An unpublished interview by the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations, Neven Jurica, from April 30, 2008 given to Erol Avdovic, a reporter of Jutarnji list.
An unpublished interview by the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations, Neven Jurica, from April 30, 2008 given to Erol Avdovic, a reporter of Jutarnji list.
How do you see the first quarter of Croatia's participation in the work of the UN Security Council?
We may evaluate this period as very successful. When we put forth our candidacy for the Security Council, we did it because we wanted to affirm our foreign-policy focus in the broadest possible forum. I believe that the greatest success of Croatia within its non-permanent membership of the SC is that, as a new European state, it is also able to profile its policy on such subjects that were previously not of direct concern to Croatia. Consequently, Croatia has been given the opportunity, on the global level, to make a contribution to global peace and security.
To what extent does this translate into practice: how autonomous is Croatia in its decisions within the SC, particularly knowing that in all the instances so far you joined the decisions of the US and the EU, and this impression was confirmed when you left the meeting of the SC on Gaza, following the representatives of the aforementioned states, because the representative of Libya compared the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian territory to a “Nazi camp ”?
I do not think there is a contradiction there. We are pursuing an independent Croatian policy in accordance with Croatia's national interests. With its political program Croatia also belongs to the club of Western nations. At the same time, we are heading for Euroatlantic integration and shall become a member soon. Ever since our independence, for 17 years now, we have been going down this road, always bearing in mind our own state and national interests.
Even if those countries are not always right?
I have said that Croatia is pursuing independent policy. In the case you mentioned, leaving the SC meeting after an unacceptable address of the Libyan diplomat, EU Member States and the USA were right to act as they did. Croatia responded spontaneously. There were two possibilities. We could leave, as we did, or we could stay and say that we did not agree. Had we stayed and said we did not agree, it would still have meant that we supported the legitimacy of such a discussion. We did not want that, and we left.
How are your relations with other missions to the UN, primarily with the Slovenian mission, since, locally, there is a small “war” with diplomatic press releases between Zagreb and Ljubljana?
We have good relations with Slovenia here at the East River. Slovenia is presiding over the EU until the end of June, and since we are working towards joining Euroatlantic integration processes as soon as possible, we support the Union, presently represented here by Slovenia. As a rule, we have common views before the Security Council and we follow the European foreign and security policy.
Does this mean that even your personal relation with the Slovenian Ambassador has remained unaffected, not even at this time as no idyllic picture concerning Slovenian foreign policy has been painted in Zagreb…
Yes. I want to say that in all my meetings with the Slovenian Ambassador there was no disagreement, nor any reference to the issues at home. Our relations are absolutely open, very friendly and cordial.
How about relations with Serbia, particularly following the recognition of Kosovo?
Likewise. I spoke with the Serbian Ambassador right after Tadic's address before the Security Council, and at that time Croatia had still officially recognised Kosovo. I openly told him what Croatia's position was on Kosovo's independence. He reiterated his positions, we reiterated ours. I told him that we in Croatia fully understood the feelings of the Serbian people in regard of Kosovo, but that our position was based on the recognition of a new state and political reality in Southeast Europe that has also been recognised by most EU Member States.
Were there any fiery reactions, and how are you treated by Serbian diplomats now at UN headquarters, following the recognition of Kosovo?
No, there were no misunderstandings nor displays of any ill will by our Serbian colleagues here at the UN. At least I did not see or feel any.
However, Serbian President Boris Tadic referred to you after your first appearance on the SC, pointing his finger at Croatia as a “country admitted to sit on the Security Council that has not fully settled the issue of the return of Serbs and their housing accommodation…”. You remained silent, even Tadic unexpectedly lashed out at Zagreb. Why did you not react?
I did not react out of principle, because in addition to representing Croatia I am also a member of the Security Council, and I must see to it that I do not add unnecessary argumentative tones that may compromise the work of the Council or divert focus from Kosovo. As other Ambassadors on the Security Council, I play a dual role: the national role and the international role that requires me to preserve the integrity of this body.
Tadic obviously did not care about diplomatic etiquette. He used the opportunity to lash out at Croatia…
I think this was uncalled for from Mr. Tadic, and that there was no reason for him to mention Croatia in that context. Perhaps he did it for internal policy reasons in Serbia, but I would not really like to go into that. Anyway, time has shown that this was not a very balanced display on his part, not to mention that it was totally out of touch with reality.
