The Contemporary Croatian Intellectual Debate on The

CEU eTD Collection

In partialIn fulfilment ofrequirements the for the degree Masterof Artsof THE CONTEMPORARY THE CONTEMPORARY INTELLECTUAL DEBATE ON THE THE ON DEBATE INTELLECTUAL Supervisor: Professor EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN Nationalism Studies Department Central European University Budapest, Hungary Bojan FliglerBojan Submitted to 2013 By

Mária KovácsMária

CROATIAN CROATIAN

CEU eTD Collection debate. the in positions different reflects work whose journalists and scholars politicians, of selection Euro int EU to accession the way this in debate,prolonging intellectual the in andpoliticaldiscourse in both dominated has attitude isolationist and nationalist a EU, the join to Croatia for desire certain a declaring been 1 the of beginning the the since though on even that is debate thesis this intellectual of Croatian argument main The the EU. the of to accession Croatia‟s content of process the the on and analyse Union European to is thesis this of aim The - optimistic authors I have used content analysis method, focusing on the works of a a of works the on focusing method, analysis content used have I authors optimistic

egration. In order to analyse the differences between Eurosceptic and and Eurosceptic between differences the analyse to order In egration. Abstract i

990s Croatian political elites have elites political Croatian 990s CEU eTD Collection Verygoes myto Melita, thanks special fiancé, many interesting other topics. go thanks Many the towards helpful my thank to like would I

comments. I would also like to thank Professor Rogers Brubaker for pointing me me pointing for Brubaker Rogers Professor thank to like also would I comments.

broader picture in my research, and Robin Bellers for his dedicated assistance. dedicated his for Bellers Robin and research, my in picture broader

to my colleagues my to uevsr Professor supervisor,

Acknowledgments

with whom with ii

and tomy and I have spent many hours debating hours many spent have I

ái Kovács Mária

parents, and for theirsupport. love

o hr patient her for

udne and guidance on this, and and this, on

CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 3 2 CHAPTER CHAPTER 1 Critical evaluation of Union theEuropean Critical evaluation Croatia and of Rapprochement the EU the and the midCroatia in EU the and Croatia at EU the beginning the “Theof 1990s: return to Europe” return ofThe HDZ phase Rapprochement Post Croatia’s of First years independence - war phase -

- – - HISTORICAL OF OVERVIEW CROATIA

CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION THE DEBATE

......

...... TABLEOFCONTENTS

......

...... -

...... 1990s ......

......

...... – iii

changes in the 2000s

...... - ...... EU RELATIONS ......

......

48 46 38 32 26 20 20 17 13 11

6 6 1

CEU eTD Collection Cont National in Europe on Debates Intellectual 1 intellectuals t in discourse, such reflects and shapes both debate intellectual national the that believe I Since in the latter part of thedebate. Euro the while authors, Eurosceptic of dominance present, will I EU. that debate the the of part joining first the in in Therefore, interest Croatia‟s way this in reflecting issues, social and economic, political, European contemporary of analysis an to turned intellectuals change Croatian when debate, a see we can 2004 since Only integration. EU to accession the way this in prolonging debate, intellectual the in and discourse political in both dominated have attitude declari been that is thesis this of argument main The EU. the to accession Croatia‟s of process the on and Union European anal to is thesis this of aim The European integration. to path Croatia‟s on focus particular a with attempt, an such presents thesis and This analysis. research economic and social, political, for platform rich a presents history Croatian inte European to finally and independence, and war through Yugoslavia, Socialist under development democratic From sphere. political external and internal its in both turbulences, political several through gone has Croatia 1990s, the of beginning the Since

i thesis his Here I am referring to the term found in: Justine Lacroix and Kalypso Nicolaidis. 2010. 2010. Nicolaidis. Kalypso Lacroixand Justine in: termfound am the I to Here referring wl aaye otmoay ok of works contemporary analyse will I 1 g cran eie o Cota o on h E, h ntoait n isolationist and nationalist the EU, the join to Croatia for desire certain a ng

and present their present and even though since the beginning of the 1990s Croatian political elites have elites political Croatian 1990s the of beginning the since though even

CHAPTER1

evaluation s te otn of content the yse exts. exts.

of the EU and of Croatian accession Croatian of and EU the of -

In this category they include “a scholar who a addresses “a scholar include they category Inthis INTRODUCTION 1

- optimistic ones will see growing presence presence growing see will ones optimistic uocpi ad Euro and Eurosceptic the rain nelcul eae n the on debate intellectual Croatian there is going to be an obvious obvious an be to going is there

European Stories: European - piitc public optimistic rto, modern gration, ,

focusing on on focusing

in the the in

CEU eTD Collection ways lessdistorted French ofthe sense in the active politically necessarily not in but context, transnational nationalor in either lay public Hodak Ljerka Ivankovic, Nenad Medjimorec, Miroslav Jelcic, Dubravko Tudjman, Miroslav like authors by alive kept being ideology his with Tudjman, Franjo President was camp this its for EU the t of of distortion criticism the comes etc. identity culture, sovereignty, national protect (2006:12) nation use to continued state who nationalists supported who nationalists defensive sovereignt and patriots from ranging “personalities th at even sovereignty, national of importance Europeanists, categorizations (2006) Fisher‟s Sharon “Euro and “Eurosceptic” mentioned, As positionsoptimistic can be included inthe debate. t clearmappingof as to leads that work the on focused have I cases, both In Croatia analysts. and observers as or politicians as inwhether involvement their is selection for criteria The journalists. some umjetnosti), i znanosti of members fro Tudjman, Franjo President from statements analyse will I extent. greatest the to debate the in positions different reflects work whose journalists and scholars politicians, of work the on focus will sovereignty,the issuesof national identity, intelectuel engage.” engage.” intelectuel . Moreover, in the case of Eurosceptic nationalists, hand in hand with the attempt to attempt the with hand in hand nationalists, Eurosceptic of case the in Moreover, . ad self and y the he abovementioned national elements. During the 1990s a dominant figure in figure dominant a 1990s the During elements. national abovementioned he which which

–

the the dominant opinions of their fellow citizens” (2) fellowcitizens” their of the opinions dominant rain cdm o Sine n At (HAZU Arts and Science of Academy Croatian are seen as those who tend to put national interests first and stress the the stress and first interests national put to tend who those as seen are - oiin o intellectuals of positions universi eemnto i the in determination

Also, “national debates among these intellectu among debates “national Also,

- piitc. h ubel tr “Euro term umbrella The optimistic”. ty professors, politicians who politicians professors, ty mmes of members m he debate as possible, so that both the Euroscepticthatboth theEuro andso possible, debateashe

alistic rhetoric well after the new state new the after well rhetoric alistic n hr eiiin of definition her and and 2 al 19s o huiit a chauvinists to 1990s early cooperation w

rs o itrainl slto, n includes and isolation, international of risk e the the

are grouped in two major categories: categories: major two in grouped are rain oenet rm h 1990s, the from Government Croatian

are active in public debates, and and debates, public in active are ith the ICTYe the ith als all shape shape all als

ainlss a opsd to opposed as nationalists, sceptic” sceptic” –

– rasa akademija Hrvatska

and reflect, in more or or more in reflect, and goes in line with with line in goes tc. the InI debate this nd aggressive aggressive nd - EU relations, relations, EU was secured” was first Croatian first -

CEU eTD Collection st will I debate, the of centre the at werethat issues the fully understand order to in following:the is thesis this structureof The identityetc. issues intheEU toward have analys They invaluable it. provided with relation Croatia‟s on and Union European the on extensively written accession Croatia‟s order and in process, EU the in situation social and political the evaluate critically to tend also but 1990s, the in led politics nationalist criticize and EU the to accession Croatia‟s Political of Professors University are who etc, Rodin Davor Grubisa, Damir Prpic, Ivan Goldstein, Ivo Jovic, Dejan like Authors casein this definition of by “Europeanists”. her using cat the Secondly, their of careers inCroatian most daily as journalists newspapers. spent Vukman Zoran and Ivankovic Nenad Arts. and Science of Academy Croatian of members are Mihanovic Nedjeljko and Rudolf Davorin Jelcic, Dubravko like t in politics Croatian in active were who Professors University are Hodak isolation. international of cost the at even preserve, etc.

who stayed faithful to the idea of Croatian sovereignty being the highest value one must must one value highest the being sovereignty Croatian of idea the to faithful stayed who s the EU, as well as on the EU issues, like political system of the EU, EU Constitution,EU EU, the systemof political like issues, EU the on as well as EU, the s negative, exclusive principal positive more a beforeth have of definition nation to tended the patriotic put were who not “Europeanists” did Those itself. generally democracy they patriots, considered be could see EU “Europeanists” to of requirements and the expression with of comply to forms tolerant and open, modern, policies support to inclined more generally were domesticThey membership. their tailor countries‟ to into their “Nationalists” integration for prospects in brightest lay the that futures believed contrast, in “Europeanists,” The

egory “Euro egory to encourage progress. I have included them in them included have I progress. encourage to e nation than did the “Nationalists,” who often defined the nation based on a on based nation the defined often who “Nationalists,” the did than nation e e

o bt te rain sltn ntoaim n antagonism and nationalism isolating Croatian the both of s - optimistic” can be defined also by using Fisher‟s definitions definitions Fisher‟s using by also defined be can optimistic”

hi cutis s utclua ette. … Atog many Although (…) entities. multicultural as countries their art off by giving a historical context for the debate. I will I debate. the for context historical a giving by off art (Fisher, 2006: 11)

etr srcue, n te wr mr peae than prepared more were they and structures, Western cec ad itr, eeal age n aor of favour in argue generally History, and Science 3

Authors like Miroslav Tudjman, Ljerka Tudjman, Miroslav like Authors

this thesis since they have have they since thesis this he 1990s. Authors Authors 1990s. he –

CEU eTD Collection with Television. Croatian editor and 2 Eur of 1995 c) Europe; to back turning and hope regaining Croatia: of recognition European 1992. b) Europe; with disappointment EU way: following the chronol in organized is chapter This itself. debate the of analysis the with proceed will I context, historical the into events crucial these placing After Croatian by treated willhav politicians, were they that way the and events, these surprisingly, Not relations. Bosnia of politicalaffairs the in involvement coopera criminals, war and crimes war 1991 the from coming problems the with deal to supposed was Croatia EU, the with integration eventual for condition a as Also, politicians. Croatian t how and Yugoslavia, former of states the among post EU‟s to given be to going is focus post the in and war the in to Community European independence the of reaction the was what analyse will I EU. the in dynamics and changes internal the as well as government, Croatian chang EU, the to accession Croatia‟s in ICTY of role the Croatia, of recognition break the Croatia, in elections to debate the influenced which and EU, the with relations Croatia‟s to relevant were that but arena, political international and domestic the in both happening were that events key the out point

Božo Skoko is a professor at theat Fac Skokoprofessor is a Božo

eain: ) 19 a) relations: ope‟s disappointment in Croatia; d) 2000. Cro 2000. d) Croatia; in disappointment ope‟s ogical structure presented by Skoko by presented structure ogical

a great extent. In this contextualisation I will cover themes such as first multi first as such themes cover will I contextualisation this In extent. great a , and to and , e an enormousCroatian impact national onthe on theEU. debate 1 Ageso o Croatia: on Aggression 91.

the escalation of the armed conflict. Furthermore, th Furthermore, conflict. armed the of escalation the

- war phase is also going to be analysed in this chapter. Particular Particular chapter. this in analysed be to going also is phase war

ulty of Political Science, Political ultyof - 1999. War aftermath and process of democracy of process and aftermath War 1999. - up of Yugoslavia, the war that followed, international international followed, that war the Yugoslavia, of up - war initiatives for establishing a peaceful cooperation cooperation peaceful a establishing for initiatives war tion with the ICTY, return of Serbian refugees and and refugees Serbian of return ICTY, the with tion 2

- (2007:355), who identifies five stages in stages five identifies who (2007:355), Herzegovina come in to the focus of Croatia of focus the to in come Herzegovina 4

year of great expectations and Croatia‟s Croatia‟s and expectations great of year atian institutional approach institutional atian University of Zagreb Universityof hese initiatives were welcomed among among welcomed were initiatives hese - 95 war. Therefore, the issues of of issues the Therefore, war. 95 Croatia‟s attempt to declare declare to attempt Croatia‟s . He is a former journalist formerjournalist isa He e EC‟s engagement EC‟s e I will follow the the follow will I

to the EU: EU: the to - building: era era building:

es in the the in es Croatia - party - EU EU the - CEU eTD Collection the EU o in debate the of content the analyse will I stages discussion. same the of part coherent a are stages both often and 1992) (1991 short very was period time the since section, same the in stages two first the present str this from exception OneEU. the of evaluation critical accession: EUfor citizens Croatian among support Declining 2004. e) expectations; great and hope new of era were dominant

among Croatian in intellectuals 5

rder to show what kind of attitude of kind what show to rder

each

specific time frame.specific time ucture is that I will that uctureis Throughout these these Throughout

towards towards - CEU eTD Collection and historian a General, Tito‟s former a was Tudjman Tudjman. Franjo by led and year same the in formed (HDZ), Union Democratic Croatian the was one, important more and second, o first the form: to started parties political democratic first the Yugoslavia Socialist of years last the During ofCroatia’s years First independence cruc some of overview brief a include also will I chapter this In confirmed EU. the which towards path 2012 Croatia‟s in referendum Croatia‟s with conclude will I and 2000 in started dist Croatia‟s and initiatives EU‟s on emphasis the with between 1990s, the of half second the in EU the developments and Croatia the explain briefly will I Furthermore EU. the on debate national included events These the war. of involvement significant and recognition international independence, proclaimed the with Croatia, in transition democratic the with start will I period. this from personalities of but, Union European the of and Croatia of Union debate this that is argument main my nationa Croatian the of analysis the for context the out set will I so, political EU‟s doing By relations. and bilateral their on accent particular Croatia‟s with years, 20 last of the in development background historical the present will I chapter this In CHAPTER 2 ial moments in EU‟s political development in the last 20 years.political development EU‟s thelastial moments in in 20 . Therefore, this chapter will point to crucial moments in internal and external relations external and internal in moments crucial to point will chapter this Therefore, . ancing from the EU. Next, I will focus on the phase of rapprochement that that rapprochement of phase the on focus will I Next, EU. the from ancing ne was the Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS), formed in 1989, and the and 1989, in formed (HSLS), Party Liberal Social Croatian the was ne -

