Posted on 02/07/2003 2:16:24 PM PST by Utah Girl
Except in Fidel Castro's island prison and in the hermit Stalinist state of North Korea, it is widely acknowledged today that Communism is a spent force. This view is especially accepted with respect to Europe, where most would agree that the implosion of the Soviet empire swept Marxist-Leninism into the dustbin of history. Yet as Karl Marx himself once observed: "History repeats itself — the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."
Nowhere is this more true than in modern-day Croatia. As most of Eastern Europe continues to progress toward free-market reforms and Western-style democracy, this small Balkan state is even today making a return to Communism.
Socialist prime minister Ivica Racan came to power in early 2000 on a platform of economic reform, democratic renewal, and an end to the authoritarian policies of Croatia's previous president, the late Franjo Tudjman. But instead of ushering a Quiet Revolution, the current leftist government has returned the country to a neo-Titoist dark age.
The ruling coalition is full of former Communists who served under the old Yugoslav regime. Tito's police state persecuted the Croats and was responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of peasants, priests, intellectuals, and pro-democracy dissidents; long-term economic and environmental devastation; and the loss of basic freedoms and human rights. Both Mr. Racan and President Stipe Mesic were lifelong members of the Communist party; and, to this day, they retain a Marxist mindset.
Hostile to their country's successful bid for independence from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, Racan and Mesic are promoting Croatia's entry into the Balkan Stability Pact — an attempt to reforge a Balkan union, minus Slovenia and plus Albania.
Racan and Mesic have never forgiven Mr. Tudjman for what they regard to be his greatest sin: breaking up Yugoslavia and forging an independent Croatian state. For the past three years there has been a systematic campaign in the state-run media (including television) to vilify Croat patriots. Prominent anti-Communist writers and journalists have been fired from newspapers and replaced with pro-leftist hacks, who spout the government's line on almost every issue.
A classic example of this is the country's preeminent weekly magazine, Globus. Globus regularly publishes articles and editorials that are more reminiscent of the Communist flagship, Pravda, in the Cold War years than of a modern, Western news magazine. Writers at Globus often inject their articles with factual inaccuracies and fabrications of statements in order to wage smear campaigns against government opponents. As one journalist in Zagreb told me: "They will frequently call someone for an interview and regardless of what that person says, they will print the story that they want — never mind about the truth."
Gordan Malic, one of the magazine's prominent neo-Stalinists, has stated that the Mesic-Racan regime should fire every conservative from the state-run media. Sadly, his views are echoed by many other leftists, both in the press and in the government, who seek to impose an ideological uniformity like that of the Titoist era, when journalists were expected to act as mouthpieces for the Communist party.
The attachment to old-style Communist practices can also be seen in Mr. Racan's economic policies. The government has vowed to bring Croatia into the European Union by 2006. Yet it has no viable plan on how to achieve that goal. Rather than implementing an aggressive pro-growth agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and free-market reforms, the ruling leftist coalition remains wedded to statism and massive government intervention in the economy.
The powers that be have made only tepid efforts at privatization — while doing nothing to scale back the bloated public bureaucracy that is stifling entrepreneurship and private investment. Moreover, they have also failed to clamp down on the economic culture of cronyism and corruption passed down from the Communist era. Bribery and payoffs to public officials remain a prominent fixture of business in Croatia. Rather than waging a war on corruption and providing an attractive climate for foreign investors, Racan's economic team has remained paralyzed. Having looked to Belgrade for decades to bail out inefficient state-run companies, Zagreb's former Titoists have based their economic strategy on milking international aid out of Brussels and Washington. Yet contrary to their expectations, significant Western financial assistance has not materialized.
The country is now an economic basket case. The unemployment rate is over 23 percent — a significant increase since the anemic Tudjman years. Zagreb is also saddled with a nearly $10 billion foreign debt. Its annual per capita income is slightly more than $4,000 — half that of neighboring Slovenia and only 60 percent of what it was before Croatia became independent, in 1991. The government's dismal economic record — combined with its inability to defend the country's leading generals, such as Janko Bobetko and Ante Gotovina, from deeply flawed and weak indictments by the Balkans war-crimes tribunal — has led to a substantial loss of support among the electorate.
