We have searched for Gotovina, but he is not here

Credits for a likely success in an extremely critical contest between London and the Hague will go to Prime Minister Račan, who is the true leader of Croatian foreign policy (when President Mesić allows him), while Foreign Minister Picula, as one of two Račan’s main operatives (the other is Goran Granić), will fall by the wayside.
Tonino Picula does not in fact mind the sidekick status, because he, according to his own words, is not a politician by profession. It was only recently that he tried to persuade me that he does not intent to spend his entire life in politics, but only wishes to finish as successfully as possible what he started in 1990, and by that he means entering the EU. Because of his obvious lack of greater political ambitions, Tonino Picula, who accompanied Prime Minister Račan on his meeting with Tony Blair, is fairly detached and neutral, but at the same time a thoroughly authentic witness to the most dramatic times of Croatia’s post-Tuđman state politics.

So, what will happen to us now? England, no matter how much Račan tried to soften that, has reacted negatively to our proposal for ratifying the agreement with the EU without solving Gotovina case. The Hague has told the Croatian government that it has exactly 5 days to arrest the fleeing general, which is obviously impossible. What will happen to Croatia, in view of Carla Del Ponte’s visit, her report to the UN, and the definite refusal of England and the Netherlands to ratify the SAA, if her report turns out to be negative, as it seems it will right now?
There is no point in denying that the situation is strained. It really seems that the co-operation with the Hague tribunal, the Croatian government and Hague Prosecutor interpret differently, is creating serious obstacles on our way towards realising Croatian foreign policy’s most important goal – our entry into the EU. It is true that Great Britain and the Netherlands, convinced that Croatia is not co-operating enough with the Hague, have stopped the ratification process. However, I do not think that our visit to Great Britain was unsuccessful. I hope that time will prove that I am right. First of all, I would like to draw attention to the readiness of Prime Minister Blair and his three leading ministers to receive us, despite the troubled relations on their own political scene, where they are already writing his political obituaries. It seems to me that Tony Blair has open all possible channels towards Croatia and wanted to hear an authentic message about the international status of our country. The message we got from our colleagues in England was: “Do not waste your time trying to explain what you have done in the last three and a half years. We already know that. What we want to know is can you continue with the reforms?” So, Blair wanted to know can Croatia continue along this path, in view of the forthcoming elections. We asked of Blair and his ministers to once again listen to our arguments as to why we cannot arrest general Gotovina. We also said that we would do anything to convince Carla Del Ponte that Croatia cannot be held hostage to a unbased hypothesis that general Gotovina is hiding in Croatia. Apart from that, one of the arguments that the Hague uses to justify its rigidity towards us is that there is not enough control over our secret services.

Let us go back to the original question. If Carla Del Ponte’s report turns out to be negative, and if London and the Hague definitely give up the ratification, does that mean that Croatia has no chance of entering the EU with Bulgaria and Romania in the next enlargement?
I always like to analyse worst case scenarios. Therefore, I will not hide behind the claim that technically it is not necessary to ratify the Agreement for us to enter the EU. For instance, Slovenia and Estonia have not ratified their agreements, and have become full members all the same. But we have to be aware that our political situation is fundamentally different than those of Slovenia and Estonia were, and we should not count on exceptions. I will not accept the possibility that two or three countries will not ratify the Agreement. It is crucial for us that in the next few days we appear convincing before Carla Del Ponte and that we convince her that we have done everything we could to find Gotovina and that he is not in Croatia. These same arguments and proofs we must present to Great Britain as well, to back up what we said during the talk with Tony Blair and his ministers.

Carla Del Ponte is coming to Zagreb on 6 October, and will present her report before the UN on 9 October, which means that there will not be any time for her to work on that report. What will you say to Carla Del Ponte during the Zagreb meeting that we have not heard already?
We are currently working on a material that we are going to present to Carla Del Ponte on Monday, that contains a series of facts, procedures, and dossiers on what the Croatian government has done so far to catch general Gotovina. This insisting on Gotovina problem is partly a matter of perception, and one that is hard to change, especially since it has turned into a prejudice that general Gotovina is in fact in Croatia, but that we do not want to hand him over. We will do everything we can to change that perception. I think our situation is not hopeless and that the materials we are going to present before Carla Del Ponte will significantly affect her final decision. I also think that the British government will take into account the same material when deciding on the ratification of the Agreement.

What will this material include?
This document contains legal, police, secret service and political elements for the Gotovina case. We want to achieve two things with it – first, prove that we completely co-operate with the Hague tribunal, and second, that we cannot guarantee Gotovina’s appearance before the tribunal, because we do not know where he is.

Is it true that the government had pledged to immediately act upon the orders from the Hague, in case new indictments arrive?
It is not questionable whether Croatia will fulfil all its international legal obligations. if the new indictments arrive, we will indeed act upon both international and our own legislature. It is not fair to accuse Croatia of obstructing the international justice, and it is equally not fair to challenge an entire reform process just because of a mistaken belief that Gotovina is hiding in Croatia and that we do not want to hand him over to the Hague tribunal.