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CROATIA

nentoa cmuiy n teeoe ee elce i the in reflected were therefore and community international reflects

course, cannot touch upon all major events and events major all upon touch cannot course, 6

h ntoa attd twrs h European the towards attitude national the

l debate on the EU, since since EU, the on debate l - EU EU RELATIONS

CEU eTD Collection the proclaimed Serbs introduced, was constitution new the before even However, (ibid). to changed status their a as treated constitutionally were Serbs point that Until time. that at population Croatia‟s of 12% around consisted who statu the changed constitution This 36). 2003: (Bartlett, federation” Yugoslav the from secede to right its and sovereignty republic‟s the Itproclaimed equality. civic of position homeland the be to Croatia declared “which Croatia, of Republic the but Croatia, of Republic Socialist the called longer no was which Croatia, for Constitution new a brought government Croatian new The wasinfluencefuture tohave aonthe developmentofCroatia. significant th in seats the of majority the won HDZ 1990, May and April in held elections, multiparty first the After Bartlett (2003: 34)identifies, As diaspora. the in living ones the and Yugoslavia in living Croats the between line division a creating especially nation, Croatian the in thorn a been had that and Second War, the World in emerged had that conflicts internal past overcoming of basis the on nation poli a iin ih tog ainl fiito. n Tdmns an da ws to was ideas main Tudjman‟s One affiliation. national strong with tician oto o te ei, irgr fr alaetr isiuin ad n xesv cli extensive an and institutions parliamentary for network (Peskin andBoduszinsky, 1124) 2003: disregard media, the of control strong with rule their buttressing decade, a for Croatia in power political on monopoly virtual of wave a nationalist, on power into swept were Tudjman, Franjo leader, and founder its and HDZ The position Serbs of in the upper echelons of power was to beswept away Croatia‟s the on Ustashe fascist the of other. otherThe plank the of party platform was arebalancing and power of and influence between hand, one the on Partisans communist the of descendants parti in society, Croatian his [Tudjman‟s, B.F.] appeal was for “national reconciliation” between the various elements of e Croatian Parliament. In the analysis of Peskin and Boduszinsky, such an outcome outcome an such Boduszinsky, and Peskin of analysis the In Parliament. Croatian e

eb ad ras I te rgam o “ainl eoclain te privileged the reconciliation” “national of programme the In Croats. and Serbs pro

of the Croatian nation, appearing to exclude the Serbs from their previous their from Serbs the exclude to appearing nation, Croatian the of - independence and anti and independence national minority national osiun nation constituent

ua bten h lf ad ih wn, ewe te ideological the between wing, right and left the between cular

and caused dismay caused and - Serb sentiment in 1990. Tudjman and the HDZ held a held HDZ the and Tudjman 1990. in sentiment Serb 7

n rai, hl wt te e constitution new the with while Croatia, in

among the Serbian population” population” Serbian the among

reunite s of Serbs, of s

entelist strong the CEU eTD Collection 3 international its ensure Croatia‟s to community to international the of battle response initial diplomatic the mentioned, As a recognition. fighting was Croatia time same the At European (Phinnemore: 33). Union” 2007: the called be to entity, new entirely “an creating by furthered” be to was union closer ever affairs”. home and justice of goal “the in that concluding by Treaty Maastricht the cooperation of importance the stresses Phinnemore closer and policy security and foreign for rules clear setting milestone, EU major a is “It 1993. forcein into entered and 1992 signedin was Treaty,Maastrichtthe as known also TEU, 1991. late in (TEU) Union” European on Treaty “The on agreeing in resulted which integration, working were states European 12 exploded, crisis Yugoslav the When or less 1995andthe stabile until Operations more remained which Krajina, SAO of borders the secure to deployed were troops UN‟s The agreement an to came Hague, The in conference peace a convened had which EU the from pressure under Tudjman, and Milosevic happen, could that before However, JNA. the of strength greater far the to fall would Croatia of whole the con Bartlett as and embargo, arms UN the by followed was conflict four for Croatia of territory Succession, the on Yugoslav fought of War the of impact dramatic the from apart discussed be cannot post “Croatia‟s that identifies 259) (2010: Ramet which for followed, that war the to introduction an presented events These decision. the on moratorium month In blocking Zagreb and theroadsbetween Dalmatia. by revolution” “Log a initiated and Krajina) (SAO Krajina” Serb of Province “Autonomous

http://europa.eu/about

ue 91 rai dcae is needne bt u t E‟ itreto ipsd 3 a imposed intervention EU‟s to due but independence, its declared Croatia 1991 June - eu/eu -

history/1990

- 1999/index_e

- and Flash 8 -

n.htm a - half years (1991 years half

and , accessed 16 May2013 16 accessed , for the future single currency as well as well as currency single future the for Storm to end the war” (Bartlett, 2003: 40). 40). 2003: (Bartlett, war” the end to .

- 5).” The escalation of the of escalation The 5).” cludes “[i]t seemed as if as seemed “[i]t cludes -

communist communist

on deepening their their deepening on transition 3

CEU eTD Collection blocking dev towards progress Croatia‟s of effect the had has which one and policy, foreign Croatia‟s of aim key a been Bosnia of parts incorporating as far as even Bo the incorporate to drive “[t]he argues, 65) (2003: Bartlett As Croatia. from Community European the distanced that war this in involvement the exactlywas it arguedthat becanit is that of thisthesis forcontext the issue this importanceof Bosnia divide to Karadjordjevo in Milosevic with agreement an made Tudjman Supposedly, Croatia. of Republic the into inhabited they s a Bosnia neighbouring in war the in involved got Croatia meantime the In gotdesire the second fulfilled andway onits that is to being fulfilled. “return” would and history national its in time first the for state sovereign a as recognized be would new their that optimistic were fro seceded Croatia “When 1992. January15 on CommunityEuropean the by statesovereign a as recognized was Croatia support, Germany‟s to due but rights, minority of issue the on except Commission, the of self to right Croatia‟s of issue the on others, among opinion, expert its give to order in Community European the by established was commission, arbitraryan Commission, Badinter called so the purpose, that independence. its proclaimed Croatia in not still was state established newly the point this at However, 1991, October 8 the on expired, moratorium the After place. take could Yugoslavia of future the of negotiations further which during months, decision the postpone to request a was independence declared Slovenia‟s) (and ubstantial number of Croats lived and which Tudjman had a desire to incorporate the parts parts the incorporate to desire a had Tudjman which and lived Croats of number ubstantial to its rightful place in Europe” (Razsa, Lindstrom, 2004: 628). It seemed as the first first the as seemed It 628). 2004: Lindstrom, (Razsa, Europe” in place rightful its to - determination and i and determination m the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991, Croatians Croatians 1991, in Yugoslavia of Republic Federal Socialist the m eloping its European identity, instead pulling Croatia back into into back Croatia pulling instead identity, European its eloping - on idpnec wud copih w tig: Croatia things: two accomplish would independence found nternational recognition. Upon the positive opinion positive the Upon recognition. nternational - Herzegovina into the territory of Croatia, has also has Croatia, of territorythe into Herzegovina - 9 Hercegovina between Croatia and Se and Croatia between Hercegovina

na Cot i te far o Croatia, of affairs the in Croats snian ternationally recognized. For recognized. ternationally

- Herzegovina, where Herzegovina,

rbia. The The rbia. o three for CEU eTD Collection state Croatian to approach authoritarian increasingly an through carry to “determined Cr democracyin consolidated to transition a bring not did war the of end the Unfortunately, 47). 2003: (Bartlett, popularity” and power his of pinnacle the “at was succ military such However, 82). 2005: (Fisher, ICTY” the with cooperation of lack country‟s the entity,and independent ratheran stateasCroatian than the of extension anHerzegovina as eth returning in progress slow government‟s Tudjman the were status pariah Croatia‟s for reasons main the years, subsequent “In issues. these resolving on conditioned be to going is process accession stumbling major the of one be to going are crimes war of prosecution the and refugees the of return The peak withoperation co the in analysed be will they The population. Serbian thesis the this of case the In levels. of several on analysed be can and killings dramatic, were consequences and expulsion enormous the of cost dramatic regai Croatia operation military this With operation military as known Serbs, Krajina the against agreeme Dayton abovementioned the Croatia in war the from event crucial additional One by1995, when “Dayton was it ended the agreement”. Bosnia in war The Balkans”. the with association an ess gave Tudjman even more political credibility in domestic politics, and at that point he point that at and politics, domestic credibilityin political more even Tudjmangave ess approximately 2,500 civilians. (Fisher, 2006: 74) were operations These control. e Serbian the by marked of region Krajina the freed and territory Croatian 1993 in although which war, of “victim” Serbs battlethe with the the in mostly true as Croatia presented HDZ the 1990s, the Throughout - stones in Croatia‟s relati Croatia‟s in stones i Srs h hd en xeld te D‟ tnec t tet Bosnia treat to tendency HDZ‟s the expelled, been had who Serbs nic – 1994 or during the 1995 police and military operations Flash and Storm that reunited that Storm and Flash operationsmilitary and police 1995 the during or 1994 Storm xpulsion of some 200,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia and the murder of murder the and Croatia from Serbs ethnic 200,000 some of xpulsion . In. regard, that this Fisherexplains ntext of how Croatia‟s image shifted during the war, reaching a a reaching war, the during shifted imageCroatia‟s how of ntext ons with the European Union, since the opening of the EU EU the of opening the since Union, European the with ons t ad ht a te anh f two of launch the was that and nt, in 1991 in ned the whole territory of Krajina, but at the the at but Krajina, of territory whole the ned 10

– 1992, was not the case in Bosnia case in the not 1992, was

happened in 1995, a few months before before months few a 1995, in happened - s ecgvn lse utl November until lasted Hercegovina

ls (Bljesak) Flash

oatia, since Tudjman was was Tudjman since oatia,

and

ao offensive major Storm - Herzegovina

(Oluja). s - -

CEU eTD Collection Croatian prosecute would which court international an of idea the to reluctant highly NATO” was Tudjman and However, 78). EU 2003: the (Bartlett, both with B.F.] Croatia, [of relations closer for condition key “a as explained is relations bilateral the in ICTY the of role The Yugoslavia. former of territory the occurredthat on prosecute warcrimes to the aim 1993with in established (ICTY),courtUN‟s jurisdictio the over Croatia in dispute Another 74). 2003: (Bartlett, identity” a separate establish to best its doing was it which from states Balkan the alongside diplomatically n “did the but enjoyed it benefits since economic EU”, the towards attitude ambivalent “the an However, had stability. government Croatian economic and political promoting in and agreement Erdut and was and Yugoslavia, of Republic Federal the and Albania Macedonia, of Republic Yugoslav Former the Croatia, Herzegovina, EU the by launched was framework econom its restore to order in EU the of evolution the Despite Post Portugal an in enlarged European Union. Ir Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, states member new three accepted EU the over, finally was Yugoslavia former in war the when 1995, In (and their) desirere toincorporate the Herzegovinian his pursued lobby, Herzegovinian influential increasingly the by captivated and, building, - war phase war -

Austria, Finland and Sweden Sweden and Finland Austria,

n of The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Yugoslavia former the for Tribunal Criminal International The of n weak democracy weak ot like the way in which the EU was placing Croatia Croatia placing was EU the which in way the like ot

aimed at providing assistance in implementing the Dayton Dayton the implementing in assistance providing at aimed y and to enable a functioning democracy. In 1996 a new new a 1996 In democracy. functioning a enable to and y -

defenders , all this time Croatia was receiving the assistance of of assistance the receiving was Croatia time this all , h Rgoa Approach Regional the 11

eland, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain and Spain Greece, Kingdom, United eland, -

ht ee ihig a fighting were that that joined Germany, France, Italy, the the Italy, France, Germany, joined that gionBosnia Croatia” of into (ibid). - - EU relations was the one the was relations EU

hc icue Bosnia included which defensiv e Homeland Homeland e

CEU eTD Collection 1991 between territory Croatian on 4 Tudjm elections, presidential for campaign the during year, same the In association. Balkan of kind any entering from Croatia forbade that Constitution the to amendment an initiated Tudjman 1997 in already that mentioning such with enthusiastically too associated be to seen Yugoslav a self of No states. recreation Balkan” “Western the the of federation to leading potentially as seen was it where Zagreb, the was precisely which cooperation intraregional was of promotion it the on emphasis suggests, Bartlett As 82). 2005: (Fisher, cooperation” regional for needthe on emphasismore togetherwith conditions, economic and political demanding and incentives higher offering of intention the with developed was SAP the Approach, Regional the with contrast “In Approach. Regional the than 74) 2003: (Bartlett, ranging” co and Process Stabilisation The Association EU. the by presented initiative regional final the on reflect briefly Befor As a came resultpolitics ofTudjman‟s distancing between officials. and Croatian EU attitudeICTY: towards the Tudjman‟s reflects Boduszinsky and Peskin by insight operati war.

Here I am I term the Here using mprehensive effort” (Lampe, 2006: 290) by the EU, the one that was “much more wide more “much was that one the EU, the by 290) 2006: (Lampe, effort” mprehensive 4

e I move on to the moves of the new government that came to power in 2000, I will will I 2000, in power to came that government new the of moves the to on move I e oee, rms ae en omte drn the during committed been have crimes However, ons that were being undertaken on the territory of Bosnia of territory the on undertaken being were that ons 2003: 1124).2003: Boduszinsky, and (Peskin Storm and Flash operations during committed crimes war Croatian steadfas Tudjman tribunal. the right the government'sincreasedwithnew cooperationmoves underminetoward the to use wingwould that strategy rhetorical the established and court the against opinion public primed Tudjman's persistent non persistent Tudjman's

Homeland War, Homeland (SAP)

- 95

a itoue i 19, n i ws te at n most and last “the was it and 1999, in introduced was - cooperation and criticism and cooperation

as itisthe l rfsd o eons te rbnls ih t investigate to right tribunal's the recognise to refused tly an used the slogan “Tudjman, not the Balkans”, Balkans”, the not “Tudjman, slogan the used an

Croatian 12

official epcigpltca n arbcud be could Zagreb in politician respecting –

of the ICTY as an anti an as ICTY the of and consequently Croatia‟s official Croatia‟s consequently and plc” 20: 6. t s worth is It 76). (2003: policy” a term for the armed conflict that happened happened thatconflict thefor armed term oead War, Homeland - Hercegovina. The following The Hercegovina.

