Davor Božinovic, Croatian Ambassador to NATO in Brussels, on membership in the most powerful military alliance.
WE HAVE THE CHANCE OF BECOMING NATO MEMBERS IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS
Examination of public opinion in Croatia still shows a highly polarized attitude towards Euro Atlantic integration. According to Davor Božinovic, Croatian Ambassador to NATO in Brussels, a deeper analysis of public opinion polls shows lack of information in the first place.
Davor Božinovic, Croatian Ambassador to NATO in Brussels, on membership in the most powerful military alliance.
WE HAVE THE CHANCE OF BECOMING NATO MEMBERS IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS
Examination of public opinion in Croatia still shows a highly polarized attitude towards Euro Atlantic integration. According to Davor Božinovic, Croatian Ambassador to NATO in Brussels, a deeper analysis of public opinion polls shows lack of information in the first place.
How useful are the polls on NATO integration?
They are very useful because, first of all, they show that the public is looking for more information about NATO. It is the government's duty to provide that information, but NGOs and political parties can also play an important role. So far, our public is rather reserved towards the issue of membership in NATO, and we have to respect that. But we have to be constructive in the public debate on this issue. Even those who do not support NATO membership have to offer something more than empty phrases about military bases being set up on the Adriatic or the death of our soldiers on behalf of the interest of someone else, and they should certainly clearly state what other possibilities they can offer. It should not be forgotten that the polls indicate that 80% of the population has confidence in the Croatian Armed Forces. Thus, It is more important to clarify that our military forces see their future in NATO, because it is only as part of the Alliance that they have the chance to develop.
How much do people who fill positions, in even such a specific embassy as NATO's, lobby for Croatia and how much for NATO?
It works both ways, only that one way and the other are motivated by Croatian interests. NATO needs to understand that Croatia can be and will be a quality ally, whereas the Croatian public needs to come closer to NATO. In the first place, this function is directed to informing government leaders, the president, and the Parliament on NATO's activities, and this helps since they are the first ones invited to talk about that to the Croatian public.
For the past six years, since we had an Ambassador at the Croatian Mission to NATO, could more have been done so that those polarised attitudes, which are only logical when it comes to such an organisation, had come as a consequence of better information?
We already had NATO as a declared objective of our foreign policy, but no discussion was opened about it. NATO was taken for granted, but it cannot be treated that way because it is too serious an organisation for any decision regarding the Alliance to be based on current inspirations.
How did Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia profit when they joined NATO?
They ensured stability and security, a requisite for development. There is no important political question regarding European and American territory that is not decided upon without their opinion, standpoint and vote. They have joined the club of economically developed nations in the world and the largest investors, with which they themselves have become more actively engaged in investments. They sped up, naturally, their way to the EU, and that will also be the case with Croatia, because we have the chance of joining NATO before the EU. On the other hand, by joining NATO, Slovenia managed to break away from the perception of belonging to a region which is still accompanied by various kinds of tension.
How much will that cost us and in what period of time?
Much less than if we stayed outside NATO. It is a question between allocating means within a system of collective defence, NATO, or a system of individual defence in which you can not count on common possibilities or the common capabilities of the allies. At present, our defence budget is about 600 million euro, or 1,77% of the GDP. To reach NATO's recommendations, we are planning to increase the budget to 2% by the year 2010.
What is the price of not joining NATO? Finland is not an ally, but is not doing bad either.
Finland and Sweden, developing individual defence, which means the development of all combat capabilities on their own, annually invest between 2 and 5 billion euro, that is 4 to 10 times more than we do. They can afford that. We cannot. Our defence sector reform is essential regardless of NATO membership, but in a defence reform in compliance with NATO standards, we are harmonizing with the highest standards, and at the lowest cost.
In the EU the discussion at the moment revolves about the EU being the economic giant, but a political dwarf. If we recognise here the obvious uncertainty of the Union itself, is then the US that political giant dictating politics in Europe through NATO?
The US is a partner to the EU as much as the EU is a partner to the US. The EU neither can nor wants to become the US counterbalance, and we can much less speak of any kind of enmity. The EU needs the US as much as the US needs the EU. This is the formula that enabled Europe to become stable and prosperous, as much as it helped the US. Because the US became the world superpower when they opened up, when they came out of isolation.
Russia and NATO?
NATO and Russia have developed their relations, there is a special NATO-Russian Council where representatives of the 26 NATO nations and Russian representatives meet to discuss bilateral issues. Of course, stability of the European continent is Russia's interest, and Russia sees in Europe and in opening towards Europe, the possibility of her own prosperity. Now and then there is a declaration that raises a bit of tension on both sides, but experience in the past decade shows that in the end, the Western partners and Russia can understand each other very well and can even agree with each other.
