Briefing by Croation Foreign Affairs Committee

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
26 April 2002
BRIEFING BY CROATION FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Chairperson: Mr E I Ebrahim (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Background information and executive summary on the Republic of Croatia

SUMMARY
The Committee heard from the Croatian Foreign Affairs delegation on the present situation in Croatia. Croatia, a once Communist country and part of the former Yugoslavia, now had a parliamentary system with a coalition government consisting of five different parties. Despite differences in opinion, the government and Parliament were working together to promote regional co-operation and were at present applying for membership of the EU and NATO. The delegation were on their way to the Non Aligned Movement meeting in Durban. They were also in the process of becoming full members of NAM. Africa was perceived as a continent of great potential and the delegation emphasised the opportunities for economic and trade co-operation between South Africa and Croatia.

MINUTES
The Chair welcomed the Croatian Ambassador, Mr Matko Zupanic and the Foreign Affairs delegation from the Croatia: Dr Vesna Kurelec (Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister), Mr JoÅ¡ko Klisović (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Head of department for the UN and human rights) and Dr Nenad Prelog (Assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs).

The Chair introduced the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs who, amongst other achievements, holds two Ph.D's and has been part of the Croatian government for the last ten years. It was a pleasure to have the members of the delegation here as there was not much media coverage on Croatia and it would be an opportunity for South Africa to get to know more about Croatia.

Briefing
Dr Vesna Kurelec explained that Croatia and South Africa enjoy excellent bi-lateral relations although they were not very well developed. Croatia also had an embassy in South Africa and had service status in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and would be participating at the meeting in Durban. Croatians living in South Africa were well-integrated and happy. The following day a co-operation agreement would be signed with South Africa to further establish bi-lateral agreements in amongst others, culture, agriculture and taxation. Negotiations were currently taking place concerning trade co-operation between the two countries. Much was also being done in this regard by the South African Ambassador to Eastern Europe who was frequently in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. An effort was underway to promote Croatia, which its coastal geographical position, as the gateway to Eastern Europe.

Croatia has not been in a very fortunate position since the war in the early 1990's. It was still suffering from the consequences of the war and the effects of refugees from the ex-socialist countries. Croatia's objective at the moment was to integrate itself with the EU and NATO.

The new government had been elected on 3 January 2000 and was a coalition government consisting of five parties. This was a different process that had to be passed through and it was important to learn institution building and how to act politically within the framework of a coalition government. The five parties forming the coalition government stretched from the far left to the far right of political extremes. It was a challenge to learn what compromise in politics means. The delegation was keen to hear what their South African counterparts had to say concerning the relationship between the executive and parliament. Croatia currently had a very charismatic president who had been a national hero before the elections in 2000.

He had changed the Constitution to allow for a parliamentary system of government. As a result, Croatians were currently learning how to concentrate power and their place of decisions in the Parliament. For this reason they were keen to hear how the South African Foreign Affairs Committee interacted with the Executive.

The Croatian President was also a co-creator of the Foreign Affairs Department, which she admitted was a difficult concept to grasp and they were still learning to co-ordinate their Foreign Affairs, Parliament and the Cabinet. The Committee for Foreign Affairs has the duties of approving legislative proposals from the Executive and approving the appointment of Ambassadors. The Cabinet had a veto power as far as the appointment of Ambassadors was concerned but they had so far approved all appointments. It was a challenge to find consensus between the President, the Foreign Affairs Committee and all other arms of government. It was difficult for them to speak the same language and disagreements, however small, often made headline news. In contrast, major achievements would only make articles on the third or fourth page.

Regarding the coalition government, she said that it was sometimes difficult to follow and implement government policy and still have a good relationship with their party. Mistakes were being made but they were learning from them, for example, they had learned the importance of having regular meetings. One of the difficulties lay in MP's who disagreed with government policies. As a result, a new set of rules of behaviour were being drafted. MP's tried to defend the government's policies to their parties. They were devoted to their voters who had given them the opportunity to be in power and they were now obliged to follow through with the program with which they had won the election.