“decidedly unpopular in in unpopular “decidedly s el s n the in as well as - Croat institution Croat

- more more style – -

CEU eTD Collection 6 5 in and de HDZ‟s marked.“After the Union was European Croatia‟s withthe relations politics Croatian in era new a office, in President new the with as well as elected, new a with 1999, December 10 on death Tudjman‟s With phaseRapprochement and therights ofcitizens”. res more concentrate to and world, the in voice stronger a Europe give to institutions, EU reform to plans down laying Maastricht, from treaty the of achievements power into came treaty new a included. also R were Malta and Cyprus of islands Mediterranean The Poland, Slovenia. Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Estonia, Republic, Czech the Bulgaria, Europe: eastern and central of countries 10 with negotiations membership of re was Tudjman that year same The Croatia back pushing is itself Europe the like now seemed it and 319) 2003: (Lindstrom, Europe” in place so the from Croatia a as treated and seen be might Croatia that idea the of rejection his extent great a to reflect which

http://europa.eu/about http://europa.eu/about Balkan blocking Croatia‟s request to membership start talks in 1997 (Razsa, Lindstrom, 20 in factors same the Bosnia raised Union European The 1996. until membership Croatia‟s postponing in secessionists Croatian Tribu supported outlets, media Herzegovina, fought and the extradition indicted of war criminals the to International Criminal critical suppressed regime from part in Tudjman‟ stemmed Franjo undoubtedly West the of eyes the in position unfavourable Croatia‟s a o h fre uolva IT) h Cuclo uoe ie hs raos for reasons these cited Europe of Council The (ICTY). Yugoslavia former the for nal country. Moreover, “ Moreover, country. to the Balkans. From pointofviewto the another onethat could conclude - - - eu/eu eu/eu called Balkan darkness of Yugoslavia and ensure its return to its rightful rightful its to return its ensure and Yugoslavia of darkness Balkan called dsa dmcai ad ua rgt rcr i te 90. h Tudjman The 1990s. the in record rights human and democratic dismal s - -

history/1990 history/1990 6

Tudjman rose to power on the promise that he would free free would he that promise the on power to rose Tudjman – - - - 1999/index_en.htm 1999/index_en.htm elected as Croatia‟s president, the EU started the process the started EU the president, Croatia‟s as elected h Tet o Amsterdam of Treaty The 13

, accessed 16 May2013 16 accessed , May2013 16 accessed , –

centre – -

left mna Soai and Slovakia omania, which “builds on the the on “builds which ources on employment on ources

–

government being being government feat in the 2000 the feat in 5

Also in 1997, in Also

04: 629).04:

- CEU eTD Collection =true&treatyId=140 7 Bosnia in operations military running that shock major first The transparentmost wereICTY. obstacles relatedcooperation withthe tothe ra quick for wishes and plans the all not However, to“return intention its theEU”84). toEurope” with (2003: through integration Austro former the Union” European the with relationship existing the strengthen and formalise to Croatia allow should close a establish “to objective the with signed, was Agreement the 2001 October in and announced” 84), 2003: (Bartlett, promptly were Agreement Association and Stabilization a for “negotiations 2000 November In EU. the from greeted warmly were President new and government new The general. in rights human Bosnia towards pretensions pr the enhance to ICTY, the to willingness meantwhich EU, to the accession reactivateCroatia‟s their declared openly Mesic, Stjepan President, new the and Racan, Ivica (F Europeanstates” East with other Centraland up catch to it allowing process, integration the through country the rush to EU the lead would alone results election their believedthat many elections,Croats presidential andparliamentary http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/prepareCreateTreatiesWorkspace/treatiesGeneralData.do?step=0&redirect 7 exceptionsfew in encouraging Croats to deal with their past (Fisher, 2005: 86) the of one be to proved Mesic President Croats. by committed crimes war about openly speak bec ICTY the with cooperating only Racan the were they that throughout impression the gave representatives Nonetheless, cabinet most office, (…) in term government‟s position. or nationality their of irrespective basis, crime war of perpetrators which to according ICTY, the with cooperation on declaration new a on agree did government Racan the 2000, April In . As Bartlett interestingly identifies, “in that “in identifies, interestingly Bartlett As . ,

accessed 15 May 15 2013 accessed n lsig eainhp ae o rcpoiy n mta itrs, which interest, mutual and reciprocity on based relationship lasting and - Hungarian Empire apart from Bosnia from apart Empire Hungarian

came from the ICTY was related to General Blaskic. Blaskic was was Blaskic Blaskic. General to related was ICTY the from came , the EU and Croatia organized a Balkan Summit in Zagreb where where Zagreb in Summit Balkan a organized Croatia and EU the , - ecgvn, n t wr o cnoiaig eorc and democracy consolidating on work to and Hercegovina,

cs o Srin eues eun o rai, o emnt any terminate to Croatia, to return refugees Serbian of ocess

- Hercegovina during the Croat the during Hercegovina ause of international pressure, as they were reluctant to reluctant were they as pressure, international of ause 14 isher, 2005: 83). Both the new Prime Minister, Both the 2005: 83). isher,

pprochement ran smoothly, and first and first and smoothly, ran pprochement way Croatia became the last country of of country last the became Croatia way –

amongother - wud e uihd n n individual an on punished be would s ezgvn o omly announce formally to Herzegovina – - Muslim war and when and war Muslim

to fullywithcooperate to

CEU eTD Collection Croatia though Even blockade. under were EU the to accession for negotiations Croatia‟s throu and large, at was Gotovina 2005 to 2001 From 87). 2005: (Fisher, court” foreign a by tried be to refusing hiding, into went Gotovina and promised, as quickly as move operation. this during committed crimes “Al war of account the on indictment received he the during General c the Still, the halted Netherlands ratification of andAssociation theStabilisation Agreement withCroatia. and UK the since (ibid), rule” Tudjman‟s of time the since West However, April 2003Bobetkoand, as says, diedFisher In Bobetko. extradite to refused government the and indictment the accept to refused Bobetko the General and Bobetko General of during Staff General the of Chief and general cases Army Croatian a was Bobetko Janko Gotovina. the were these and indictees, Croatia of cases other two mention briefly will I so. doing in inefficient proved they occasions several on EU, the from demands and tasks the fulfil to commitment their declared new the that problems the governmen of core the depicts episode This 81). 2003: (Bartlett, now?” Why us? to this do they did “Why complained Racan Ivica Minister Prime new the despair, two only 2000, g newafter the months March In surrendered. voluntarily he Hague The from came indictment huh h Rcn oenet lde ta i wud ad vr h gnrl, t i not did it generals, the over hand would it that pledged government Racan the though Homeland War Homeland after right until waiting than rather indictment an criticizing in lead” the “took Racan that time first the repercussions long negative of government Racan the relieved death Bobetko‟s Although this episode resulted in “the biggest impasse in relations between Croatia and the and Croatia between relations in impasse biggest “the in resulted episode this ii ws e t pa wt te ae f eea At Gtvn. ooia a a was Gotovina Gotovina. Ante General of case the with peak to yet was risis ws aig i te otx o coeain ih h Hague The with cooperation of context the in facing, was t - wing forces had mobilized against cooperation (2005: 88) , and in 2002 he was indicted by the ICTY for crimes agains crimes for ICTY the by indicted was he 2002 in and , Homeland War, Homeland

regarding cooperation with The Hague, the case was significant since it marked it since significant was case the Hague, The with cooperationregarding overnment was elected, Blaskic received a forty areceived Blaskic elected, was overnment and one of the key military staff in Operation in staff military key the of one and

–

- even more “fam more even five year sentence. “In “In yearsentence. five

–

vn huh they though even - term international term ghout this time this ghout t the Serbs. the t Storm, ous” and –

CEU eTD Collection 8 Slovakia Europe eastern and central of countries “eight hold, on still were negotiations accession Croatia‟s countries”. member 25 reachingefficiently after function could EU the that so institutions the reform “to was aim main its and power into came Nice of Treaty The 2003 In the lost government this elect 2003 November in elections following the in government, the with discontent their promote to nationalists the by used were crises those often and Union, Racan though Even 1995. Fisher says that operations military the after country the fled had that refugees Serbian th the of context the in the of returnthe of issue the was that and made EU, the with integration enhancingthe for condition being was progress slow hand, other the On Croats”. Bosnia in involvement Tudjman‟s He identifies (2005) Fisher that condition important most second the for As The Hague, negotiationswere accession launched. Octobe in Only with cooperation Croatia‟s on opinion positive a gave Ponte del Carla ICTY the of Prosecutor ICTY. the with cooperation full was accession negotiation the opening for condition the 2004, in country candidate of status the received

http://europa.eu/eu rzegovina as an independent state” state” independent an as rzegovina ions, but mostlywiththe country‟sions, because ofpublic economy. dissatisfaction poor aa ws nofral aot aig n gad etrs oad tnc eb, n the and Serbs, ethnic toward gestures Moreover, grand number returnees of wasminimal (Fisher, 2005: 85). 2002. any making December about in uncomfortable approval was gaining Racan finally delays, repeated experienced an law of passage the and measure, temporary a as meant only was legislation that However, Minorities. on Law constitutional the to amendments approving by rights minority on requirements EU meeting toward step important an take did parliament the 2000, May In -

h Cze the joined the EU, finally ending the division of Europe decided by the Great Powers Powers Great the by decided Europe of division the ending finally EU, the joined - law/treaties/index_en.htm h eulc Etna Lti, ihai, ugr, oad Soei and Slovenia Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Republic, ch ‟s government faced several severe crises in relations with the European the with relations in crises severe several faced government ‟s

- Herzegovina was never popular among most ordinary ordinary most among popular never was Herzegovina – , accessed 16 May2013 16 accessed ,

for Racan it was “the least painful, particularly since since particularly painful, least “the was it Racan for 16

20, hn Chief when 2005, r Flash –

“treating Bosnia “treating 8

In 2004, while Inwhile 2004, and

entirely new entirely Storm

ird in - CEU eTD Collection May2013 11 10 9 increased only not has government The forward. national integration on push limitations accepted help even to has sovereignty party the and deed, in also but word, in just advocate strong pro a itself proved country‟s has HDZ the “the as change direction, political not did government in change The Sanader. Ivo Minister Prime and leader new its with HDZ, reformed bythe installed was government new a 2003 In return ofHDZThe economic crisistotheheadlines. came expectations”. citizens' meet to meansand framework necessary the legal Unionwith It provides the Union'score values. thus a legitimacy democratic strengthen methods, working their and institutions European the adapt to possible it makes Treaty “This 2009. in power into came and 2007 treaty new a of form the in found was substitute EU the in crisis political a to led which Netherlands, the in and France in failed ratification its However, EU. the of states member 25 all by ratified be to supposed was it power into EU‟s decision the increasing significantly without it, does it comp how and do, can EU the clarify and“what nature” overall and base treaty EU‟s the “simplify to supposed was it Treaty, establ “Treaty the when 2004 October 29 on occurred moment significant A EU. the entered also Bulgaria members”. become also Malta and Cyprus Yalta. at earlier years 60

http://europa.eu/about

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm http://europa.eu/about tne” Cuc ad hneoe 20: 4. t am a t “temie democratic “streamline to was aim Its 54). 2007: Phinnemore, and (Church etences” -

making and management in an EU of 25 and more countries”. more and 25 of EU an in management and making ishing a Constitution for Europe” was signed. Also known as the Constitutional the as known Also signed. was Europe” for Constitution a ishing - - eu/eu eu/eu

- history/1990 his tory/2000

In this way the constitutional crisis was overcome, while the while overcome, was crisis constitutional the way this In - - 1999/index_en.htm 2009/index_en.htm

–

The Lisbon Treaty Lisbon The , accessed 16 May2013 16 accessed , , accessed 16 May2013 16 accessed ,

9 of EU membership not membership EU of

– In 2007 Romania and Romania 2007 In

which was signed in signed was which 10 nd consolidate the consolidate nd

nodrt come to order In , accessed 16 16 accessed , - EU EU . A . CEU eTD Collection 1991 during Croatia from flight took who Serbs 280,000 the of refugees; Serb of return the for conditions propitious assuring in efforts Croatia‟s for 2008 February a ICTY, the with cooperating mid by concluded were chapters 35 its and process negotiation the 2000s, the of half second the in EU the and Croatia of relations the for As EU, and she that concludes the and ofCroatia bilateral entire relations the reflective ishighly theEU on (dis)trust towards ov Fisher‟s (ibid). Brussels” of part the on treatment unfair of “perceptions the to regard with Croatia, towards EU the of politics the with dissatisfaction manifesta a as rather as and role”, EU the but abused Sanader and Racan both “as government population”, the with dissatisfaction the among nationalism in rise a as seen be necessarily not “should support public of decline this that considers Fisher However, 90). Croatia‟s of delay the After against. were percent 41 while later, year one percent 53 just to dropped level that but membership, EU supported Croats of percent 73 2003, December “in which “ the that identifies she polls, opinion public of analysis her In it. calls (2005) Fisher as frustration” in “popular resulted and declining, was integration EU the for support national period same the In remained the fall like thatuntil of and Tribunal, the with cooperation Croatia‟s on opinions negative Prosecutor‟s Chief ICTY‟s the to due inhibited constantly processwas association the mentioned, asHowever, 89). 2005: problems rel other ICTY, butalso tackled cooperation withthe soli and sympathy of lack during the war (2005: 91) Europe‟s of wars. the complained stopping have in inactivity Croats its Other and together Yugoslavia keep to efforts Union‟s the on partly based 1990s, the in early developed EU the of distrust citizens‟ Croatian (…) past. the also but events, recent on entirely not based is EU the for support of lack current Croats‟

accession negotiations in March 2005, public backing fell below 50 percent” (2005: percent” 50 below fell backing public 2005, March in negotiations accession ouain a bcm icesnl anti increasingly become has population

d tee a as pas fo te uoen alaet in Parliament European the from praise also was “there nd

