Important international actors have considered the recent Croatian election free and fair — despite the fact that approximately 250,000 Serb-Croat citizens were unable to vote in their home country.
These Serbs fled Croatia during its military operations in 1995 — the largest single case of ethnic cleansing during the wars. They are refugees in Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, sometimes referred to as “expellees,” but they remain legitimate citizens of Croatia.
The United States, EU governments, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and various human rights organisations could have done politically in Croatia what they did in Bosnia: insist that refugees abroad be given an opportunity to influence the future of their homeland — to which many wish to return.
The relatively young state of Croatia would hardly have brushed aside such advice from President Clinton (or the very active and human rights–concerned U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith), President Chirac, Prime Minister Major or Chancellor Kohl — nor, for example, from World Bank President Wolfensohn.
Had the international community required this of Croatia, it could have been credited, for once, with pursuing a constructive and principled policy.
Had Croatia provided such an opportunity — whether under pressure or, preferably, on its own initiative — it would have demonstrated its commitment to a future based on social peace, multi-ethnicity and democracy. Instead, both sides missed a major opportunity.
One may also ask how these voters might have affected the election result,” says TFF director Jan Øberg.
Double Standards and Missed Principles
“The Dayton Agreement stipulated that any citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina whose name appeared on the 1991 census should be eligible to vote. Considerable efforts were undertaken across Europe to ensure that refugees from the Bosnian war could cast their votes while abroad.
While Serbian citizens of Croatia were prevented from voting, it is worth noting that many Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina — technically citizens of that republic — are registered as voters in Croatia and were able to vote there on election day.
Furthermore, and paradoxically, the Croatian state appears more interested in rehabilitating and welcoming back certain World War II leaders than in facilitating the return of its own displaced citizens — a troubling sign for the future.
It is true that there is no Dayton agreement for Croatia, and that Croatian election law stipulates that voters must be physically present in the country. But this is not primarily a legal matter. It is fundamentally a political issue — concerning human rights, democratic participation, reconciliation and freedom.
It is also true that voters must possess Croatian documentation in order to vote. However, this could have been arranged in advance with the assistance of relevant international organisations. The international community could have encouraged Croatia to treat its citizens in a manner similar to how Croats were treated in the Bosnian elections.
Croatia itself could have made this gesture to improve its already strained human rights record — as noted by UN Special Rapporteur Elizabeth Rehn in her reports.
A Lost Opportunity
This represents yet another sad example from the Balkans of a situation in which everyone loses in moral terms and in terms of prospects for democracy and peaceful coexistence:
- The international community,
- The Croatian government,
- And ordinary citizens.
Jan Øberg concludes that the opportunity to strengthen democracy, reconciliation and multi-ethnic coexistence was missed — once again.
© TFF PressInfo
You are welcome to reprint, copy, archive, quote or repost this item, but please retain the source.