Mr. Racan is likely to lose the national elections to be called sometime this spring. Yet his greatest asset is the fractured conservative opposition, which remains mired in bitter infighting and which has been unable to coalesce around a unifying message or candidate. The main opposition party, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), is surging in the opinion polls. But its leader, Ivo Sanader, is a vacuous technocrat who has failed to articulate a coherent economic platform. Mr. Sanader's bigger problem is a political one: He fails to understand that in order to attain an electoral majority he needs to forge a broad, center-right coalition capable of assuming power. Rather than reaching out to potential allies, he remains obsessed with consolidating his hold over the HDZ by waging a nasty purge campaign against all opponents within his own party. The result is that the HDZ has peaked at 30 percent in the polls — a significant political force, but one that remains unable to attract a majority of voters.
Meanwhile, other rightist parties led by Tudjman's son, Miroslav, and Sanader's arch-enemy, Ivic Pasalic, are championing a xenophobic nationalism which does not appeal to the mainstream of the electorate. The danger is that the country's political landscape will become increasingly polarized between the governing hard Left and the right-wing, nationalist opposition, leaving Croatia paralyzed and unable to confront its economic crisis. The Bush administration rightly views Zagreb as pivotal to helping the region recover from the devastation caused by the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Croatia's slide into economic and social turmoil remains a threat to the long-term stability of the Balkans.
Yet instead of cultivating a viable alternative to the neo-Communists in power, policymakers in the State Department continue to insist that Racan's brand of leftist internationalism is precisely what the region needs following a decade of ethnic conflict. They are wrong. The problem in the Balkans is not the persistence of nationalism, but the emergence of imperialist ideologies that foster ethnic and religious hatred. The savage wars in the former Yugoslavia were unleashed by Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal desire to forge an ethnically pure Great Serb empire stretching from the Danube River to the Adriatic Sea. Today, the greatest threat to peace stems from the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which seeks to either wipe out or convert all Christians in the region. The country now serves as a base for al Qaeda operatives. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, continues to send millions of dollars in aid to "humanitarian" agencies that encourage Bosnian Muslims to promote the doctrines of Wahhabism, a particularly intolerant and puritanical version of Islam. The result has been numerous acts of terror perpetrated upon innocent civilians — especially Catholic Croats. During the past several years, Catholic churches in and around Sarajevo have been vandalized by Islamic extremists. The latest incident occurred on Christmas Eve, when three Croats — a father and his two daughters — were gunned down in their home by an Islamic militant near the town of Konjic, for celebrating Christmas.
As the Bush administration remains focused on Iraq, North Korea, and other trouble spots, it has overlooked the fact that Bosnia is gradually becoming a haven for Saudi mullahs and the fanatical followers of Osama bin Laden. If unchecked, the growth of radical Islam will destabilize the Balkans, plunging it once again into bloodshed and religious conflict. Because Zagreb shares a long, porous border with Bosnia, it, more than any other regional power, has a profound stake in ensuring that Muslim fundamentalism does not emerge as a serious force.
A stable and prosperous Croatia is vital to Western security interests because it is a pivotal front-line state in the war against global terrorism. For centuries, the Croats served as the ramparts of European Christendom, protecting Rome and Vienna from invading Ottoman armies. Washington would be wise to demand that Zagreb again take up its historic role as a strategic bulwark against Islamic expansionism on the continent. But that can only happen after the reign of Racan and his allies has ended.
— Jeffrey T. Kuhner is an assistant national editor at the Washington Times. He is currently writing a book on the history of the Croat-Serb conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
Dalmations did not show the same animosity towards their Serbian (many of whom were Roman Catholic) population. It is no wonder that Starcevic and his ilk was a political factor of a certain class of people.
The many "Illyrian" Croatians, whose movement was later transformed into a "Yugoslav" initiative, had a completely different opinion of Serbs, but they did not represent an average Croatian Joe. In fact, the Croatian intellectual and emigre elite that wanted union with Serbia was eons apart form its ethnic cousins who worshipped Starcevic, Frank and others.
But, go, if you must! Maybe where you dwell it's okay to mix apples and oranges. We have higher standards. Hasta la vista, baby!
You have a point about common dangers faced by Serbs and Croats, and I count expansionist Islam and imperialists from the west who shall remain unnamed as the two major ones. However, the latter danger has cast its lot with the former, at least in the Balkans, and pretty much has both Serbia and Croatia under its boot. Self-destructive behavior to be sure, but until such sponsorship ends don't you think the Serbs and Croats will be hamstrung in effectively meeting the threat you identified?
As I said, "the attitude of the Republic of Croatia is exactly what caused the war in the first place and made a political solution almost impossible."