2005, when accession negotiations accession launched.2005, when were 18

- 01 I ti pro Cota a fully was Croatia period this In 2011. ating to Croatia‟s past” (Fisher, past” ating toCroatia‟s rl cnlso o te public the on conclusion erall - U ad ipas eut by results displays and EU” aiy ih Croatia with darity - ,aot 130,000 about 5,

in of tion on CEU eTD Collection reflected debate. inthis be to going are that events important most the explained briefly and introduced have I debate the of nature the understand to order in So, debate. national the in issues central the were conte Such issues. related EU the with regard in particularly development, political Croatia‟s of overview historical the on was contextualisation this of focus main The chapter. following the in analyse will foraccession Croatia‟s tothe EU. support declared turnout) 43,51% (with voters the of 66,27% referendum, national a in 2012, the 2011 Europea December 1 On resignation. Sanader‟s Minister Prime in resulted accession and the process, in delay further caused which Croatia, with negotiations blocked Slovenia had returned by In this chapter I have set out the context for context the out set have I chapter this In n Parliament voted “yes” on Croatia‟s accession to the Union, and on 22 January January 22 on and Union, the to accession Croatia‟s on “yes” voted Parliament n that date” (Ramet, 2010: 275). However, a major set However,a major date” (Ramet, 2010:275). that

xtualisation was necessary since the political issues here discussed discussed here issues political the since necessary was xtualisation

the Croatian national debate on the EU, which I which EU, the on debate national Croatian the 19

- back came in 2009 when when came in2009 back CEU eTD Collection editor and 12 and rhetoric his present firstly will I section this in therefore, and nationalism, Croatian polit key the was Tudjman Franjo independence, Croatia‟s of decade In first the1990s. European beginning the of Union thatoccurredat the Community/European the and Croatia between relations the of interpretations different analyse will I section this In the and atCroatia EU ofbeginning the“Thereturn the 1990s: toEurope” stages of area coherent part (1991 short very was period time the since section, same the in stages two first the present will I that is structure this from exception One EU. the great of evaluation and hope new of era Cro among support Declining EU: 2004. e) expectations; the to approachment institutional Croatian 2000. d) democracy of processaftermath and War turnin and hope regaining Croatia: of recognition European 1992. b) Europe; with disappointment Croatia‟s and expectations great of year a Croatia: Skoko Croatia in stages foc Union the to accession Croatia‟s on and EU the on debate Croatian the in differentpresentnarratives I following:will the is chapter this structureof The

Božo Skoko is a professor at theat Fac Skokoprofessor is a Božo 12

withTelevision. Croatian 20:5) wo dniis ie tgs n hs rltos a 19. grsin on Aggression 1991. a) relations: these in stages five identifies who (2007:355), - EU bilateral relations. I will follow the chronological structure presented by presented structure chronological the follow will I relations. bilateral EU

CHAPTER3 the same discussion.

ulty of Political Science, Political ultyof - building: era of Europe‟s disappointment in Croatia;in Europe‟sdisappointment eraof building: – 20

THEDEBATE

University of Zagreb Universityof atian citizens for EU accession: critical critical accession: EU for citizens atian g back to Europe; c) 1995 c) Europe; to back g using on several distinctive distinctive several on using

. ician and ideologist of ideologist and ician He is a former journalist formerjournalist isa He - 1992) and often both often and 1992)

- 1999. CEU eTD Collection Josipović. Ivo President Croatian Analyst of Chief 13 and spatial in because symbolic, only was “return” this that believed Tudjman Moreover, 200 Jelcic, in (Tudjman collectiveness” diverse European to contribute can which mentality, and economy geography, culture, history, Croatia‟s on based is circle civilization “retur desired the but Europe, to belongs historically Croatia onlythat not And standards. andvalues European towards transition of process a in is country the that evidence contemporary and po discourse Tudjman‟s since Europe”, to return “the of term umbrella the under explained be can elements mentioned the of All belongs”. “historically country the where Europe, “normal” the into and communism value European core as seen be all can (which integrity territorial and democracy, freedom, for only not fighting a is in she is that and Croatia struggle, that notion the first, statement: this in addressed issues several are There the EU,geopolitical ofCroatia‟s as well as vision his position: Tudjman‟ 1990s. the in EU the on debate Croatian of picture wider a grasp to order in era, this on reflections the on significant a had discourse Tudjmanist this and (2006:12), 1990s” the throughout policy foreign and domestic Croatia‟s dictated discourse Jovic integrations. western and Europe Western towards attitude

Dejan Jović is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Political Science ofPolitical theat Faculty AssociateProfessor is an Jović Dejan fo te ak f h one the of dark the from n

critics and advocates. and critics hn rai cn on uoe wee h hsoial blns qoe in (quoted belongs historically she where Europe, 2003:317) join can Croatia when the territ its CroatianEuropean willthat the EU understand thatthestrugglehopeand the countries for We s statement from 1991 fully reflects his attitude and expectations of Croatia towards Croatia of expectations and attitude his reflects fully 1991 from statement s ﬁ ght against the restoration of socialist communism . . . but the the but . communismsocialist. ofrestorationthe . against ght orial integrity, its freedom and democracy is not only the the only not is democracy and freedom its integrity, orial

Secondly, I will present the narratives of other scholars, and their their andscholars, other of narratives the present I will Secondly,

ints to both the “historical evidence” of where Croatia belongs Croatia where of evidence” “historical the both to ints - at ttltraim o eta Erpa ad European and European Central to totalitarianism party

influence on other public intellectuals public other on influence s), but it is fighting its way out of socialist socialist of out way its fighting is it but s), , University of Zagreb. He is also a is also He Zagreb. of University ,

identifies that “Tudjmanist that identifies ﬁ ﬁ ght of the Croatian nation, Croatian the of ght ght for normalconditions for ght Lindstrom, : 9:114). –

both CEU eTD Collection 14 believes,Croatia especially he as partner, its would treat thatEuropefull righthad a believe to ensur can character national and civilization, culture, history, position, geographical Croatia‟s that hoping when illusion an in living are Croats that obvious more and more becoming is it that Novosel Pavao (Tudjman 2009:139). inJelcic, new of state a as Croatia, of Republic recognized internationally sovereign, and “independent that stated he 1992, February in proclaimed was that recognition international (partial) the for As Serbi force would and conflict armed the internationalize would it because bloodshed, the stopping to means effective most break Euro on counting still was he However, own. its on flag, own its under development its pursue can Croatia determined, is Tudjman possible, not is that if alliance; the join Croatia could doctrine this to up keeping by only and development, C of idea his for crucial are identity distinctive and sovereignty that obvious is it However, 1992. in integration of process the towards attitude positive a has and Europe, possible” ( and ( identity developing cultural, political, own their for aspire “tend Croats words, his in However, people”. t “Croats that stated Tudjman 1992 in integration, European to comes it When 116). (ibid, Europe of part a is still and was, always Croatia terms political radition u okviru saveza republika saveza okviru u

Pavao Novosel was a Professor o wasProfessor a Novosel Pavao

Europe, is an important guarantee of permanent political stability in Southeast Europe” Southeast in stability political permanent of guarantee important an is Europe, e its position in Europe, even as a “minor partner” or a “poor relative” (ibid, 26). Croats Croats 26). (ibid, relative” “poor a or partner” “minor a as even Europe, in position its e - up, and he stated in August 1991 that international recognition of Croatia would be the the be would Croatia of recognition international that 1991 August in stated he and up, -

(ibid: 118). Again, Tudjman is confident about Croatia being an integral part of of part integral an being Croatia about confident is Tudjman Again, 118). (ibid: are the most open hearted advocates for peaceful European integration of sovereign sovereign of integration European peaceful for advocates hearted open most the are 14

(1991), when a when (1991), razvojni identitet razvojni

) if possible, or under its own flags, if democratic agreement is not is agreement democratic if flags, own its under or possible, if ) f Communicology at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb of University Science, Political Facultyof theat f Communicology

a to start negotiating peace (Tudjman in Mijatovic, 1999:165). Mijatovic, in (Tudjman peace negotiating start to a ddressing the European reaction to Croatia‟s “return”, stated “return”, Croatia‟s to reaction European the ddressing ) in ) united Europe, in the frame of alliance of the states states the of alliance of frame the in Europe, united 22

pean help in the process of Yugoslavian of process the in help pean –

acco rding to their historical historical their to rding roatia‟s further roatia‟s

CEU eTD Collection 15 year 8).One(ibid: even is later disappointment stronger and his stated that he it of out best the get to how know should but crumbs, for hope only can people, peripheral conflicts, “permanent relatio balanced of space a as Europe orless, produceand, more compromises which andhungers, aggressions, competitions, power identifies he though even orientation, I years. crucial these in changed Europe of image his how analyse can we Therefore, developing. was Yugoslavia former in crisis the as 1992, and 1991, 1990, in written were book this in published essays Lasic‟s Stanko appealing among otheras well. intellectuals argument Tudjman‟s legitimizes that analysis Novosel‟s in see can we Therefore, according of new kind place this world” tothat, what deserve we (ibid). in m focus must but Europe, from themselves alienate psychologically not must Croats that believes he Europe, from reaction a such with disappointed were Croats though even However, 27). and etc. threats country), independent leaving was therefore an as survival its of possibilities the (regarding underestimations issues), minority (regarding warnings Croatia giving was Europe help, of th in However, (ibid). long” so for Europe defended has Croatia which from world the of part same the from “barbarians the of attack under is itself Croatia when moment the at East”, the from invasion destructive against shield Croat of account on Croatia protect to obliged is Europe because

Stanko Las Stanko ore on the issue of self of issue the on ore ić was a Professor of Croatian Literature at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb of University Philosophy, theat Facultyof Literature ofCroatian wasProfessor a ić Croatia‟s Europeaness on geographical and historical account account historical and geographical on Europeaness Croatia‟s 15 ns” (1992: 7). In such an arrangement, Croats, being a small, oppressed, and and oppressed, small, a being Croats, arrangement, an such In 7). (1992: ns”

he esy o E on essays Three n the first essay he points out that Croats can have only European European only have can Croats that out points he essay first the n Croatia, a country that is an integral part of Europe, on its own (ibid, own its on Europe, of part integral an is that country a Croatia,

- definition, in order to learn “who we are, what we are, and and are, we what are, we “who learn to order in definition, urope e moment of the “clash of the civilizations”, instead civilizations”, the “clashof the of moment e

rsn a ey neetn wr sne h three the since work interesting very a present 23

ia‟s historical role as “the “the as role historical ia‟s

–

the one that that one the –

was quite quite was

CEU eTD Collection culture sharedhistoryanda haswhomCroatia with countriesthe Community,especiallyfrom “West the to return break Yugoslavia‟s desired Croatian citizens of number significant a 1980s the in already that highlights (2007) Skoko of Bozo feeling a failed, it since and Yugoslavia, former wasdisappointment developed. in war the stop to responsible th that notion the is debate the to Lasic brought that novelty one see, can we As 48). (ibid: Balkans” the in rampage “barbaric of case this in done be to nothing is there pretending is going nothing is there if as proceed to order in excuses finding keeps just and on, going crimes see to refusing denial, in living constantly is but well) as responsible is it which (for crime by surrounded is Europe bigges the that concludes he essay final the (supra In (ibid:26). with accord in adjusted being are issues these which in second self to right people‟s and rights, human the justice, Europe: equality, in freedom, discourses dominant two are there that is situation a such Co and Security of (Conference KESS or EC the like mod role intellectual and moral the that paradox the by stunned is He (ibid:18). EC the just than more is Europe though even Europe, dominates EC the because (EC), Community European offers author The els in Europe are becoming statistic ( statistic becoming are Europe in els that experience (ibid: 15) forget to fatal be could it and experience valuable a gained We illusion. our for high too price a pay not did we Luckily, ally. only our as her on relying kept we but Europe, of face that see We subject. historical a as ourselves constitute to desire our at smile disdain a had and surprise with us at looked it though even ally, natural a as Europe saw we therefore Europe

was a symbol of freedom, democracy, and people‟s right of self of right people‟s and democracy, freedom, of symbol a was

an explanation that when he talks about Europe he actually refers to the the to refers actually he Europe about talks he when that explanation an - European civilizational circle”, and had hoped for help from the European European the from help for hoped had andcircle”, civilizational European on. In the case of the war in Croatia, the author explains that Europe that explains author the Croatia, in war the of case the In on.