Is there any possibility of a new cold war between Russia and the USA, through NATO, and with Europe as the element for requital?
NATO has declared its „open-door policy“ and it will not give that up even after the next round of accession when Croatia joins the Alliance. NATO's standpoint is that all those who wish to join and meet all the requirements can become part of the organisation. At this moment the idea of a new cold war is unthinkable.
Dick Cheney's recent visit is still ambiguous. According to some, after seeing an advert on the CNN his wife simply decided she wanted to visit Dubrovnik.
US Secretary of State's visits are part of the state policy, and his visit to Croatia, where Dick Cheney had bilateral meetings with the president, the prime minister and representatives from the Adriatic Charter nations, signalled the support to the nations' ambition for Euro Atlantic integration. The fact that Croatia was the host country was a special pleasure.
Do Sanader and Mesic agree on their views towards NATO?
Absolutely.
And Article 98? The feeling is that President Mesic speaks more clearly with regards to non-extradition of American citizens to the International Criminal Court than Prime Minister Sanader.
Article 98 is not directly related to membership in NATO. That is a question of bilateral relations and at this moment it is a question of two principles. To the Americans it is important when we take into account that their military are pretty much engaged outside their borders and from their standpoint it is even under stable, as much as it is understandable the principle in Croatia that it is difficult to extradite your own citizens to the International Court, and not do so with citizens from other countries.
Will we be able to refuse to participate in Irak and other similar actions if any?
Briefly: yes. Participation in NATO operations, even in the case of member nations, is a national responsibility. Regarding Irak, some clarification is needed. One thing is the operation "Iraqi Freedom" under the leadership of the USA, and which is not a NATO operation. NATO has a training centre in Baghdad, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1546. This is neither a combat mission nor part of the operation led by the US. Thus, Croatia will continue to decide independently where she wants to engage her own troops. Similarly, French troops are not in Irak, but they are present in Afghanistan, just like our troops.
Can the US prevent or slow down EU accession if Croatia does not meet all the requirements for NATO?
The USA is an important actor in the field of international relations, they maintain relationship with the EU and with each of the member nations. It is US policy to support enlargement both of NATO and the EU. Therefore, US support to Croatia's European ambition will certainly do us no harm.
The referendum in Montenegro brought about another state in this region. What about our neighbours and their accession to NATO?
Our neighbourhood is directly related to NATO. Some countries are members, others are official candidates, and some others are in the process of joining the Partnership for Peace, like Serbia and Montenegro. The same criteria will apply to them as for the rest of the member nations. The enlargement policy is a very serious process and certain requisites must be met.
The Danish Minister of Foreign Affair recently said that the time has not come yet for Croatia to join NATO. We claim we are ready.
The Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs repeated what is already well-known. There will be no invitations issued at the Summit in Riga on November 29. But there will most probably be a clear message to Croatia signalling that we could receive the invitation in spring 2008. So, it is all in our hands. NATO, as much as any other association welcomes only those who wish to be part of it. There is no imposition whatsoever. Neither are there any sanctions for those who are not part of NATO. But it is the responsibility of this generation to ensure peace and development for future generations. The citizens of Croatia deserve that. If we succeed in this, I am almost certain that in less than two years we will be part of the Alliance. This is really a historic chance that we cannot miss.
EU AND NATO ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
Differences between NATO today and NATO at the time of the Warsaw Pact?
There is a big difference. Through various types of relations, from membership in NATO, through partnership and other initiatives and different working forums, NATO today relates to 50 nations in the world. To Europe, NATO is the instrument with which the former cold-war division was overcome. The Warsaw Pact is a historic category, while NATO still plays a very active role and will do so in the future since the type and intensity of threats to democratic societies have not lessened. Member nations are constantly debating about NATO's political role. To German Chancellor Angela Merkel NATO is where political consultations should take place about new conflicts, and the place where political and military activities are coordinated. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs believes that NATO should be a special forum for transatlantic consultations so that Americans and Europeans be ready to act together politically and militarily. To US NATO is a keystone in their foreign policy.
Does that mean that the EU and NATO are a common project?
They are the two sides of a same medal. The US and EU markets represent almost 60% of the world commerce, and the daily commercial exchange between the US and EU reaches a billion euro. Since 2003, common investments have reached more than 1,5 trillion euro, and 4 million jobs are directly connected to transatlantic commercial relations.
Press releases