The status of the Croatians inside RSK or 'Greater Serbia' should have been negotiated. The same goes for the Serbs in Herceg-Bosna and the rest of 'Greater-Croatia'. My oppinion is that both minorities (Serbs in Croatia, Croats in Serbia) should have gained full citizen status in both countries and 'cultural autonomy' after a final agreement and the necessary redrawing of borders and seperation for a stable geopolitical solution in the former Yugoslavia and for their nations to prosper. Tudman's degrading of Croatia's Serbs from a constituent nation to a minority wasn't the best thing to do at that time. Instead we have now foreign occupation and masters dictating the nations in the former Yugoslavia their political will.
First of all, show me where Garashanin's work equals or even smacks of Starcevic's. Oh, wait, it's obvious you know about it, but you have never read Nachertanie. That much is obvious. His work had nothing to do with Croats, it did not demonize, dehumanize, marginalize, etc. Croats. In fact, the bullwork of this was made by Polish emigres in Istanbul. The fact that you are tossing names as if you know what you are talking about is a smoke screen, along with labeling others as bigots when you have nothing more constructive to say.
So, hot shot, we should do away with history, right? Tradition, those who died for a cause, etc. all that's meaningless. Ah, if we could only have more pragmatists like you.
You have Islamophobia? Are you doing something about it? Or are you just wasting your time passing labels on chat forums? Got anything more constructive than "set aside your differences" and mixing apples and organes and betraying your utter inability to tell them appart?
Serbs had vested interests to protect their status. If they were in the same rot as their Croatians neighbors, the serfs, they would have had every reason to be on the same political wavelength. Some politicians exploited that, as all politicians do. Like, people in "real" and pragmatic democracies don't fall for BS?
If Croatians just minded their own business instead of posting inaccurate articles I am sure most of the freepers on this forum would never find it necessary to even mention them. It's mind over matter: I don't mind and they don't matter!.
So two of us Christians can't make mends while the Islamic boogeymen have a meeting in Travnik. What are we to do? Stop them? With what? RS police? The phantom "Herceg-Bosna" storm troopers? Or maybe just use NATO or SFOR? Bosnia is occupied and ruled by a Western proconsul who makes laws by decree and fires elected oficials. Travnik is in the middle of Bosnian "Muslimania," the heartland of Islamic fundamentalism which, by the way, is not illegal.
History is important to put things into a sensinble perspective because, like you, some people are confused and a vast majority of people on our forum don't know the origins of some of the problems, so this is done for their benefit, to promote understanding of what made the mess in the Balkans.
You have already mentioned the Islamic threat several times. I am anxiously waiting for a constructive proposal what to do about it? And when you are at it, why don't you tell those feuding Christians in Ireland to "set aside their differences?"
If we only knew exactly how many of the population entered Serbia from other parts of former Y between the 1991 census and the 2002 census and how many of each ethnicity, then we'd have a better picture.
UNHCR showed 650,000 refugees entered Serbia from Croatia and BiH as of December 1995. UNHCR estimated about 527,000 of those refugees from Croatia and BiH whom they consider "persons of concern" still remained in Serbia as of December 2002. The UNHCR figures are an undercount because they don't count people who never registered with UNHCR (many didn't) nor those who joined relatives or otherwise "integrated into society."
The Serb government figure for refugees entering Serbia between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995 is 705,622. It also says there are an additional 200,000 registered internally displaced persons who entered Serbia in 1999 from Kosovo and remain (an additional 29,000 in Montenegro).
I'm really not sure how to estimate the actual number of people who entered Serbia from BiH, Croatia and Kosovo after the 1991 census and remained there for the 2001 census. For the purposes of this post, I'll use an estimate of 750,000 (some NGOs claim it's more like a million, but they're trying solicit funds for "the poor refugees" and "the children"). If anyone has a more accurate figure, please let me know.
I know all these 750,000 are not Serbs, but the vast majority are Serbs, so for rough estimating purposes, I'll treat them as though they are all Serbs.
Okay, total population of Serbia (minus Kosovo) according to the 1991 census was 7,822,795. In 2002, the total was 7,498,001 for a net population loss of 324,794, or 4.15%. Setting aside the 750,000 refugees, the population loss was 1,074,794, or 13.74% Some loss is attributable to the already-low birth rate of 1.74 in 1990, which declined even further over the past decade to 1.48 in 1999. Since 1992, the death rate has exceeded the birth rate. A decline in population would have been expected from this alone, but surely wouldn't have accounted for more than 3.5%???