The so-called Stabilisation Agreement had been signed in October with the EU. This meant that a contractual relationship had been signed with the EU and Croatia was now a potential candidate for membership of the EU. They now held the same status as Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Most of the requirements set up by the EU had been fulfilled. By 2007 they hoped to be ready for the EU and would be submitting their application for candidacy within the next few years. The government had been very successful in the last few years in setting up the agreement but it still needed to be ratified by all the Parliaments in Europe. Croatia has also become a member of the WTO and signed free-trade agreements with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia and were in the process of signing them with other Eastern European countries.

In the last two years 27 agreements had been signed and they had done everything expected of them in terms of other agreements. It was hoped that during the next Ministerial Meeting in Reykjavik, they would be able to join the Membership Action Plan and be full members of NATO by the next meeting of the Council. The government was currently carrying out reforms in order to meet with its regional obligations and were consequently not very popular at the moment. It is likely that the government, having won the national elections will lose the local elections. Although Croatia was focussing on becoming members of the EU and NATO, it had not forgotten that it was part of the international community. It was important to have a balance of objectives and activities. She pointed out that former head of Yugoslavia, Tito, was a Croat.

Croatia, although having a very good relationship, had never had a very developed relationship with South Africa. This was also an opportunity to improve the relationship. A meeting had been held the previous day with SADC members and they were aware of developments in South Africa and hoped to improve relationships with all SADC countries, especially in the economic field. Social and health development was also opening the door for medical and pharmaceutical exchanges. In turn, South Africa could be a good supplier of coffee, tea, fish and other articles to Croatia. There was also scope for co-operation in the mining industry.

The Chair thanked the Deputy Minister and said that he did not envy the Croatians having to deal with so many parties put together then having to decide on foreign policy and reach a consensus. Everyone does however agree Croatia should become a member of the EU.

Dr Kurelec suggested that Mr JoÅ¡ko Klisović also give a briefing.

Mr Klisović believed that co-operation with the UN was essential as it is the only global forum. Croatia was a member of the Economic and social council and he felt that this was particular interest to African countries. Croatia felt that, since it had been elected to the UN with the help of African countries, it had an obligation to help African countries. Croatia was also a member of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and he was aware that South Africa would be holding the World Summit on Sustainable Development later in the year. Croatia, like South Africa, was also a member of the Human Rights Commission of the UN, and this was a further area for co-operation.

On the maintenance of peace and security, he said that since Croatia had gained its independence in 1992 it had become more objective in its international relations. The focus of the UN was on how to settle the crisis in Yugoslavia. Croatia was the recipient of peacekeeping operations and African countries had also contributed to those operations. Croatia thereafter reached a time when they were also able to contribute as peacekeepers in other parts of the world, including within Africa and soon in the Congo. As a member of the Peacekeeping Committee of the UN it was trying to improve efficiency and co-ordination of the UN missions. They were also active in advocating transparency in the peacekeeping process. All these fields were open to co-operation. He paid tribute to South Africa as an excellent chair of NAM and its treatment of Yugoslavia as an equal. He recognised the role of NAM and hoped that they would continue to have as good relationship as had been experienced with the former Yugoslavia.

Discussion
Ms Hajaij (ANC) reminisced about a warm welcome she had received while stopping at a train station in Zagreb in the 1960's. The problems their Croatian counterparts were experiencing were not much different from the South African experience. Parliament tries to participate in policy development but most decisions were made at executive level, although Parliament did try to play some role in discussing issues. Since 1994 they had tried to find a greater role for the Foreign Affairs Committee but this had been an uphill battle and had been debated a number of times. The Portfolio Committee ratified protocols that came to them but they were hoping to have a concurrent role to play in matters as they happened and not after the fact.

After the last election there had been a basic outline of the foreign policy of the new government that all the parties had agreed to. The South African government had found it problematic when opposition parties voiced differing opinions on public policy, for example the Middle East question. The previous regime had supported Israel and still maintained that stance. All parties championed human rights but when it came to Israel it seemed that human rights went out of the window. She found it interesting that such a small state had taken such an active role in peacekeeping. The EU was a strong economic bloc and yet NATO was being controlled by an outsider - the United States. She questioned why US control of NATO was needed. She hoped that Croatia would soon get full membership of NAM.

