AMERICA TURNING ITS BACK ON TUDJMAN

AIM Zagreb, 1 September, 1998

Behind closed doors, sharply, and as one of the well-informed said, horribly, and in public frankly and coldly

• Croatian president Franjo Tudjman and American secretary of state Madelaine Albright did not conceal their mutual disagreement. After the talks they had in Zagreb, they stated to the journalists that Croatia and the United States of America did not agree about the relations of Croatia with the Croats in Bosnia & Herzegovina. "We disagree about the attitude of Croatia towards the B&H Croats", said Albright. Tudjman confirmed that Bosnia & Herzegovina was the main problem in relations between America and Croatia.

The main difference between official Zagreb and official Washington is the result of contrary interpretations of the content of the peace accords. For America, the Dayton accords are a road to reconstruction of Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Tudjman still believes Bosnia & Herzegovina is a temporary creation and strategic spare territory of Croatia. That is where the extremely opposite view of the place and role of B&H Croats comes from. America thinks that homeland of B&H Croats is Bosnia & Herzegovina and demands that Tudjman act accordingly. Mentioning that she sees Bosnia & Herzegovina as a multiethnic society, Albright demanded that Zagreb interrupt its tutorship of Bosnian Croats, that it stop meddling in Bosnian elections and cease financing the army in Herzegovina. As very important, she also stressed the need that B&H Croats become part of their state, Bosnia & Herzegovina, so they could contribute to its development. "We expect that by working with Croatia we will reinforce development of a powerful and united state of Bosnia & Herzegovina", explained American secretary of state briefly and resolutely.

Tudjman felt the need to be much more verbose. He believes - this results from his elaboration - that the real, parent homeland of B&H Croats is Croatia, and that Zagreb is much closer and more important for them than their native land and the state which they live in. He suggests this order of things concerning loyalty, too. Contrary to the USA which expressly demand independence of B&H Croats from Zagreb, Croatia insists, as Tudjman said, on supporting them. Moreover, in this, he refers to solutions from Washington and Dayton agreements. Croatian president warned against "silent revision of the Dayton accords", which, according to him, is unacceptable both for the Croats in Bosnia and for Croatia. He explained that the expressed interest for B&H Croats is founded on the Constitution, but added that Croatia also has strategic interest in Bosnia & Herzegovina. He explicitly said that in agreement with the Serbs, the Muslims also were a threat to Croatia, accusing them that they had "taken steps to endanger all southern regions of the Croatian state".

Declaring himself in favour of the Washington and the Dayton accords, the Croatian president reminded that the long-abandoned but for him obviously still valid Washington agreement prescribed establishment of confederate relations between Croatia and the Federation, and that Dayton spoke about special relations. He appealed on America to help, he literally said, in consistent implementation of these agreements, "in order to solve the Bosnian crisis and in order to establish such a system which will not be a major threat to peace". With these words president Tudjman ended the meeting with Madeleine Albright. This time, American secretary of state, evidently dissatisfied, calmly let the host have the last word. Who will really have the last word - this is not going to be decided in Pantovcak anyway.

Just as he tried to convince the Croatian public on several occasions already that he was the creator of the Dayton accords, the Croatian president is now trying to impose himself on the Americans as the only authentic interpreter of the real sense of this peace document. Preaching on the Dayton accords to America, quarrelling with the head of American diplomacy, Tudjman succeeded only in unmasking himself. He revealed that his vows that he would implement the Dayton accords in fact meant nothing at all. Because what the Croatian president understands as the Dayton accords is quite the opposite from what international moderators read in it. Although some Croatian diplomats are trying to prove that insisting of both interlocutors in talks in Zagreb on "full and consistent implementation of the Dayton accords shows that differences between Croatia and the USA are not substantial", it seems more likely that it is just the opposite. The substance, that is, the Dayton accords are interpreted extremely differently by the two parties.

Media close to the regime have lately carefully elaborated Tudjman's stands. It is clear from these commentaries that the Croatian leadership marks everything that increases cohesion of Bosnia & Herzegovina as revision of peace accords. It is especially stressed that any attempt to change the peace plan which leads to creation of unitarian Bosnia & Herzegovina and united Bosnian nation is unacceptable. All ideas on united Bosnia & Herzegovina are proclaimed to be unitarianism. It is stressed that such attempts dangerously threaten the present stability of B&H and call for new war conflicts. In its commentary, Croatian Radio established literally that talk about united Bosnia & Herzegovina as a part of Europe was an attack on European democratic foundations.

Using his media as heralds Tudjman is in fact storming against the concept (which Zubak is now squeezing into his elections program) to make the Croats, along with the two other nations, a constituent nation on the entire territory of Bosnia & Herzegovina. Zagreb is trying to prove that this is contrary to the Dayton accords, becase, it is stressed, according to the accords, the Serbs are the constituent nation in Republika Srpska, and the Croats and the Bosniacs in the Federation. Zagreb is also opposed to softening of the so far rigid division of Bosnia & Herzegovina into entities. Croatian media close to the authorities claim that entities are the foundation of the Dayton accords and that their abolishment and establishment of Bosnia & Herzegovina as a united state is contrary to the peace agreement. The official Zagreb in fact believes every move which leads to reintegration of Bosnia & Herzegovina to be a revision of the Dayton accords and is therefore trying to preserve the present division. That is why it is proving that only consistent cantonization of the Federation is opportune for the Croats. Every announcement of of identification of B&H Croats with Bosnia & Herzegovina is proclaimed and condemned as an attempt to create the Bosnian nation.

Only one thing remains in the dark - why did Tudjman so sharply and unwisely, behind closed doors and on the public scene, clash with his guest. Perhaps he is starting to have a feeling that things are getting out of hand, that he cannot influence the developments in Bosnia & Herzegovina as much as he used to, that even the Croats over there are turning their backs on him. When a few days ago he tried to bring representatives of all Croatian parties in Bosnia & Herzegovina to his presidential palace, only two accepted the invitation and came. Being a prisoner of his fiction about his mission of the national sovereign, on the eve of the elections about which the Croats have seriously quarrelled, Tudjman has tried to impose himself as the president of all Croats. But his plans fell to the ground, indeed it turned out that the boss from Pantovcak has never had a worse rating in this sense.

Political lobbies claim that Washington has started to make it clear that it does not count on Tudjman as before. In Zagreb, American secretary of state Albright also met Zagreb Archbishop Josip Bozanic, leaders of six opposition parties and representatives of independent media. These meetings passed in a much better atmosphere and wirh much more understanding than the one with president Tudjman. Contrary to the Croatian president who, when asked by the guest to have political reforms be carried through in Croatia and enable freedom of the media, replied by claiming that his regime was not authoritarian, the oppositionists and journalists had views which coincided with those presented by Madeleine Albright. Six opposition parties informed her about their last week's decision on joint appearance concerning certain important questions of democratic and economic development of Croatia. It is believed that this agreement is an introduction into a joint appearance of the opposition in the next elections. American secretary of state was exceptionally pleased with the news.

JELENA LOVRIC