I can't find any firm figures on migration out of Serbia (other than those who were refugees to start with and those figures aren't solid, either). I've seen estimates of 5%-10% over the course of the decade. If anyone knows the actual figures, please post them. UNHCR says 9,000 ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina emigrated to Hungary between 1991 and 1995; the Hungarian State Department folks say unofficially that an additional 6,000 - 9,000 draft-dodgers (males of various ethnicities of military age, mainly younger ones) emigrated from Serbia to/through Hungary that they know of.
Serbs: According to the 1991 census, there were 6,045,000 Serbs in Serbia, constituting 77.27% of the total population. The 2002 census shows 6,200,000, or 82.69% of the total population, a gain of 155,000 or 2.56%.
Taking the estimated 750,000 refugees out of the equation, Serbs constitute 80.76% of the non-refugee population, and there were 595,000 fewer non-refugee Serbs in 2002, a decline of 9.84%. (Again, this is VERY rough, because all the refugees are not Serbs, and I don't know the actual number of refugees, just using that 750,000 guesstimate.)
Croats: In 1991, there were 93,874 Croats in Serbia, or 1.2%. The 2002 census lists 70,602 Croats constituting 0.94% of the population, a loss of 23,272 or 24.92%. Again, disregarding the 750,000 and assuming for estimation purposes that they are all non-Croats, then Croats account for 1.05% of the non-refugee population.
I could continue on with Hungarians, Roma, etc., but since it would just be rough estimates, won't. Anyway, when you look at the picture in terms of the non-refugee population, it's rather a different picture, isn't it? There is still a larger net loss percentage-wise of minorities like Croats and Hungarians than of Serbs (indicating they felt social/political pressure to leave, and/or that they could claim such as minorities to get the heck out of an economic Dodge), but Serbs lost population, too.
If you can give more figures, I'd appreciate it. It would be interesting.
It would also be interesting to know when and why people left Serbia.
I could continue on with Hungarians, Roma, etc., but since it would just be rough estimates, won't. Anyway, when you look at the picture in terms of the non-refugee population, it's rather a different picture, isn't it? There is still a larger net loss percentage-wise of minorities like Croats and Hungarians than of Serbs (indicating they felt social/political pressure to leave, and/or that they could claim such as minorities to get the heck out of an economic Dodge), but Serbs lost population, too.
There were some Croats cleansed out of Kosovo after NATO's war by the Albanians: THE CROATS FROM KOSOVO HEADING FOR LIKA
I've heard of at least one Serb refugee family swapping their home in Croatia for a Croat's in Sombor. Also, during the bombing Serbs left Serbia and went to Bosnia (RS) and some Croatian Serb refugees there tried to return to their homes in Croatia. However, because of the hostile attitude towards Serbs in Croatia, I'll bet they couldn't stay, whereas any Croats or Hungarians in Serbia fleeing the bombing or hard economic situation of the past decade would be more accepted by Croatia and Hungary respectively than any Serb.
Sorry to say,you haven`t got a clue!
But,I am gratefull to you for opening my eyes:nothing in Balkans is black or white!?
But,why are your flipant remarks and posts so black and white?
You remind me of Hoplite:if you don`t like the answer you throw insults!
Furthermore,I agree with Kosta that you like throwing arround names,but without a basic,let alone,profound knowlege about names (people)mentioned or their work!
Starchevich and Ilia Garashanin are incomparable.In every sense.
And,let me tell you something about ideas:they don`t have a sell by date.
Ilia Garashanin was a foreign minister in Serbia,when he had "drawn" a "Blueprint"(Nachertanie).The year was 1848,the time of massive European Romanticysm and revival of national aspirations of many nations in Mittel Europa!Chechs and Slovacs,Poles ...When Garashanin made Nachertanie it was a desire of an occupied,semi-indenpendent Christian nation under Islam,to be indenpendent after 450 years.And of one nation to live together,in the same state.
At that time,there was no Croatian state,just Habzburg Empire.Garashanin does not talk about Croats ,wish them no evil.There is no criticisum of other nations,or racism!
Nachertanie was a private document,which was not published,or implemented it practice.
Garashanin did not organize a political party (like Starchevich) and he was not spreading inflamatory hatred to Serbian people!Serbia,at that time had more important problems to deal with.
Serbia could have created Grater Serbia at the end of the WWI,but it did not,because the idea has never been official policy of Serbian people.
To compare Garashanin and Starchevich is ridiculous and loughable.Know the subject,Wonk,before you start lecturing some of us.