- up s up o Croatia could become an independent country and country independent an become could Croatia o etatisticki 24

), para ), - operation in Europe). The outcome of of outcome The Europe). in operation t European sin of all is the fact that fact the is all of sin European t - statistic, and neo and statistic, - determination, and the the and determination, - )national interests interests )national - determination, and determination, - statistic factors, statistic

e EC was seen seen was EC e first promotes promotes first did not want to want not did CEU eTD Collection help” (ibid). needed Croatia when Europe was “Where themselves asking were Croats of lot A scepticism. conflict that in victim the beginning from Croatia support not did it that fact the especially and Yugoslavia, former in war relat a such “From inefficient. be to out turned EC the intervention, armed by only ended be could conflict that obvious became it When 11). (2011: general in safety European and Yugoslavia from people both endanger would break Yugoslavia‟s of idea the to opposed was EC the 1991, in fall the before firstly, crisis: Yugoslav the resolve to attempts failed EU‟s the ( “sovereignists” Croatian that identifies (2011) Jovic Dejan an aggr escalated that war the in position Croatia‟s of image dominant a also depicts he dissolution Yugoslavia‟s of out came that that case was time that of Lasic‟s discourse in concluded already have I what emphasises Skoko Croatia inthe 1990s,he (ibid). concludes and EU the between relations bilateral the as well as EU, the on perception contemporary the affiliation” “European sealed Europe” though to return “unsuccessful an Such 354). even (ibid, feeling constant a remained identity, own their questioning started had people enthusia such to Due (ibid). Europe of map the on states new become to wanted that republics the of demand the to respond to how know not did and Yugoslavia in on going was that aggression However, (2007:352). ession. sm over state independence and disappointment with the rest of the world, Croatian Croatian world, the of rest the with disappointment and independence state over sm –

a state in which the official discourse was the one of Croatia being exclusively a exclusively being Croatia of one the was discourse official the which in state a

– the same Europe that Croatia was counting on was confused with the with confused was on counting was Croatia that Europe same the

gave a lot of motives for constructing a discourse of Croatian Euro Euro Croatian of discourse a constructing for motives of lot a gave

Croatia should count on Europe‟s help in resolving the crisis the resolving in help Europe‟s on count should Croatia

–

and moreover, when he uses the term aggression aggression term the uses he when moreover, and 25 - ively failed attempt of the EC to prevent the the prevent to EC the of attempt failed ively

up, believin up, g it could lead to conflict which which conflict to lead could it g suverenisti – ) had problems with with problems had )

ht h dominant the that –

a victim of victim a

both both CEU eTD Collection EU. the in membership Croatian to commitment their declaring openly was Croatian government the state”, Croatian young the of protector “the be could Europe that hope gave Sko As and inthe their 1990sand work, afterwards. bothwritten intellectuals public other of rhetoric the as well as rhetoric, 1990s. Tudjman‟s analyse the will I during Again, changed EU the about narratives the how present will I section this In the and inCroatia EU mid the and images ofEurope. feelings mixed by dominated is phase this disappointment, unexpected to “return” desired a period a within turned and twisted unpredictable Europe of image and and narratives the how dynamic see can we a relationship such from and reality, become not did presumptions such its with Croatia l to struggle help would moreover, and, “return” Croatia‟s recognize would Europe that expectation real a was there assumption an such from Following countries. European notio with supported Central the to that Croatia, despite seven integration, its Yugoslav decades belongs toEurope, of particularly the of one section: this summarise To with the EC,whichhas ledtoresentment from anddistancing the Europe. disa of feeling the upon reflects and mosaic, to piece final a puts comment Jovic‟s

of only a year or two. From a symbol of freedom and democracy to hypocrit, and from from and hypocrit, to democracy and freedom of symbol a From two. yearor a only of ko (2007:354) identifies, soon after the international recognition of Croatia, which which Croatia, of recognition international the after soon identifies, (2007:354) ko eave Socialist Yugoslavia and to move towards democratic Europe. However, However, Europe. democratic towards move to and Yugoslavia Socialist eave - Mediterranean part of Europe. Such assumptions were widely spread and and spread widely were assumptions Such Europe. of part Mediterranean s n egahcl oiin clue ad hrd itr wt Central with history shared and culture, position, geographical on ns

- 1990s

dominant ideas in the early state early the in ideas dominant

- building phase was was phase building ppointment ppointment

CEU eTD Collection (ibid, Bleiburg” at defeat military the to equal defeat diplomatic and political a be would it where sphere the to returnCroatia‟s or South Balkan regional of kind any join to refusal its in determined was Croatia that repeated got Croatia When 2007:26). Ljubicic, and Tudjman in (Tudjman Poland and Republic Czech Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, like countries ex ba Croatia force to trying was EU the that confident was Tudjman concept Balkans, inCroatia‟s since debate oftheWestern dominated it EU. onthe EU‟s the of interpretation the on be mostly will section this of focus the reasons, these For (2006) identifiesJovic thesame (ibid). Europe” Southeast in integrating of and Balkans Western of idea the on out freaking was “Tudjman created. be to trying was association Balkan new the when was second the the during was a Europe under was Croatia when embargo in weapons disappointment first Tudjman‟s that says (2005:142) Rados from clear shortbut Skoko‟s of image the both section, last the of end the at mentioned have I As the from internationaland community prolongedEuropean “Croatia‟s future”. criticism to led process democratic the of down slowing the and war However, - uolv nerto, hl h isse ta Cota eogd o eta Erp, with Europe, Central to belonged Croatia that insisted he while integration, Yugoslav - East European integration. Tudjman was clear that such an integration would“withhold integration an East clearthat Tudjman was Europeanintegration. such Western Balkans, seeing it evidenceas of Europe‟s hostility towards Croa promised frominitially Croatia led nationalism radical Tudjman‟s Yugos EU. the with talks accession begun had which states,European Central East with than rather Albania, and neighbours the Yugoslav of concept very was The Balkans. Balkans‟ Western „Western the of countries for policy Approach Regional EU The

Europe twisted and turned several times in a short period, which can be clearly seen seen clearly be can which period, short a in times several turned and twisted Europe lavia, but it now threatened to take it back to the „WesternBalkans‟,not the and to back it take threatened now to it but lavia, - Croatian relationship worsened after April 1997, when the EU introduced the introduced EU the when 1997, April after worsened relationship Croatian –

o h Erpa Uin Tdmn nrl rsodd o h cnet of concept the to responded angrily Tudjman Union. European the to - sighted comment. sighted

ncetbe o rai, s t ikd h cuty ih t former its with country the linked it as Croatia, to unacceptable antagonism that Tudjman developedantagonism themid thatTudjman from

it geographically, historically, and culturally belongs, and and culturallybelongs, geographically,and historically, it ttack by Yugoslavia People‟s Army (JNA), and and (JNA), Army People‟s Yugoslavia by ttack 27

cetd o h Cucl f uoe he Europe of Council the to accepted

relation with, and therefore the the therefore and with, relation ck to some form of Balkan, Balkan, of form some to ck

tia (2006:6

- 1990s: 1990s: - 7)

–

as CEU eTD Collection Zagreb of University 16 paid only but interests, national Croatian or arguments historical in interested not was Europe 2007:78). Ljubicic, and Tudjman in (Tudjman sovereignty own their practice to and politics “ of attempt any on pressure of lot pushing for EU the criticized and EU the towards politics Tudjman‟s defended and discussed sceptics Euro prominent most Balkans”, Western the and “Croatia table round a on later, years Ten how see to and sphere, contemporary more into analysis this move to interesting is it However, byend of thedecade. ini EU the towards int antagonism can we amendment Constitutional of case the With Croatia. of image Europe‟s was neither but one, positive a not was Europe of image Croatia‟s that conclude only can I initiative, particular the in involved be should which state towards reluctance strong a such When Ljubicic,state Tudjman union!” and2007:48). (Tudjman in Yugo some enter again never will people Croatian independence: state and freedom and expresses, consensual and firm a determines constitutionally politically which amendment, constitutional “historical a as intervention this explained Tudjman 2006:92). Jovic in (quoted form” any in union state Balkan new any the of restoration to lead could or would association an such if states, other with Croatia of Republic the of association of anyprocess initiate to prohibited is pub at stop not did regional integration of kind some enter to not determination his Moreover, 37).

Miroslav Tuđman, son of Franjo Tuđman, is a Professor of Information Sciences at the Faculty of Philosophy, Philosophy, Facultyof the at Sciences Information of Professor is a Tuđman, ofFranjo son Tuđman, Miroslav lic speeches; in 1997 he initiated an amendment to the Constitution which stated that “[i]t “[i]t that stated which Constitution the to amendment an initiated he 1997 in speeches; lic

Tudjman‟s politics areTudjman‟s politics post being interpreted inthe Croatia towards a “Third Yugoslavia”. Miroslav Tudjman Miroslav Yugoslavia”. “Third a towards Croatia

ti ative. Such antagonistic attitudes led Croatia to the isolation the to Croatia led attitudes antagonistic Such ative. ml pols n nw tts t cet a independent an create to states” new and peoples small an

U ntaiei coming is initiative EU 28

conclusion of Croatian struggle for national national for struggle Croatian of conclusion erpret this move as an institutionalized institutionalized an as move this erpret - Tudjman era.

Yugoslav state community or or community state Yugoslav 16

believes that there was a was there that believes

from the President of a of President the from - Balkan - CEU eTD Collection 1991 in Informing 19 18 1998 Integrations ofEuropean Minister 17 was image this 1990s late anything butpositive. the in that conclude can we Croatia, towards approach EU‟s ofevaluation the on basedmostly was EU the of image the Since isolation. of cost the at even Thir a possibly integration Balkan new among some towards Croatia doubt push to trying no was EU the is that Eurosceptics there today even that identify can we analysis, clear but brief this In 210). a created of had will who the people Croatian against slowly, created being was Yugoslavia Third a policy, foreign British Hitrec Hrvoje Yugoslavia”, “New with concept Balkan Western the of correlation the to referring Western that Balka out points Serbia” Greater of clone the is Balkans “Western entitled article Domazet Davor (ibid). 1999 in extent certain to approach regional the revised sin eventually, off paid interest Croatian in not is integration such that belief firm Tudjman‟s Still, 2007:102). Ljubicic, and Tudjman in (Hodak community international of C agreedon Tudjman if and EU, the and Europe the towards Croatia directed who Tudjman was it that people many that stresses Hodak Ljerka (ibid). integration regional a in forced be could it so NATO, and EU the to t to attention

Hrvoje Hitrec is a novelist. He was a member of Croatian Parliament 19 Parliament Croatian wasmemberof novelist. a is a He Hitrec Hrvoje Army Croatian Admiral of retired is a Lošo Domazet Davor Gove Croatian of president vice memberParliament, ofCroatian wasa Hodak Ljerka

ns must be avoided in order not to repeat 1918 or 1945 all over again (ibid, 148). When When 148). (ibid, again over all 1945 or 1918 repeat to not order in avoided be must ns 19

argues that through the idea of the Western Balkans, which was abstracted in 1993 by1993 in abstractedWestern wasBalkans,the which of idea the through arguesthat roatia‟s integration in the Western Balkans he would surely have trust and supportand trust surely have would Balkanshe Western the in roatia‟sintegration he interests of international system, he claims. Finally, Croatia was denied access denied was Croatia Finally, claims. he system, international of interestshe

Yugoslavia d

–

both on the right the on both

–

and that Tudjman was right to stand against such initiative, initiative, such against stand to right was Tudjman that and - 2000 n independent and sovereign Republic of Croatia (ibid, (ibid, Croatia of Republic sovereign and independent n

- 29 and

- left wing of political system system political of wing left

95 - 2000 and wasMinisterofa and 2000 rnment and was a and rnment - – Loso

try to forget to try ce the EU EU the ce 18 , in his in , 17 –

CEU eTD Collection Zagreb of University no with EU 20 the in Croatia for place a seeking was Tudjman ago. time long through an national promoted non the to attention our draws Goldstein (ibid). goal only and first the not was integration such the towards aiming was Croatia that stated Tudjman indictments, ICTY about out found he after 1999, In 2010:210). (Goldstein, environment hostile a in independence its gained Croatia that stress often would he speeches al was “Croatia that claiming EU, the to accession Goldstein Ivo In9). sharedanalysisexplainingcomprehensive continuesthat his (ibid, memories” Jovic multi of principles unr „artificial the new on a based now project was a Europe creation‟, state. Croatian the of sovereignty and existence the with terms to come cannot that one the Other, Unprincipled the “as Belgrade to Brussels and reflected image on theEurope.At this dominant of Balkans Western the of idea the towards antagonism and relationship this how and EU, the on debate national of context the in narratives such of importance the explains (2006) Jovic

Ivo Goldstein is a Professor in Modern Croatian History at the History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, ofPhilosophy, Faculty Department, theHistory at History Croatian Modern in Professor is a Goldstein Ivo - compatibility of Tudjman‟s ideology and the values of the EU. Tudjman created and and created Tudjman EU. the of values the and ideology Tudjman‟s of compatibility any newfederal Europe as unlikely as wasit casethe a with federal Yugoslavia (ibid) be not should differences these ethno more and bloodyYugoslaviaofstay.muchcollapse The more coherentwas united(whichby a ideology happen not will new This a that illusion an on based is identities. small existing the successfullyreplacewill it that and emergewill Europeculture European argued, Tudjman this, to addition In power. of di a to subordinationcompulsory vs. out opt to right federalism, vs. confederalism nation „majoritarisation‟, vs. consensus Yugoslavia: confli of areas The 20

highlights that even though Tudjman basically did insist on Croatia‟s prompt Croatia‟s on insist did basically Tudjman though even that highlights

- national „federations‟ national sae yhlge, hc te iea ad eortc U a gone had EU democratic and liberal the which mythologies, state d - historical similarities than the new Europe) should teach us a lesson a us teach should Europe) new the than similarities historical ct in this new Europe are to be morebe to are Europe thisnew in ct

–

the historical, religious and rec and religious historical, the

EU, but not under any circumstances and that accessing that and circumstances any under not but EU, neglected. They will ultimately, Tudjmanists believed, make believed, Tudjmanists ultimately, will They neglected. ealistic idealism of its visionaries, on unworkable unworkable on visionaries, its of idealism ealistic –

and not on the ethnic unity of its population and population its of unity ethnic the on not and 30

point theEUpoint was compared toYugoslavia, ways a part of Europe”, in his public public his in Europe”, of part a ways - state vs. loose union of sovereign states, sovereign of union loose vs. state ent ideological differences were here to here were differencesideological ent - or - less the same as those in the former the inthose sameas the less stant centre stant

–

that CEU eTD Collection HDZ 21 globalist of danger “This (2009:19). EU the access to trying were that nations small the all oppress then would Europeani global a into itself transformed democracy, verbal with camouflaged integrationalism, totalitarian and internationalism communist that possibility the of aware was Tudjman words, his In (2009:17). obvious than more then was Croatia in government loyal a install to attempt treacherous their because integrations, EU the towards sceptical be to right was Tudjman that see can we argues, Jelcic perspective, current the From 2009:15). preco mutual and evaluating without interests integration new a into rush to not him directed personal responsibility of feeling his and wisdom, leadership his experience, his because either, fanatic with country a Croatia, central where knew he because Eurosceptic a not was Tudjman words, Jelcic Dubravko awayintegration. theEuropean from turning but values European with compliance towards going not was clash this to reaction ideologies opposing the of case liberal and Tudjman of the case the in nationalistic actually was it EU the and Croatia valu A international level (229). ex other with cooperating without and directly EU the join could Croatia that idea false the of because 1993, in CEFTA join to anti an became Tudjman confronted, ideologies two the when and time, that at values EU of understanding

Dubravko Jelčić is a member of Croatian Academy of Sciance and Arts. Durin Arts. and Sciance Academyof ofCroatian member is a DubravkoJelčić