The Chair stated that South Africa there was a distinction between the different arms of the state, i.e. a separation of powers. Parliament's role was one of oversight. The Committee had last week spent three days in Pretoria checking that the government was doing their job properly. This Committee had reached broad consensus on what foreign policy should be.

Ms Mahomed (ANC) asked for a general comment on the economy - had it regained after the war in terms of building homes, schools etc. Concerning Croatia's foreign relations, what emphasis was given to European/Atlantic agreements? What was its relationships with neighbouring states? She also asked for clarity on Croatia's stand with regard to Israel. What is the perception of Africa in Croatia and could tourism between the two countries be enhanced?

Mr Hendrickse (ANC) remarked that he had recently seen some beautiful tourist advertisements for Croatia on CNN. He explained that in South Africa the President was not directly elected but came out of the National Assembly so as not to have a disagreement on policy. In addition, thirteen parties were represented in Parliament because the PR system had been opted for. Three spheres of government existed and the term spheres was used because it was not a hierarchical system. The system also required co-operation between the national and local governments. The Executive is accountable, but this did not have to create a hostile situation. South Africa also had a growing NGO sector and freedom of the press as well as a strong judicial system.

Mr Ainslie (ANC) asked what had happened to the Communist Party after the political development in recent years. He also noted from the information package handed out that the Croatian Parliamentary system set aside seats for Croats living abroad (6000/7000 Croats lived in South Africa) and questioned how they participated in this system.

Mr Madasa (ACDP), from the perspective of the ordinary South African citizen who had not visited Croatia, wanted to know more about the religious set-up in Croatia, including the youth and women's formations and NGO and labour sectors and how effective were they. He asked about the different ethnic groups and how they interact and manage the tensions between them. How effective was their Code of Conduct and is it a joint effort or being imposed by the dominant sectors?

The Chair left and Mr Hendrickse took over as Chairperson for the remainder of the meeting.

Dr Kurelec said, regarding NATO and the US, that there was consensus in the Foreign Affairs Committee that they were committed to the European integration process. This would take planning, patience and time. Reform had taken place in the Parliament and it was a very difficult time when 17 000 people had been retrenched. To promote the integration process, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had been to Belgrade the previous week and committed Croatia to integration in the region and within the EU. She felt that Croatia must be able to cooperate with its neighbours, including those that had formerly attacked them. There was also a great deal of suffering in the region that needed to be seen to.

On the psychological level, she said that it was important to enter into the process of negotiations. She estimated that in about two years Croatia would be able to normalise its relationships with its neighbours and felt that it was important to formalise the relationship with a legal agreement. In the past, through its former president, Croatia had been involved in an unhappy way with the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was now seen as a tough challenge to deal with and Croatia had changed its policy with regard to Bosnia-Herzegovina 100%. It now supported territorial sovereignty and was trying to persuade the Croats living in Bosnia-Herzegovina to protect their rights through the central agreement. The process of reconciliation was more on the individual level than state level and they were currently participating in fourteen regional agreements.

NATO was more of a political issue. It did not only have to do with defence but worked also on a political level. Joining NATO is part of the government's policy and so there was no other choice especially since Croatia is a small country, consisting of only 4 250 000 people. The reality is that even European countries, such as Denmark, which are too wealthy to want to become members of the EU, are still members of NATO. It was difficult to have private opinions so it was important to make compromises in some respects. It was not much different from being an academic and being forced to work in the government system - one had to think and act realistically. The question revolved around how to be co-operative and protect the state's interest at the same time.

On the question of women, 22% of parliamentarians were women who were found to engage in very clear discourse. The Vice-President was also a woman as were the Ministers of Health and Tourism while five Deputy Ministers were also women. In the field of diplomacy, women had also been appointed as Ambassadors and had proved to be very good.