Your disregard and disrespect for history is dangerous and very contradictory!?
You want to deal with Islamic presence in Balkans by forcing Balkanoids to "stop wallowing in history",which is,I guess,un-American way of thinking,right!And,we are all stupid idiots.But,problem is,you have discovered Islamic(fundamentalist) threat after 9/11.That is the day when history has begun,because,USA was hit!
Well,you`re only 600 years late.pall!
So,now,we all have to say :Yes,Sir! and abandone all that has happened before,because,you say so?
Only your pain is relevant,and your version of history.
But,thank you for the marching orders,anyway!
And,don`t think that you are "power in charge".
Maybe,your government is...No wonder that your posts look like Rumsfelds memos!
Don`t insult other people and be arrogant.You don`t have a credit on FR to do that.
And,if you don`t like Balkan threads,you can always go away!
Does that number include the refugees from the occupied territories? My understanding was that they're not citizens of Yu or its successor, so I infer that they wouldn't be Serb citizens either. Would (assuming they are) non-citizens be counted in the census?
The Serb population overall did not increase that much, as noted in the census. This may have to do with the official refugee status, citizenship and so on. In 1991, because Kosovo was included (estimated), the Serbs constituted only just over 2/3 of the population, with 1 in 5 persons being Albanian.
Besides, there are people who emigrated (brain-drain, like Dr. Branicap), who were killed and so on. The census is a gauge but it must be taken witha grain of salt.
You draw "conclusions" such as "Croats are evil Nazis and Serbs are heroic victims" (where did you get that, who on this forum wrote that?).
You mix apples and oranges, which shows you have no understanding of the subject matter.
You state the problems, but don't specify solutions. I am still waiting for your "solutions" FPW!
You accuse that we live in 'delusions' which takes us away from getting Kosovo back. And what would that course of action be, if you don't mind me asking your esteemed opinion on this? Taking it, as by force? By the Ghandi-style walk-in into Goa -- all 7.2 million Serbs just walking into Kosovo, what? Kosovo, with 2 million Albaninas, is the last thing Serbia needs right now. They can negotiate partition, resettlement, and so on, but Serbia does not need 20% of sworn enemies in its mids.
And yes, Serbs have been stupid at times, biting more than they can chew, but then show me one nation that doesn't fit that bill.
In short, as Branicap points out, you don't answer questions, you don't provide solutions, all you do is make sweeping generalizations and insults. Pretty pathetic.
According to the results of 1991. Census the Republic of Serbia has 9778991 inhabitants (94,1% of the population of FR Yugoslavia), of which 2013889 live in Vojvodina, 1956196 in Kosovo and Metohia (estimate) and in Belgrade, the capitol of the Republic of Serbia, 1602226 inhabitants.
I'm finding more info on emigration and will post when I've digested it.
The census is a gauge but it must be taken witha grain of salt.
Yes, a very large grain. Speaking of "brain drain" I read an essay lamenting the loss of experienced expert staticians in the Serbian census bureau.
I've heard of at least one Serb refugee family swapping their home in Croatia for a Croat's in Sombor.
Oh yes, there was house-swapping going on indeed. Sometimes three-way house-swapping between residents of Croatia, BiH and the FRY. Got complicated and sometimes gave me a headache. However, in Croatia, ethnic Serbs faced significant legal obstacles to obtaining property rights which hampered their ability to sell or swap their homes. I could go on and on about that, but won't.
Also, during the bombing Serbs left Serbia and went to Bosnia (RS) and some Croatian Serb refugees there tried to return to their homes in Croatia.
Well, the question is, did those Serbs who went to RS stay there, or return after the bombing was over? As for Croatian Serbs trying to return to their homes in Croatia, I'm not doubting you at all, but two questions: (1) How did they get there? NATO bombed the only remaining bridge between the FRY and Croatia, the Backa Palanka bridge, so they would have had to go up and around through Hungary to get there. And without having gone through the proper (and difficult and lengthy) return procedures through the Croatian ODPR, they would have been turned away at the Croatian border even if the Hungarians let them pass through. (2) What homes? I had a terrible time trying to find any standing homes for these people to return to.
...whereas any Croats or Hungarians in Serbia fleeing the bombing or hard economic situation of the past decade would be more accepted by Croatia and Hungary respectively than any Serb.
Oh yes, that's true. And not only Croatia and Hungary, but also other European countries who granted assylum to minorities from the FRY.
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.