(Croatian Democratic Union) Democratic (Croatian - able contribution comes from comes contribution able European and Mediterrane and European - Europ 21

considers that Tudjman was neither a Eurosceptic nor a Euro a nor Eurosceptic aneither was Tudjman that considers - dtos n mte hw peln i my ok t is sgt (Jelcic, sight first at look may it appealing how matter no nditions, uohlc Yugo Europhilic eanist (ibid). By rejecting an offer made by Central European countries countries European Central by made offer an rejecting By (ibid). eanist

an identity, belongs to. However, he could not be a Euro a be not could he However, to. belongs identity, an - communist states, he led the country to isolation on the the on isolation to country the led he states, communist

Goldstein who identifies that in the antagonism between between antagonism the in that identifies who Goldstein - omns ttltraim rsns svr tra to threat severe a presents totalitarianism communist 31 -

democr atic in the case of the EU. Tudjman‟s EU. the of case the in atic g the 1990s he was a memberof was he a 1990s g the - fanatic. In hisIn fanatic. –

m which sm exclusive exclusive -

CEU eTD Collection that obvious became soon it However, EU. the of member new a become to soon is Croatia Tudjman‟ the that seemed it and 2000, in Croatia in happened changes significant chapter, previous the in explained As ofCroatia the Rapprochement and EU highly influ which isolation international of direction the in went Croatia sovereignty, its protecting of explanation the Under Yugoslavia.of reincarnation a as seen was initiatives, regional its of all domin the influencing heavily was country, the freedhad who president the as authorityhis enjoying Tudjman, EU. the of image distorted and with, in relations antagonistic to dominant led which deployed, a being was criticism such harsh initiatives, to Due left. recently just had she like one European integration, cooperation. Balkan of kind some to failed back Croatia push to attempt and an as seen were initiatives disappointment mutual distancing, of phase a came o expectations” “great Croatia‟s of phase initial the after summarize: To the requirements (2009:22). dictated being without and upright, identity, own our with only but Union, European i up summed be can EU the towards politics Tudjman‟s concludes, Jelcic insights, these of Because states. supra a into itself Berlinof thet (2009:20).fall wall, Since the supra a supra supporta not did Since he nations. and states itsel reforms it if only EU the accept will “Tudjman and Croatia” - national EU, and not because he is a nationalist, but because he is a patriot” patriot” a is he because but nationalist, a is he because not and EU, national enced ontheEU. thenarrative n the following statement: We belong in Europe and we want to join the the join to want we and Europe in belong We statement: following the n - national unitarian state, with a tendency to erase the identities of its memberitsof identities athe tendencyerase with to state,unitarian national

s legacy is going to be overcome quickly and easily, and that that and easily, and quickly overcome be to going is legacy s

ant discourse on the EU, and that integration, with with integration, that and EU, the on discourse ant he EU started displaying its hidden agenda started toturn he hidden EU displayingits – 32

changes in

- national Yugoslavia, he will neversupport will he Yugoslavia,national the 2000s f as a community of equal equal of community a as f terpretation of the EU‟s EU‟s the of terpretation

f European Union, European f CEU eTD Collection le international diplomat(2000 the on 22 Croatia upon imposed blockade the suspend to order in community, international the by imposed conditions the that says 2000s, Medjimorec Miroslav negotiations significant lasted and inCroatia verylong Euroscepticism produced (ibid,335). com in and countries, accessing for standards the raise EU the made that enlargement massive that from experiences negative to due Thiswas 2007 (Goldstein,and 2010:334). in2004 accessed EU countries the than the that bigger facing was Croatia that acknowledges Goldstein of 290). (ibid, round failed they next but goal, strategic immediate international primary the its fulfil in to and EU enlargement the in Croatia inaugurate to track right the on was that as appeared It (ibid). rule Tudjman‟s of characteristics were which style, governing autocratic and incorrectness, political exclusivism, nationalistic abolishing new The 2010:289). (Goldstein, p EU and Croatia between Agreement Association and in and Stabilisation the CEFTA to leading Zagreb, in and held was summit WTO Regional EU‟s the program, 2000 November Peace for Partnership NATO‟s into accepted got years for in succeed to failed had government former the which level international the on progress made governmentnew the 2000, in elections that afterthe identifies Goldstein conditioned byCroatia ifwantedaccession negotiations. theEU tostart Bosnia in Croats towards politics and refugees the of return cooperation, regional ICTY, the with cooperation were politica of determinism constant less or more was there least at but happen, to likely not is progress such eiet Sie ei, lo otiue t a etr nentoa psto o Cota by Croatia of position international better a to contributed also Mesic, Stipe resident,

Miroslav Miroslav Međimorec was Međimorec l elites to lead Croatia to the EU. Dominant stumbling Dominant EU. the to Croatialead to elites l - 2005)

22 an an we rfrig o oprto wt te U ht ok lc i the in place took that EU the with cooperation to referring when ,

assistant of the Minister assistant of - ecgvn, ic te eouin f l o tee issues these of all of resolution the since Hercegovina,

iain ih h elreet auain te accession the saturation, enlargement the with bination 33

of Foreign Affairs(1992 ofForeign

challenges in the accession process accession the in challenges - stones on this path to the EU the to path this on stones - 1999) e, nldd general included vel,

and has workedas has and the new government government new the : Croatia :

was

CEU eTD Collection long the in viable nor desirable neither was isolation that notion “the that and predecessors” their of that than Europe of vision different very a had President) anti new the “the so that more even says (and coalition Jovic Tudjmanist 2000, year the in occurred that changes the discussing When almost any independent foreign poli without Europe to subordinated fully was Croatia that concludes author The etc. real evidence on based not were and motivated politically were which indictments ICTY accepted the questioning started had Balkans, Western the to tied get to accepted had Croatia that identifies He humble unsure. completely such was obedience for reward a and country the in decline moral and economic, political, was T goals. and interests national permanent her endangering by associations regional only some but reputation, and position international into her improved had Croatia that it and (2002:114), force and Balkans the to back Croatia push to trying Bosnia of HDZ the party, nationalist their and Croats ethnic than rather institutions, international arguing Bosnia in Croats the towards politics the in shift the for As enemy. political a becoming again once was diaspora the and Sarajevo, of neg being started 1990s the of politics the worsened, had situation economic and social the identifies, author the time, same the At (2002:113). region” the in democracy of model role “the became soon and conditions, t won that one the government, new the that concludes he manner ironical an In rights. human maintaining and ICTY, the with cooperation Serbs, of return the enabling Bosnia, in Croats help to ceasing media, of freedom democratization, -

ezgvn” Jvc 20:4. utemr, ejmrc eivs th believes Medjimorec Furthermore, 2006:14). (Jovic, Herzegovina” that “[i]n Bosnia, Croatia began to follow the European line of action, by supporting supporting by action, of line European the follow to began Croatia Bosnia, “[i]n that lected, Croats in the Bosnia the in Croats lected, cy making (ibid). decision - Herzegovina, Jovic makes a different stand point, point, stand different a makes Jovic Herzegovina, 34

foundations of Croatian sovereignty, and had had and sovereignty, Croatian of foundations

he elections in 2000, accepted all this this all accepted 2000, in elections he new narrative was based on the the on based was narrative new - Hercegovina were left to the mercy the to left were Hercegovina

he result of such foreign policy policy foreign such of result he - term. In order to order In term. t h E was EU the at - CEU eTD Collection he was the in and 1994/95 culture and heofeducation was Minister a In1992 23 own hands” (2010:626). 1992 period non and Undoubtedly, EU. the of front in knees our to manner obeisance an in fallen have we government “vassalic Sanader‟s and Mesic‟s Racan‟s, the during that post When the analysing Brussels”. from eurocracy arrogant the of “fetishes rejecting in firm was Tudjman and obedience absolute include not should EU the to accession Croatia‟s that believes He blood wellplunders, as asthe primitivism, corruption Turkish “Balkan “legendary where backwardness” of economic and misery rid tyranny, slavery, got finally Croatia because CEFTA” the towards direction Balkans, the over not and Europe, to directly goes train European “our that support consistently would he and EU” the accessing of architecture political toady On thehand, other Mihanovic wider realistic, notion his stress to like would I analysis Jovic‟s In that concludes Jovic (2006:13). institutions” European join must Croatia state, a as survive

Nedjeljko Mihanovic Nedjeljko

- European. West. re Croatia region, the in domination the of Bosnia over (eventually)Belgrade with competing and of Instead Union NATO. enlarged European enlarged the of structures within Croatia of place The new discourse new The ic ioain a fnly en rpae wt coo with replaced being finally was isolation since -

2000 Croatia was at the at was Croatia 2000

- Tudjman era, which is marked is which era, Tudjman holds a PhD in philology and he is a member of Croatian Academy of Science and Art. ofScienceand Academy Croatian memberof he isa and in philology PhD a holds

was pro was -

23 revenge mentality, militarism militarism revenge mentality,

argues that Tudjman would never support this “sycophant support wouldnever and this argues thatTudjman - European, and much more realistic with respect to the to respect with realistic more much and European, highest level of its sovereignty and had its destiny in its its in destiny its had and sovereignty its of level highest - 35 directed its foreign policy interests towards the towards interests policy foreign its directed

with pro with that the new discourse was much more much was discourse new the - EU politics, Mihanovic concludes Mihanovic politics, EU and organized crime” (2010:422). peration peration

President of Croatian Parliament Croatian of President r oad sm vague some towards or – - for and Herzegovina both regional and and regional both - arguably, in the the in arguably,

CEU eTD Collection 24 aggressorpeople” Croatian(ibid,102). over be will forgotten Serbian of genocide systematic and “undoubtful of part a as committed were which crimes tri a on put be to supposed are generals Croatianand gettingamnesty “Chetniks with people”Croatian the of dignity the to insult major a and segment, juridical to military its from sovereignty, Croatian “complete says he to ICTY, the with way cooperation the the on are they that and analysisof his in Finally, 122). minority”(ibid, minor a in transformation and disqualification 124) (ibid, Croatia off cut and isolated A 88). (ibid, with” integrate forced be will Croatia states Balkan the with disproportion civilizational and cultural to due impact “civilizational to lead will which Bosnia, and Romania, Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, mig economic absorb to have inevitably will Croatia claims, he union”, customs and monetary “Balkan a In (ibid). Balkans the in leadership new take can Serbia so Croatia (ibid, Balkans the to Croatia pushing is even Europe that Europe, and of dreamt always have 199), Croats though (2001: Mitteleurope” false even or Europe, Southeast Balkans, Western “ definitely Vukman Zoran such interference Bosnia of politics se be to meant the never was Herzegovina in interference of decade a than more Interestingly, Yugoslavia. inevitabl would initiative an such that confident are they since nationalists, of perspective the from undesirable completely is cooperation regional some of idea the Again,

Zoran Vukman is a columnist i columnist is a ZoranVukman

58). In his analysis the aim of such EU and US strategy is to weaken and disintegrate disintegrate and weaken to is strategy US and EU such of aim the analysis his In 58). on twrs e Ygsai, enepee i nw epltcl otx of context geopolitical new in reinterpreted Yugoslavia, new towards going al” (ibid, 21). By putting emphasis on “alleged Croatian war crimes”, all the all crimes”, war Croatian “alleged on emphasis putting By 21). (ibid, al” 24

seen as a negativeasseen thing. (2001), in his criticism of the new government, is confident that Croatia is Croatia that confident is government, new the of criticism his in (2001),

n Croatian daily newspaper newspaper ndaily Croatian s for the issue of Bosnian C Bosnian of issue the for s

t out as out t

that such cooperation is “an absolute abatement of of abatement absolute “an is cooperation such that

the basis of legitimate cooperation, neither was was neither cooperation, legitimate of basis the

Slobodna Dalmacija Slobodna roats, he claims that they are being being are they that claims he roats,

y lead to a new new a to lead y rants from from rants to to - CEU eTD Collection Science ofPolitical theat Faculty Professor a was He discipline. a as geopolitics 26 Committee Helsinki Croatian was of He president a Zagreb. of University and University, 25 easy reintegration”. an having from Serbs prevented obstacles institutional and social of number A environment. Cr Local return. to began refugees the following 1998, Serbian of numbers low very still but until significant, that Return, for Program the of introduction not was “[i]t identifies 192) (2008: Koska As level. local and ac came returnees that antagonism the both reflects attitude an such Unfortunately, 74). (2005: state” a within state a create to Serbs enable would that Z Plan new/old on insist could that created one be can mass critical is a accession) for conditions (which Serbs” “greater militant the also of return the intensifying “by that stating as far as goes he on) insisting is EU the that process a as seen is which upon, touches Moreover,it when (2005:73). conquered” be to Croatia for waiting of aggression, mercy external the and to internal Serbian 1990/91 in Croatia left has that society the to obedience) (and entrance Pavic Radovan declarative refusal obst to its by only one old the than crimes. different is government war new the far up so concludes, he covering However, by maturity its prove cannot government Racan‟s crimes. war t on crimes own one justify not should one and well, as criminals are there out, points he as and heroes, are there war any in as just the Banac Ivo

Radovan Pavić holds a PhD in Geography, and in Geography, PhD a holds RadovanPavić and historian is Croatian Banac Ivo Homeland War, Homeland 25

