) if it is not ancient, but exists only as of 1961, if it was not always there, a European and not a Balkan nation, etc. In short, if it is not "autochthonous".

    In a way more sinister that this quibbling about who

is "autochthonous" and who is not, is a bureaucratic attempt to resolve the problem by the so called reciprocity. In other words, I will treat you the way you treat me; the position of Slovenes in Croatia will be resolved in the same way as the position of Croats in Slovenia. In this way reciprocity, as a normal practice in international relations (e.g. in the abolition of visas), is transferred to the sphere of inter-ethnic relations. The state and the nation are equalized meaning that a state can deny its own citizens the rights resulting from citizenship if they are of unsuitable nationality.

What is it all about is easily deduced from the statement of one of the most well-known Croatian opposition leaders speaking in favour of the return of all Serbian refugees to Croatia, but under the condition that all Croats are allowed to return to Bosanska Posavina. It is normal (but, unfortunately, not easily implemented) for all people to have a chance to return to their homes and enjoy life in full security. And immediately, i.e. simultaneously. But, something else is in question here. Asked who can condition the return of its citizens to their state by actions of another state towards its citizens, the above mentioned politician curtly and resolutely replied: "They are not my citizens, but are my nation"!

This is a precise definition of a state as a community with blood cells. When it comes to blows it will be clear who is a citizen, but a second-class citizen. Who in Croatia is not a Croat, who in Slovenia is not a Slovene...etc. Who is a virus in mother country's organism. Who is a festering sore on its body. And who may lose everything if that suits some Croats and Slovenes, even if they are from New Zealand.

The very fact that whenever and wherever possible attempts are made to exclude minorities from the Constitution (in other words, place them outside the law) best shows how the current regimes see them. But, at the same time they thereby define the character of their states. It is common knowledge that the level of democracy, respect of human rights, functioning of the state of law, equality of all citizens before the law, etc. are inter alia, measured precisely by the relation towards minorities. Fanatic nationalists wonder what these minorities want? Isn't it enough that we let them live here? But, fighting for a line in constitutions, members of minorities are at the same time fighting for a democracy in countries whose citizens they are.

A brilliant Croatian dramatist and columnist, Slobodan Snajder, once wrote that anti-semitism had nothing to do with the Jews. When you nurture hate someone has to be its object. If not today, then tomorrow. This is what the representatives of minorities have forgotten when they made a deal and at someone else's expense voted "yes" in the Croatian Parliament. And some 150 years ago in Sandor Petofi's homeland, Croats were a minority. An open sore on its body. Although they lived where they live now. In their homeland.

MILAN GAVROVIC