Do you agree with the claim that Carla Del Ponte is acting according to the foreign secret services information that Gotovina is hiding in Croatia?
I believe in her professionality. I am sure that the information is filtered in various ways before it reaches her. It is true that the Hague tribunal does not have it secret service and depends on the information provided by other secret services, and they can have different views about the same situation.

I think the basic question our government does not seem to be able to answer comes down to this: The first two years and a half, you, me, your colleagues from the government, and almost everybody who reads the papers, knew that Gotovina was going to be charged. Why did the government not stop him from running away before the indictment arrived?
Because we chose a political and legal approach to the problem of co-operation with the Hague. At that time, we were still trying to define permanent principles of co-operation, asking of the Hague to stop employing selective co-operation and selective demands when it comes to Croatia. Besides, that was the time of constant throwing around with names from indictments, and Gotovina was only one of them.

But you definitely knew about Gotovina, as was confirmed recently by Vice-Prime Minister Goran Granić, who said that France issued Gotovina’s passport two months before the indictment, and by that time they definitely knew that he was going to be indicted. So, if France knew about the indictment, Croatia had to know as well.
Each of us has to take responsibility for what they say, know or think they know. I still claim that we could not have done anything else if we wanted to adhere to the principles of the rule of law. Besides, I have to point out once again that the indictments against generals Gotovina and Ademi that arrived in the summer of 2001 contained some for us totally unacceptable elements that we had to rectify. It was because of these indictments that our government faced crisis. We had the confidence vote on the government, the Coalition nearly came down, and we faced grave political problems at home. In spite of all that, this government sought the most effective way of communicating with the Hague tribunal, as co-operation with the Hague is our permanent orientation. Now, during the time of our EU candidacy, we must clear any doubt about our good intentions towards the Hague, and the first step will be the meeting with Carla Del Ponte on Monday in Zagreb. We still claim that we do not know where general Gotovina is, and if we are wrong, we want to be proven so with concrete arguments.

Excuse me, but during last year the Croatian government has received at least a dozen reports from foreign secret services about Gotovina’s whereabouts in Croatia or border areas between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
That is true, and our police forces have investigated all of those reports, including even those that sounded completely incongruous and bizarre, as we deemed they were “test” reports, meaning that someone of international relevance wanted to test the quality of our co-operation with the Hague. Of course, we reacted immediately. Croatian secret services have shown by arresting Ivica Rajić that they are perfectly capable of performing such tasks, but none of the reports about the alleged whereabouts of general Gotovina have proven to be correct. As far as we know, the man just is not here.

What will happen to Croatia’s international status if Carla Del Ponte’s report, despite all our efforts, turns out to be negative?
If it turns out to be negative, our main problem, as I have already said, will be London’s attitude towards the ratification of the Agreement between Croatia and the EU. I hope that London will not absolutise only one dimension of the current crisis in our relations with the Hague. During the talks in London, I got the impression that they, of course, think that capturing Gotovina in Croatia is a prerequisite for any further action towards the EU, presuming he is in Croatia. But if we convince them that he is not in Croatia and that we cannot arrest him, Gotovina’s arrest might no longer be a prerequisite for ratification. We shall see in the next few days whether we, as the most responsible state officials, will be able to convince them that we have done everything we could. Besides, strategically speaking, one should consider whether reforms in one country are worth stopping or jeopardising because of one indictment from the Hague, bearing in mind that we cannot do anything that we have not tried before.

Italians and the fishery zone
How do you comment the dispute with Italy, which too is now threatening that it will not ratify the Agreement because of Croatia’s announcement to declare a fishery zone in the Adriatic?
The government reached a decision on Thursday to declare a fishery zone in accordance with the new European fishery policy. Everyone supports us in principle. But when one country tries to make things better within its own sphere of responsibility, as is the case with Croatia and the Adriatic, that seems to clash with national interests of other countries. In case of Slovenia, that was an unnecessary reaction on part of their diplomacy, when they tried to reopen the borders issue by withdrawing their ambassador from Zagreb. Italy also wants to keep the status quo in the Adriatic, at least until the Venice conference. Maybe we would have accepted that, had the preparatory meeting in Bruxelles not started to articulate a position that is unacceptable for us. The Venice meeting might considerably limit the rights to use international waters for countries like Croatia. So, we have entered a race with time.
I would like to point out that the government suggests that we postpone the decision to declare a fishery zone until we see the results of the Venice conference. But our decision is causing conflicts regardless. Simply put, we have the fish and we have the ecologically protected part of the Adriatic, while Italians have a large fishing fleet. And this is where conflicts arise from. We have to think about our future and we are sure that our decision in the long term cannot be to the disadvantage of our neighbours that we want to have good relations with. Croatian diplomacy must wisely communicate that decision to the EU countries. It would not be good if the process of extending Croatia’s jurisdiction over the Adriatic, that has been going on now for quite some time, got turned into an internal political scandal.

Is it not politically absurd that in the time of crisis in relations with the Hague we are opening another front towards Italy, which is now threatening not to ratify the Agreement?
I agree with you. But at this moment, the public opinion and the need to do something to protect our legal interest in the Adriatic prevailed. I doubt that this current crisis in relations with Italy will result in them refusing to ratify the Agreement.