She said that 77% of the population was supportive of the EU integration process but 70% of them were against regional co-operation. This created a difficulty because the government was devoted to regional co-operation therefore there was a good chance that the present government would not win the next election. It was therefore important to convince the people how important it was to have regional co-operation. The issue concerned who was going to invest in Croatia if it is such an insecure zone. This concept was just beginning to be understood and was now a priority of the government. There were currently plans to open a Chamber of Commerce in Croatia.

On the economy, 85% of the total commodity exchange is with European countries. Major exchanges are with Italy, Germany, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russia and the US for investments. There was also a need for help from the IMF and Croatia had taken many credits and made standby arrangements. The new standby arrangement was for the amount of US$260 million and this was also subject to the requirements of the IMF. In addition, US$200 million had been received in terms of the Stabilisation Agreement. However, 22% of the population remained unemployed. This was another challenge. Additionally, hundreds of state-owned companies needed to be privatised, these included those in the area of energy and tourism.

Tourism had been discussed with the South African Ambassador to Croatia but the reality was that most Croatians were concerned more with the day to day costs of living and the basic necessities. However, the potential was positive for tourism and co-operation to improve economic exports, particularly exports of medical supplies to South Africa.

The old Communist Party was now the ruling Socialist Democratic Party. She did not know how informed the members were of the old Communist regime but in the former Yugoslavia the Communist Party was quite liberal with Yugoslavians being allowed to travel and subject to less restrictions. Today the Socialist Democratic Party was trying to push forward its younger members to the forefront to bring a new way of thinking and perception of the party.
She was very optimistic for the transformation from communism to democracy and Croatia presently enjoyed excellent relationships with Tony Blair, Germany and other democratic countries.

Mr Klisović spoke on reform of the UN Security Council (SC). He said that Croatia advocated reform through the enlarging of the number of seats on the SC and also by increasing the number of permanent seats on the council to include Germany, Japan and one each for Asia, Africa and Latin America. The methods of the SC also needed to be reformed and transformed. The majority of the SC's decisions were taken in small chambers in closed unannounced meetings. No negotiations actually took place in the formal chambers, where
participation did take place, so the effect was that resolutions remained unaffected. This process was hoped to be altered so that more countries could participate and greater transparency would exist. The veto power was also significant as important resolutions were often blocked by a single veto. As a small country, it was believed that interests lay best on a multilateral level but one did not want to see countries with more leverage block everything. A solution to this was to have vetoes abolished with the exception of those relating to Chapter 7, where two vetoes would be necessary to block a resolution. Israel was the best example of how one country could block a resolution.

Israel was a very complex issue. Croatia is a small country with insufficient resources to take an active role, but it aligned itself with the EU who were more critical than, for example the US, on the Israeli issue. It was seriously considering a call by the Secretary General of the UN to send peacekeeping operations to Israel although it was not convinced of the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions - peacekeepers in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina had only managed to lessen the violence but not control or stop it. With regard to voting in Human Rights Commissions, Croatia had voted for the right of Palestinians to self-determination and in favour of condemning Israeli settlement in Palestinian areas. It had abstained from voting on the resolution regarding human rights violations in occupied territories because it was felt that the resolution was not balanced - it was one-sided and nothing was heard concerning terrorist actions.

On the perception of Africa, he said that Croatians saw Africa as a continent with great potential. Croatia had never had a conflict with any African country but it had always had cordial relations, through the former Yugoslavia, and would like to deepen them.

Dr Prelog spoke on the question pertaining to Croatians abroad. He said that many Croatians were living abroad, there were in fact more than 2.5 million. Not all of them had Croatian citizenship but according to law all Croats have the right to vote at embassies. The last election had a special "diaspora" list but he was not sure if the system would remain. It was likely that they would vote but that there would not be a special list and they would be included in any other group. He felt that Croatian businessmen in South Africa could become an important bridge for trade in South Africa.

On religion, he said that more than 80% were Roman Catholic, less than 6% Orthodox, more than 1% Muslim and less than 1% Protestant. The rest were atheist or part of a small percentage of the Jewish community.

Mr Hendrickse thanked the delegation for their input. It was obvious that South Africa and Croatia had many common goals. He welcomed them again to South Africa and hoped they would enjoy their stay.

The meeting was adjourned.