(2000), in his article published in the Croatian week Croatian the in published article his in (2000), 26 , among other thi other among , comes to the issue of the return of the Serbs (an issue that(anMedjimorecalso Serbs the theof returnof the issue to comes

with a capital “H”, is not a sacred war, sacred a not is “H”, capital a with

ructICTY. cooperation withthe

politician. He was a history professor at Yale University, Central European European Central University, Yale at professor history a was He politician. ngs, stresses that “Croatian accession to the Eunion means Eunion the to accession “Croatian that stresses ngs, oatian communities, however, were often a very unfriendly unfriendly very a often were however, communities, oatian he account that someone else is covering up their own own their up covering is else someone that account he

he is considered to be one of the founding fathers of Croatian ofCroatian fathers beofthe one founding to considered heis 37

ross both on the institutional level institutional the on both ross

but it is a tragedy above all. And all. above tragedy a is it but ly ly

Feral Tribune, Tribune, Feral

says that says

f the of - 4 CEU eTD Collection institutional see can we Here influenceits inpoliticalsystem (ibid,49). nation existenceof the that values”,and liberal and enlightenment “universal on based is it that identifies he integration of process tha states the all almost of goal soundness. social and political achieve and prosperity, economic gain antagonisms, historical overcome to managed his In nationalist andEurosceptic discourse started declining. etc. constitution EU the system, political European the on identity, on discussion a include which EU, a the on debate the present dominating started that will topics new analyse I section final this In phase. rapprochement and phase, isolation phase, toEurope” return “the criticism for approval and I both European integration. shown this have Ipresented havefar So ofCritical evaluation Union the European or wasposition, Croatia‟s a threat sovereignty. to Croatia‟s with line in more was development new this whether consensus no is there section, as However, process. accession EU the to path Croatia‟s opened government new the scheme, Balkan Western the accepting by especially and EU, the with cooperation pro a with and defeat election HDZ‟s Tudjman‟with politics Croatian in occurred shift significant2000, a in summarize: To article published in 2005, Ivan Prpic argues that with EU accession all member states states member all accession EU with that argues Prpic Ivan 2005, in published article approach tee a an was there ,

to the EU. Accession to the EU is being perceived as a d a as perceived being is EU the to Accession EU. the to Therefore, the author believes that believes author the Therefore,

different narratives on both the EU itself and on Croatia‟s accession to to accessionCroatia‟s on and itself EU the both on different narratives t still are not members of the the of members not are still t

explicit change in discourse, which followed Croatia‟s Croatia‟s followed which discourse, in change explicit - - states is no is states U oenet etn i cag. y naig in engaging By charge. in getting government EU

t endangered, but national culture is losing is culturenationalendangered, but t

accession to the EU the to accession U nion

in order to present that that present to order in (2005: 43). As for the the for As 43). (2005: presented in this this in presented is a desirable a is esirable goal goal esirable s death, s nd CEU eTD Collection culturally as same the not is which people, political European become would “Sovereign EU. the of legitimisation democratic a establishing for prerequisite cultural their between distinction a making start should peoples European that believes Rodin Europeans. of will democratic of bearers seen be can that legitimacy Rodi Davor For nation states, and unitary notonits (ibid). people the from comes legitimization the is problem EU‟s The legitimisation. government‟s the for con main his people, the regarding issue, third the for As 124). (ibid, development further for weakness set legitimisation to recoveranorientation its is from constitution andto EU togeta general a is there state, a not role the with state, he Next (ibid). entertainers” consti of issue the discusses public local for “venues becoming are and influence their losing are parliaments national Brussels in up drawn being is legislation of 60% since and to is and supranationalized” and “internationalized more and more being sovereignty and population, regard In people. and constitution state, the on EU the of influence analysesthe (2006) Zvonko Posavec which and declined 2008 since sta EU the among ambition strong a was still there 2005 non for Eurosceptics the by used nation of existence the to threat a impose not does which

a cern is reflected in the idea that in the nation state it is the people people isthe it state thenation thatin theidea in cern isreflected

specific space, the population is becoming is population the space, specific to s

h is oe eblee ta l he ai lmns of elements basic three all that believes he one, first the n (2004:215) the central issue is the one about the deficit of democratic democratic of deficit the about one the is issue central the (2004:215) n in

its legal foundation. From that point he says that even though the EU is EU the though even that says he point that From foundation. legal its tution to derive to -

idea that the EU needs a constitution. The main reason for the the for reason main The constitution. a needs EU the that idea are losing their meaning (2005:123). He says that territory is territory that says He (2005:123). meaning their losing are the - cooperation with the EU. However, it is worth noting that in that noting worth is it However, EU. the with cooperation s , for which he believes that it is primarily an element of the of element an primarily is it that believes he whichfor , economiccrisis.

from the lack of European people, which would be the be would which people, European of lack the from - historical identity and their political identity, as a as identity, political their and identity historical 39 more mobile and mobile more

tes towards the enlargement, a trend trend a enlargement, the towards tes - states; an argument that was often was that argument an states; -

h disregard istorical peoples of Europe Europe of peoples istorical who becoming

the state the are seen as the basis basis are as seen the s

the state territory, state the

less attached less –

territory, territory, CEU eTD Collection Nenad unlike former, the Ivankovic,Iworkpresent whose next present therefore and EU the towards attitude positive a have Euro both in found ce one in concentrated being is states member accumulating is Brussels power the Grubisa and Posavec of work the in both identified be can that issue Another 75). t benefits concrete any bring can Constitution a whether and making; super European around severaldilemmas out reduces it that is Grubisa for Constitution this of accomplishments main the of one and (2005:53), idea political federalist between compromise a represents Constitution European “such that identified (2005) Grubisa Damir ratified, be to going was Constitution European the that seemed it when point the At treaty, w Lisbon the in implemented was solution a Such legitimacy. more acquire to system political overco be can crisis certain a how on suggestions their identify can ana constructive a as seen be can approach this introduction, the in mentioned have I As deficit. democratic the on one the of aspect important an on focus Posavecand Rodin Both to enable f political legitimisation going is that identities national of protection constitutional and political with bases, political on unite should Europe New 248). (ibid, distinction” a such with threat a under not are that

the hich gavepowerhich more tothe European Parliament. democratic deficit of political institutions of the EU (ibid, 59). However, po he (ibid, 59). EU politicalofthe institutions of deficit democratic - tt; hte Busl i bcmn to oefl n t pltcl decision political its in powerful too becoming is Brussels whether state; - piitc n Ersetc ap sne oae ad rbs generally Grubisa and Posavec since camp, Eurosceptic and optimistic s, intergovernmental politics, and national interests of member states” states” member of interests national and politics, intergovernmental s,

lysis and criticism. However, in the case of the two authors, we we authors, two the of case the in However, criticism. and lysis an

EU constitution: whether EU needs it and whether it creates a a creates whetherit and it needs whetherEU constitution: EU or new European 249). (ibid: politics ad that and , , and who falls within the latter, and within whofalls camp. 40 ntre. Interestingly, the same comment can be be can comment same the Interestingly, ntre.

the the eiin making decision

the

EU‟s political system, and that is that system,and political EU‟s

me o EU citizens (ibid, 74 (ibid, citizens EU o ht influences that

in order for the EU EU the for order in

is the is

notion on notion

l EU all ints ints - - CEU eTD Collection NATO and the EU accessionto Croatian opposes ( Prosperity” 27 EuropeaCroatia join must long the in viable nor desirable neither was “isolation i neutrality this to brings also Ivankovic focus. into come in crisis and sovereignty monetary measures, austerity of problems the since 2000s, late the in EU the rattled that crisis economic the influenceof the also here see can We form an or Switzerland like more be Norway should Croatia that is solution His (2011:223). state the in a of sort is EU the in membership that pro Croatian of mentality the criticizes also but bureaucracy, strict its is EU p the that admits he succe Although a (2011:7). “historically Croatia for goal unquestionable an as pu inclusive and serious a been not has there that identifies in he firstly context, Croatian the place for As Croatia. take might development of course similar a that believes and crisis, into Greece opinio his In general. in Eurozone on reflecting Ivankovic Nenad rotesting theEU both for EU due (2011:8).criticizes throughout toausterityHe the measures

Nenad Ivanković Nenad authentic –

Samostalnost i napredak) i Samostalnost to have economic ties with the EU, but to stay outside of the integration and to and integration the of outside stay to but EU, the with ties economic have to te nentoa pltcl rn. However, arena. political international the n blic debate about the costs and benefits of accession, and that the EU is presented is EU the that and accession, of benefits and costs the about debate blic

the i s a Croatian j Croatian sa

27 Croatia, asCroatia, an alternative t and Portugal, Spain, in unemployment Greece, in crisis

21) oue on focused (2011) su poet, e ons u ta sgiiat ubr f people of number significant that out points he project”, ssful

n institutions” (2006:13).n institutions” o urnalist

for which he stated that wasliberally oriented that whichhe stated for . In 2003 he formed a political party called “Independence and and “Independence partycalled political a he formed In2003 . , t a te os f oeay oeegt ta hs run has that sovereignty monetary of loss the was it n, deus ex machine machine exdeus

the o the EU (2011:211). o the mlfntoig f h E t a ra extent, great a to EU the of (mal)functioning 41 debate the notion that Croatia should pursuit should Croatia that notion the debate

that is goi is that - em I odr o uvv a a state, a as survive to order In term. s mentioned, as ng to resolve all the troubles the all resolve to ng

- - Europeans who believe who Europeans conservat

oi pitd that pointed Jovic the ive and that it iveand the crisis in the the in crisis Eurozone Eurozone

are

CEU eTD Collection 29 NATO and the EU to Balkans, the Western to Croatia‟saccession that and o War, Homeland in the gained sovereignty national Croatian preserving on focused party as a 28 identi European of question the like project, European the of questions fundamental some rethinking upon calls which deficit, legitimation and democratic to related was problem significant a argues, he crisis, this In referendums. the c EU the after year one happened which crisis, another facing was EU the identi the for As andon theEuropean notaseriousUnion. debate theory conspiracy like more seems comparison a Such Community”. “European phrase the used associates Hitler‟s that or (2010:293), continent” united a be will Europe 2000 “in that 1 from Göbbels Josef of quote the using by argument an such develops author The their and Nazis (2010:300). the unification” for plans was detailed developed had it who Europe around that collaborators showing evidences numerous are there since unification Europe, political of architects conceptual the not are B.F.] Monnet, and [Schuman from politicians Nazi within but Schuman, and Monnet of work the in not set was today) it know we (as integration European of origins the that argumentradical his presentshe on Further (2010:35).enter EU the to want not do Croats EU, the on per the for Croatia polls Eurobarometar that highlights he because especially in debate democratic proper a been not has there The that regrets (2010:21). author 1% than less of representativeness b marginal will its Croatia to due sense, error”, political “statistical a In 15). (2010: state” multinational the within provinces smallest the of one become to going is citizens, million 4.3 only with and, state tre Lisbon the of result inevitable an as seen is that sovereignty of loss the on firstly focusing accession, Bosnjak Marjan

Krešimir Petković is an Assistant P Assistant isan KrešimirPetković Bo Marjan aty, due to which Croatia is going to “lose all of its attributes of an independent an of attributes its of all “lose to going is Croatia which to due aty, š njak is Secretary General of a political party party political ofa General isnjak Secretary 28 ty issue, Kresimir Petkovic Kresimir issue, ty

(2010) covers around 30 topics that are related to the EU and to Croatia‟s to and EU the to related are that topics 30 around covers (2010)

rofessor at the Faculty of Political Science, University ofZagreb University Science, Political of theat Faculty rofessor 29 ty (2007:807). “If subjects of a certain regime do regime certain a of subjects “If (2007:807). ty 42 , in his article published in 2007, identifies that identifies 2007, in published article his in ,

the 1940‟s. “ 1940‟s. the “Croatia Only” “Croatia (

T Jedino Hrvatska Jedino he undisputed fact is that they that is fact undisputed he iod 2005 iod onstitution failed in failed onstitution ) that declares itself that declares ) - 2009 show that show 2009 945 saying 945

ecome a a ecome pposes pposes

of CEU eTD Collection Law International 31 30 that entityindependentand sovereign, identities political, new national a facing are their Europe of preserving states the in that confident is risk He (2011:111). more face to going are and problems more identities national Rudolf problems by Grubisa. thatwereaddressed and Rodin Posavec, insight new a gives which identity, European of lack the of out streaming is deficit democratic that identify Petkovic and Cipek both Interestingly, thedemocraticparticipation in citizens ofthe ofEuropean Union” institutions (ibid,142). bet are there that continues and well”, as culture European common a but homeland, single a of idea myths, “common lacking is project a such since nation, European a form to possible not is it that confident the of legitimisation proper be cannot identity European a without that believes and identity, European a forming of those Cipek 821). (ibid, occur” to thing a such for possibility any is there whether dubious is it and loyalties, nation dismantle to able been not have level European the on constructing institutions political and of paradigm right the “universal that concludes He results. therefore uncertain to leads identity and political transnational regime, political stable and community Petkovic (ibid). uncertain” is regime the of endurance the and government, efficient or effective either be legitimacy legitimacy, its without with it, not identify therecannot isquestionable; themselves

Da Pol theat Facultyof Professor is a TihomirCipek vorin Rudolf is a member of Croatian Academy of Science and Arts. He was a University Professor of wasProfessor University a He Arts. and Science Academyof memberofCroatian a is vorin Rudolf

30 31

(2005) points to a correlation of problems of legitimisation of the political systemand political the of legitimisation of problems of correlation a to points (2005)

er ta wti te EU the within that fears

believes that ethno cultural elements of identity are crucial when building a a building when crucial are identity of elements cultural ethno that believes –

language, culture, traditions traditions culture, language,

European

ter chances to form “a European demos, based on more more on based demos, European “a form to chances ter ,

igr ain wl nt ae polm rsrig their preserving problem a have not will nations bigger

State is being created (ibid: 113). In such a new union, new aIn such being113). is (ibid: created State

oiis f h E (04 19. oevr h is he Moreover, 139). (2004: EU the of politics itical Science, University of Zagreb of University Science, itical 43

al beit smaller nations are going to have have to going are nations smaller beit in o h psil solution possible the to

o the for ,

- there there

state s CEU eTD Collection 33 2003 Parliament ofCroatian 32 identity manages tobe preserved, could antheEU. Croatia become member equal in thr EU similar poses the therefore and Yugoslavia” “new a to Croatia lead would EU the joining that idea or in identity national its promote openly should and integration Western facing then was Croatia nation, and culture, religion, family, as such foundations identity important shattered communism th that mind in Having (2003:5). interests Croatian on decide others” “powerful have to normal is it that believe Croats makes (Austro integrations different of centuries through developed Baloban Stjepan (2003), Union” European the in Identity “Croatian entitled book the of introduction the In years European identity 20 next the in that likely not is it that and dominate, to going are nations European bigger of identities EU the thatwithin isconfident He (2011:42). influential European in proportions c and language Croatian and nation, Croatian the like just nations, European small to threat real a is it since EU, the in identity cultural and national their losing of fearful Letica Slaven states This on theEuropean(ibid, 115). periphery” the be not is EU the though even that concludes he However, (ibid). identity national of preservation nation the of role main the and melt”, “to going are sovereignties national

