Posted on 01/30/2023 4:32:03 PM PST by Mariner
SARAJEVO (Reuters) - Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014, will never again be part of Ukraine, Croatian President Zoran Milanovic said on Monday in remarks detailing his objection to Zagreb providing military aid to Kyiv.
In December, Croatian lawmakers rejected a proposal that the country join a European Union mission in support of the Ukrainian military, reflecting deep divisions between Milanovic and Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic.
A vocal critic of Western policy in Ukraine, Milanovic has said he does not want his country, the EU's newest member state, to face what he has called potentially disastrous consequences over the 11-month-old war in Ukraine.
What the West is doing about Ukraine "is deeply immoral because there is no solution (to the war)," Milanovic told reporters during a visit to military barracks in the eastern town of Petrinja, referring to Western military support for Kyiv.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
This was discussed in another thread.
The Croatian president does not and cannot speak for the nation, as he does not have any real political authority. The head of government is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has authority to speak for and on behalf of the nation.
Milanovic is well known as being pro-Russia.
Yep, he has no power whatsoever.
But the Croatian parliament declined to participate in the EU mission to help Ukraine militarily.
Never understood why, if break-up of countries into separate, ethnic entities like Yugoslavia, Serbia, Czechoslavakia, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc... was permitted to achieve peace - why did the West never allow that for Ukraine?
“Article 94 of Croatia’s constitution: “The President of the Republic of Croatia is the head of state. The President of the Republic shall represent the Republic at home and abroad.”
Yes! But only pursuant to the position of the Croatian GOVERNMENT! He has no authority to take an official position that goes against the position of the national government. That’s why members of the Croatian parliament are condemning his comments as not being representative of the Croation government. He is head of STATE; he is NOT head of GOVERNMENT. So, when some foreign bigwig dies it is the Croatian president who attends the funeral as a representative of the Croatian nation. He can’t commit Croatia to anything that is not approved by the Croation government, because he does not have that authority under the Croatian constitution. He can go to funerals and break champagne bottles against the bows of ships, but politically not too much more than that.
You need to read the current Croatian constitution in its entirety, not just one clause, which you have taken out of context.
“But the Croatian parliament declined to participate in the EU mission to help Ukraine militarily.”
Wrong. Croatia’s Minister of Defense announced on February 28, 2022 that Croatia had approved sending military equipment to Ukraine.
Link:
www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/croatia-s…
Thank you for correcting me.
“Thank you for correcting me.”
You just misspoke. I don’t think you intentionally meant to misrepresent.
You are mistaken. The president is head of state in Croatia. You can look it up if you wish.
I’ve been watching this guy for years. He’s the best president they’ve ever elected. There are some similarities between Ukraine and Croatia, but they only go so far.
Anyway, he has refused to meet with neo-Nazis, including neo-Nazi military veteran groups. Not so long ago, that was political anathema in Croatia and he is the first president of Croatia to take that stand. Good on him, as the Aussies say.
There was some fuss awhile back about Croat skinheads running off to Ukraine to join up with AZOV and similar groups. That seems to have died down after Mariupol.
Just going by his looks, he appears to be from Dalmatia. Good people there, mostly.
“You are mistaken. The president is head of state in Croatia. You can look it up if you wish.”
Go back and read the thread. I already said he is head of STATE, but he is not head of GOVERNMENT.
Charles III is the British head of STATE, but the Prime Minister is the British head of GOVERNMENT. The head of state — unless he or she is also the head of government — is more or less just a figurehead with limited and well-defined roles.
Charles III can’t declare war on his own: Parliament alone has the power and legal authority to declare war; the declaration then goes to the monarch for his or her signature (strictly a formality because Charles III — as a CONSTITUTIONAL monarch — is required by law to act in accordance with the advice of the elected government, usually through the Prime Minister, and he or she cannot ignore this advice. Likewise, Charles III can’t even give a speech, or make any public pronouncement that affects the nation, without having it first approved by Parliament.
Croatia is similar as to its president and his role vis-a-vis the parliament.
No, it is NOT similar to Charles III and the British Parliaent. Not by a long shot. The British have a constitutional monarchy. Croatia is a constitutional republic. Its form of government is similar to Serbia’s, Bosnia-Hercegovina’s and Ukraine’s. Milanović is to Croatia as Zelensky is to Ukraine. The president of Croatia *does* have the authority to declare war, etc. Look it up.
I lived there for some years and dealt with Croatian government officials on a number of levels, and I know how their government works. The prime minister is appointed by the president, BTW.
You were making a big deal of Milanovic being head of state. Your post#11.
So, I pointed out to you that head-of-state is not the same as head-of-government (unless in a nation whose leader exercises absolute power and is accountable to no one). I cited Charles III as an example: He is head of state, but he is not head of government. His role as head of state is limited and, under British law, largely ceremonial. The role of the president of Croatia is somewhat similar: POLITICAL power rests with the prime minister and parliament; just as in Britain.
“The president of Croatia *does* have the authority to declare war, etc. Look it up.”