Considering the frequent visits of the Foreign Minister of Serbia, Vuk Jeremic, and Serbian President Boris Tadic, to the East River after the recognition of Kosovo, and bearing in mind the elections in Serbia, do you think that the Security Council is being used as the floor for the election campaign in Belgrade?
I do believe that in regard to their own interests Serbian leaders have done their utmost in an attempt to turn the SC into a public and global podium for presenting their views about Kosovo. I am not sure as to how successful this has been, but they are legitimately entitled to it. The Security Council has always granted the requests of Tadic and Jeremic to speak before this body.
Did you see President Tadic and Prime Minister Hashim Thaci shake hands and speak to each other, as the Prime Minister of Kosovo told us?
I did not see it personally, but only read about it in the newspapers, including Tadic's denial. I cannot make any comment on that.
In regard of Kosovo, as well as in regard of some other issues, Russia and the US cannot seem to agree, yet they readily agreed that Croatia should chair the most important SC committee, the CTC dealing with counter-terrorism: Does this make your job as the CTC Chairman easier or harder?
It is a delicate job that requires quite a lot of time. In terms of schedule, we are chairing the Committee once a week, Thursdays, and the meetings usually last three hours. But there are also preparations that usually last much longer. One must be quite tactful and understanding to grasp what is really going on, in order to be up to the challenges of the job. I am pressing for having the overviews of antiterrorist activities made and adopted as soon as possible, to be able to present the global and comprehensive analysis of what has been done. We attempted, and I believe that we have succeeded in it, to present our work in the CTC to the UN community at large. We have just had meetings with representatives of about 100 UN Member States, with many questions, and have the impression that the UN community at large is interested in the work and the performance of this Committee. Croatia has received a very good grade in collective global security in terms of antiterrorist protection and comprehension of the problem in the region and beyond.
On several occasions during his visits to Washington, Prime Minister Sanader referred to “Croatia's experience” with terrorism in the region. What did he actually mean by that?
Prime Minister Sanader is a statesman who was able to see the comparative advantages of Croatia in terms of our rich though painful experience from the Homeland War, when Croatia was exposed to terrorism. This experience proved invaluable because Croatia has in a very short period of time become a member of all the relevant international institutions and bodies within what, today, is referred to as corporate or collective security.
Recently, a creator of the Dayton Agreement, Richard Holbrooke, wrote in the Washington Post that “were it not for Dayton, the attacks of September 11, 2001 would probably have been organised from Bosnia and not Afghanistan…”. As the Chairman of the Security Council CTC, what is your opinion about this? Is Holbrooke right?
Mr. Holbroke is very deserving for the Dayton Agreement, and I believe that he wanted to point out once again to its importance in achieving peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our media overemphasised this part of his declaration. Terrorism is one of the main threats to international peace and stability and the international community is fighting this evil globally and systematically.
Are you satisfied with the staffing of Croatia's Mission to the UN, and did you get all the diplomats you wanted? How many staff members are on the Mission?
I requested and got a sufficient number of staff to cover all the areas the SC is engaged in. Until the end of our membership of the SC, by 2010, I have divided the workload in two sectors, and diplomats in two teams within the mission. The first one includes staff members who solely deal with the Security Council, and the other one includes diplomats who deal with the General Assembly and its bodies on the East River. Within this framework we already have experts for specific areas and regions, and I discuss things directly with every one of them. There are no hold-ups in our work whatsoever.
While you were preparing your diplomatic team for the SC, were there any “friendly suggestions” or perhaps outright demands by some friendly states, such as the US, on how to profile your team? Did any of the big players on the Security Council possibly demand that a certain person should come from or that another person should go back to Zagreb, and are such practices possible under such circumstances?
Absolutely not. Croatia is pursuing an independent foreign-policy, headed by Prime Minister Sanader and President Mesic. Within the framework of the policy that we represent, Croatia belongs to the Western club of countries. We are oriented towards NATO and the EU.
Part of the Croatian public and particularly the media were less than enthusiastic about your coming to New York. The media even speculated that you were sent to the Security Council because you were more “pliant” to the Americans that your predecessor. Is this true?
I think these are nothing more than media speculations that I do not take too seriously, because Croatia has a single national policy and every Ambassador is obliged to pursue it for what it is worth. Anything else is just personal style, not politics.
Press releases