Stjepan Baloban is a Professor at the Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb of University theat FacultyofTheology, Professor is a Baloban Stjepan wasmember He a Zagreb. of University Medicine, of theSchool at ofSociology Professor isa Letica Slaven position brings position st solution for Croatia, it still istheonly“rotting because still for it alternative Croatia, only st solution is solution, the in preserving der to “feel in Europe as in her own house” (2003:9). This approach reflects the reflects approach This (2003:9). house” own her in as Europe in “feel to der 32

makes a similar argument when he points out that Croats have the right to be to right the have Croats that out points he when argument similar a makes 33 eat to Croatian identity as identity Croatian to eat

rw or teto t te distin the to attention our draws nat a new point of view to the debate, since it sees the main role of nation of role main the sees it since debate, the to view of point new a ional identities, andEU identities, notin policyional making. - 2007 as an independent member of Croatian Party of Rights Party ofCroatian member as an independent 2007 will becomewill

e experiment with “Eastern integrations” failed, even though though even failed, integrations” “Eastern with experiment e

as important as as important

the communist regime communist the 44

national 43). identity (ibid, tv sbriaig rain mentality, Croatian subordinating ctive - Hungary, Yugoslavias), that that Yugoslavias), Hungary,

did

. However, if natio if However, . -

state is going to be be to going is state ulture are not not are ulture

nal - CEU eTD Collection European points. projectatcertain Euro of dominance the identify Th issues. contemporary more on focusing started and behind discourse Tudjmanist of burden the left debate Croatian 2000‟s the of part second the in only that seems It debate. this in reflected also which crisis political a through went EU the Inthe EU. the on debate the dominating started topics of kinds new opened, was process negotiation the and realization, into came accession Croatia‟s when summarize: To - optimistic approach, however it may seem critical on the the on critical seem may it however approach, optimistic

erefore, only in this time period I can can I period time this in only erefore, same period same ,

CEU eTD Collection and affairs. implicationthe on focus changed its debate the of most started, finally process negotiation the When well. as Europeanists the by extent certain a to criticized but nationalists, the by attacked strongly was it since debate, Bosnia in Croats and Croatia in Serbs towards politics the to and cooperation, regional to ICTY, with cooperation the to related mostly was progress This progress. significant made but EU, the proc negotiation the open even not did government this Therefore resolved. be could democracy malfunctioning of decade entire an that mean necessarily not does government isolatio to led which disappointment came enthusiasm, initial After Europe. to “Return” Croatia‟s to for attempt inadequate be to proved soon part, first the in shown have I as and, Croatia th of idea The Yugoslavia. prevent and recognition international the both legitimize to supposed was which Europe”, to “Return the of notion the was debate antag and isolationism nationalist of level high reveals debate intellectual the becauseindependence, its of half a and decade first the for phrase empty an of more was EU the join to attempt Croatia‟s that shows debate intellectual an the thesis, the in argued have I as And relation. this characterized from the beginning The Croatian intellectual debate has been following the developments of Croatia of developments the following been has debate intellectual Croatian - n, until the changes in 2000. However, as I have presented, the instalment of the new the of instalment the presented, have I as However, 2000. in changes the until n, Herzegovina. And such progress had a dramatic influenc dramatic a had progress such And Herzegovina.

of the 1990s of the is “Return” was based on the geographical and historical legacy of of legacy historical and geographical the on based was “Return” is CHAPTER4 , and until today it has reflected upon dominant issues that has that issues has has upondominant reflected and today it until s of Croatia‟s accession and on the EU‟s internal structure internalEU‟s the on Croatia‟sandof accession s –

onism towards the EU. At first, in the centre of the of centre the in first, At EU. the towards onism r ne t escalated it once or - 46

CONCLUSION

e on the Croatian intellectual Croatian the on e –

tp h wr n former in war the stop lss f h national the of alysis - EU relations relations EU ess with ess CEU eTD Collection Croatian many EU the accessing is Croatia intellectuals are and their work acces more becoming when year the in because value, greater evenhas thesis this that, of because precisely However, well. as challenge a quite wasEnglish the all Translating disciplines. numerous and authors more spectre, broader a include could research further Some comparable. and coherent findings my keep to order in way this in research my limited have I Still, etc. sociology economics, studies, from debate this to contribution invaluable an been has there that saying without goes It perspective. science political a towards bias certain a is thesis this of limitation main The 47

sible for aaudience.sible for wider

authors from Croatian to to Croatian from authors

legal legal CEU eTD Collection Zagreb (2011). Nenad Ivanković, Western Balkans]. Zagreb UIHP, (2007). Ljubičić Mate and Miroslav Tuđman, in: Doors], our at Yugoslavia [Third vratima” pred Jugoslavija “Treća (2007). Hrvoje Hitrec, [European unije” Union]. Europske European društva 2004, sustav the of politički System i Political and ustav Constitution “Europski (2005). Damir Grubiša, Independence].Liber,Zagreb Novi (2010). Ivo Goldstein, toEuropeanist. Nationalists (2006). Sharon Fisher, Policy Analysis, Sharon Fisher, Balkan in: Greater of Serbia], Clone “ (2007). Davor Lošo, Domazet in: Treaty”, Constitutional the of Fall Michael (ed): Cini and Rise “The (2007). D. Phinnemore, C., Church, Little of Cookies the Madeleine”]. for search “In Union: European the of Politics male [Identity kolačićima Madeleine”” za “potrazi U Unije: Europske identiteta “Politike (2005). Tihomir Cipek, Zagreb. Cro against am I why Reasons you. thank No, (2010). Marjan Bošnjak, Bartlett, (2003). William Banac (2000) European Glas Zagreb Koncila, Union]. (2003). (ed) Stjepan Baloban,

[Croatia and the Western[Croatia andBalkans]. Zagreb the UIHP, Anali hrvatskog politiloškog društva 2004. politiloškog hrvatskog Anali “ 53

Domovinska nesreća”Domovinska [ (2005). “Croatia‟s Rocky Road t Road Rocky “Croatia‟s (2005). 2:81 - 77 European Union Politics, UnionPolitics, European

- 94 vdst oia aotle Hr samostalne godina Dvadeset

oiia Cag i Post in Change Political Croatia: BetweenCroatia: Europe andtheBalkans EU? Što je zapravo EU zapravo je Što PalgraveNew York Macmillan, Tuđman, Miroslav and Mate LjubičićandMate(2007).Miroslav Tuđman, – Hrvatski identitet u Europskoj Uniji Uniji Europskoj u identitet Hrvatski

Zapadni Balkan klon Velike Srbije” [Western Balkans as a a as Balkans [Western Srbije” Velike klon Balkan Zapadni

Ne Hvala! Zašto sam PROTIV ulaska Hrvatske u EU ( EU u Hrvatske ulaska PROTIV sam Zašto Hvala! Ne

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ho

meland Misery meland Oxford University Press 48 . . atia‟s accession to the EU). Vlastita naknada, naknada, Vlastita EU). the to accession atia‟s

rasa zpdi Balkan zapadni i Hrvatska oward oward [What, in fact, is the EU]. Vlastita naklada, Vlastita EU]. the is fact, in [What, - omns Soai ad rai: From Croatia: and Slovakia Communist the European Union”, European the ] 139 ,

vatske.

Feral Tribune

- 149 Anali hrvatskog politološkog politološkog hrvatskog Anali

[Twenty Years of Croatia‟s Croatia‟s of Years [Twenty . Rutledge,London [Croatian Identity in the in Identity [Croatian

, 22 Apri , Hrvatska i zapadni i Hrvatska

[Croatia and the the and [Croatia Slovak Foreign Foreign Slovak , pg 14

EU? EU? CEU eTD Collection Asia Studies Post politics: domestic and Yugoslavia”, former the forInternationalTribunal Criminal justice the andCroatia Tudjman “International (2003). P. M. Boduszynski, V., Peskin, ADRIAS, the in Europe, South of middle gotovo!”nije još (Hrvatska):sve rubovima njegovim Balkanui (Eunija)Pavić, Radovan “Hrvatska unija (2005). iEuropska Mario Plenković (ed.) in: 1991], Croatiaand 1992 [Europe 1991.” Hrvatska i 1992. “Europa (1991). Pavao Novosel, Balkanzapadni in policy [Foreign Tudjman danas” i vrijeme tuđmanovo u politika “Vanjska (2007). Ljerka Mintas, institut povijest,za Zagreb. (1999). Anđelko Mijatović, Mihanović, Nedjeljko (2010). UdrugaZagreb promicanjehrvatskog za identiteta iprosperiteta, (ed): I Bekavac, (2002 Miroslav and Međimorec, Slovenia Mapping Balkans: the and Europe Croatia‟s “Return toEurope” inthe 1990s”, “Between (2003). Nicole Lindstrom, Hrvatska,Zagreb Croats are what and we, are what we, are [Who Hrvati” mi zapravo smo kakvi i smo što smo, “Tko (2011). Slaven Letica, EuropskogZagreb Pokreta, (1992). Stanko Lasić, New York: Palgrave M (2006). R. John Lampe, Serbian returnees experiences inthetownof Glina. Return (2009). Viktor Koska, [Croatian Foreign The Policy: ChallengesAccession], ofEU Uniji” Europskoj u članstva izazovima pred politika vanjska “Hrvatska (2011). Dejan Jovic, BalkansSouthern Europe Online, andthe journey”, delayed long a Union: European the and “Croatia (2006), Dejan Jovic, MATE, ZagrebUnion]. (2009). (ed.) Dubravko Jelčić, ‟s era and today], in: in: today], and era ‟s 12: 73 ,

- (7), 1117 [Croatia and the Western Balkans]. UIHP,[Croatia andZagreb theWestern Balkans]. 90

Tudjman Tudjman

Nov acmillan.

r eea Evropi o eseja Tri Balkans into Southeastern Europe: a century of war and transition and war of century a Europe: Southeastern into Balkans - 1142. inarstvo iEuropa92. inarstvo

–

really Hrvatska riječ svijetu svijetu riječ Hrvatska vizije i postignuća i vizije . „H ). Tuđmanova baš Hrvatska, Europa, Europska Unija Europska Europa, Hrvatska, and reintegration of minority refugees: the complexity of the of complexity the refugees: minority of reintegration and

Tuđman, Miroslav and Mate Ljubičić (2007). (2007). Ljubičić Mate and Miroslav Tuđman,

akn ad t prpey Cota: t s o oe yet!]. over not is It (Croatia): periphery its and Balkans like”]. U: R U: like”]. vtk vnsa oiia [ politika“ vanjska rvatska

8: 85 Dialectical Anthropology, Dialectical 49 tina tina Tre sas n uoe. raso Vijeće Hrvatsko Europe]. on Essays [Three omana Horvat (ed.): (ed.): Horvat omana - 103

Alinea, Zagreb [ Tudjman [Tudjman‟s legacy].[Tudjman‟s Zagreb Detecta,

Politička misao

Cota Wr t te ol] Hrvatski World]. the to Word [Croatian - -

Politička misao,

V u središnjoj južnoj Europi, tj. na Europi, tj. južnoj u središnjoj

isions and Accomplishments] and isions

[ Croatian and the EU the and Croatian [ rain oeg policy foreign Croatian

[ , Croatia, Europe, European European Europe, Croatia, Hrvatski identitet. Hrvatski 45 27: 313 (5), 191 (5), 2: 7 - - 329 217 - 36

Hrvatska i i Hrvatska

Journal o Journal

Euro – Matica

Inthe ] , in: in: , pe - - f . . CEU eTD Collection ZoranVukman, (2001). Balkans].Zagreb UIHP, Mi izolacija” ili “Suverenitet (2007). Miroslav Tuđman, http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/public/ime/ report”. case Croatian modernity. to paths various art: the of state “The (2009). et.al. Martina Topić, European UnionAm the of Perception [The javnosti” hrvatskoj u Unije Europske “Percepcija (2007). Božo Skoko, Eropean U:Romana Horvat(ed.): Union]. “Iden (2011). Davorin Rudolf, Zagreb (2004). Davor Rodin, Tudjman‟s Croatia. (2004). N. Lindstrom, M., Razsa, sinceSoutheast European Politics 1989. (ed): Ramet Sabrina In: 1990. since Croatia in Politics (2010). Sabrina Ramet, Union]. Radoš European the to Accession uniji” Croatia‟s Europskoj hrvatskog društva. politološkog on Hrvatske Perspective pridruženja Science pretpostavke [Political “Politologijske (2005). Ivan Prpić, European the on [Dilemmas ustava” Constitution]. Europskoga oko “Dileme (2006). Zvonko Posavec, (ed): Cini Michael Union Politics, in: Union”, European “Towards (2007). David Phinnemore, Myth]. [Isidentitet moguć? Identity Reflections Some European Political onthe Manichean Possible? politički europski li Je mitom: Manihejskim s vezi u dvojbe “Neke (2007). Krešimir Petković, olv n Mt Luii (eds Ljubičić Mate and roslav , Ivica, (2005).

Društvena istraživanja. Identities and modernities in Europe. Europe. in modernities and Identities Anali hrvatskogAnali politološkog Oxford UniversityOxford Press

East European Politics &East EuropeanPolitics Societies ong the Croatian Public]. the Croatian Public]. ong Tuđman izbliza izbliza Tuđman rdnc postmoderne Predznaci

Put uBalkaniju titet naroda i Europska Unija” [Identity of the People and the the and People the of [Identity Unija” Europska i naroda titet 4 2004:43 - 5:

Balkan is beautiful: Balkanism in the political Discourse of Discourse political the in Balkanism beautiful: is Balkan ). 805 [Tudjman up , accessed 22May on 2013 rasa zpdi Balkan zapadni i Hrvatska -

827 - [Road to[Road Balkany]. Zagreb Verbum, CambridgeUniversity Press 52. Hrvatski identitet. identitet. Hrvatski

društva.

50 Anali hrvatskog Anali politološkog društva.

Sgs f Post of [Signs - close]. Profil,Zagrebclose]. 2005:121

[Sovereignty or Isolation], in: in: Isolation], or [Sovereignty , 18 (4), 628 Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb - 128 -

oent] Pltča misao, Politička modernity].

- [Croatia and the Western Western the and [Croatia 650.

onodd from Downloaded

Central and Central European Zagreb Tuđman,

Anali