I did, and he has no such arbitrary or unilateral power:
Article 81 of the Croatian constitution: “The Croatian Parliament shall decide on war and peace.
Article 100 of the Croatian constitution: “Pursuant to a DECISION OF THE CROATIAN PARLIAMENT, the President of the Republic may declare war and conclude peace. In the event of a clear and present danger to the independence, integrity and existence of the Republic of Croatia, the President of the Republic may, WITH THE COUNTERSIGNATURE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, order the employment of the armed forces even if a state of war has not been declared.”
The above clearly states that Parliament declares war, and the president makes the formal pronouncement. That is similar to our system here in the US: Congress declares war, and the president signs it. Remember, in 1941 FDR went to Congress and formally ASKED Congress to declare war on Japan: He had no legal authority whatsoever to unilaterally or arbitrarily declare war. Likewise, neither does the Croatian president.
Here is the consolidated text of the Croatian constitution:
The_consolidated_text_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Croatia_as_of_15_January_2014.pdf (usud.hr)
So, more similar to our president’s power to declare war, eh? https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973
It is hard for Americans to understand the Croatian (and Ukrainian and Serbian, etc., forms of government. You seem to have it mixed up with constitutional monarchies (the UK, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.) and Commonwealth states (Canada, Australia, etc.) which is understandable as Americans are more familiar with those. Yes, in those countries the PM is the top dog and head of government.
Under the Croatian form, the prime minister is more analogous to our Speaker of the House (if we had no Senate — Croatia has a unicameral system whereas we have a bicameral system with both Senate and House — they have only the Sabor, which is translated as “parliament”.) Similar to our Speaker, their prime minister is selected by members of the Sabor. Unlike our Speaker, their PM is formally appointed by their president.
Ukraine has a very similar system. Do you think Zelensky is some ceremonial figurehead as you seem to imagine Croatia’s president is? You really do seem to have it confused with constitutional monarchy/Commonwealth type systems. Croatia does not have such a system, nor does Ukraine.
“So, more similar to our president’s power to declare war, eh?”
Yes. Our president can’t declare war; only Congress can do that. Our president can ask Congress to declare war (as FDR did in 1941).
“You seem to have it mixed up with constitutional monarchies (the UK, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.) and Commonwealth states (Canada, Australia, etc.) which is understandable as Americans are more familiar with those.”
Not at all. I was just using Charles III as an example of a head of state, and not a head of government. In Britain, as in Croatia, the head of government is superior to the head of state as to authority and power.
“Under the Croatian form, the prime minister is more analogous to our Speaker of the House...”
No, it is more analogous to Britain’s parliamentary system. The majority party in parliament forms the government (or a coalition of parties if there is no majority), and the leader of that party, or coalition, becomes prime minister; and the prime minister (or premier, or chancellor; whatever that particular system calls it) is head of government. The prime minister can be removed by a vote of no confidence, a vote in which all members of parliament — not just the majority party or coalition — get to vote.
In contrast, our SOTH is elected by the entire House of Representatives (though the Speaker is usually the choice of the majority party), and our SOTH is NOT head of government; but, he or she controls and sets the agenda for the House, one part of a three-branch constitutional government. A SOTH can be removed by a majority vote of all members of the House, once a “motion to vacate” is introduced and accepted.
“Unlike our Speaker, their PM is formally appointed by their president.”
Again it is more similar to Britain’s parliamentary system. This is from the website of the Croatian parliament (https://vlada.gov.hr/en):
“After the Government has been given a vote of confidence by a majority of Members of Parliament, and when the Prime Minister and the members of the Government have been sworn in before Parliament, the Government becomes responsible to the Parliament, which supervises the work of the Government. AFTER THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY, the Speaker of Parliament co-signs with the President of the Republic a decision to appoint and, with the Prime Minister, the appointment of members of the Government.”
So, you see, it’s really a formality: In both Britain and Croatia the parliament passes a vote of confidence that the majority party or coalition of parties will form a government, and the Prime Minister is selected and sworn in as head of that government. Then, the head of state (Charles III in Britain and Milanovic in Croatia) FORMALLY asks the Prime Minister form a government.
“Ukraine has a very similar system. Do you think Zelensky is some ceremonial figurehead as you seem to imagine Croatia’s president is?”
The Rada (Ukrainian parliament) granted Zelensky emergency powers.
“You really do seem to have it confused with constitutional monarchy/Commonwealth type systems.”
No, but I think YOU do. There are similarities, as I have shown.
“Never understood why, if break-up of countries into separate, ethnic entities like Yugoslavia, Serbia, Czechoslavakia, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc... was permitted to achieve peace - why did the West never allow that for Ukraine?”
You think there is peace in the Balkans? In the Horn of Africa?
There are also differences and similarities among systems. For instance, our Congress and Britain’s Parliament are bicameral (two chambers) systems (our Congress is comprised of a HOR and a Senate; Britain’s parliament is comprised of a House of Commons and a House of Lords). Croatia’s parliament is unicameral (only one chamber).
Agree when sinking remove rocks from pockets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.