Sanader: "Croatia goes on"

Racan: "If Brussels is mistaken aboutCroatia, Croatia has no reason to be mistaken about itself"

In Short:

"Croatia goes on and there is no reason for sadness or disappointment," said Prime Minister Ivo Sanader in reaction to the EU's decision to delay entry talks.

RELATED

EU-Croatia relations
Brief News:

Reacting to the EU foreign ministers' 16 March decision to put off accession talks with Zagreb, Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader said that while "of course [he] can't be glad", he was satisfied with the EU's adoption of a negotiating framework for his country.

In Sanader's view, the foreign ministers did not conclude that "Croatia has not done its utmost [to capture war crimes suspect General Ante Gotovina], but there was no consensus on the matter". Sanader said that seven countries voted in support of Croatia, four or five were against, and the rest remained neutral.

Sanader also said that Zagreb will not intensify its efforts to resolve the Gotovina issue, "because we are already fully co-operating with the Hague tribunal".

President Stjepan Mesic commented that the Croats "should not be desperate, we should meet the requirements".

The leaders of the country's parliamentary parties agreed that Zagreb should continue with its preparations for EU entry. "If Brussels is mistaken about Croatia, Croatia has no reason to be mistaken about itself," declared Ivica Racan, the head of the strongest opposition Social Democratic Party (SDP).

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-136909-16&type=News

Trial Chamber to reject indictment against Gotovina

Pukanic

Nacional 15.03.05
POLITICAL REPORT

On Tuesday, 8 March, the three-member Trial Chamber
returned the indictment against Generals Cermak and
MarkaCto the Prosecution for revision: they criticized
the syntax of 'criminal operation', which is the key
element in the Gotovina indictment

Though there is no explicit mention of Gotovina
anywhere in the Trial Chamber ruling, all rulings in
the Cermak and MarkaCcases regarding the “criminal
operations” will automatically be applied in his case
as well

Tuesday, 8 March could be one of the most important
days for Croatia as a state and its indicted generals
before the Hague Tribunal. On that day, the three
member Trial Chamber under presiding Justice Carmel
Agius and with Jean Claude Antonetti and Kevin Parker,
returned the indictment against indicted Generals Ivan
Cermak and Mladen MarkaCfor revision. This ruling was
a great victory for Miroslav Separovic and Cedo
Prodanovic, attorneys of the indicted generals, as the
indictments against them could be significantly
changed. This in the end could most benefit General
Ante Gotovina. The ruling by the Trial Chamber related
primarily to the Prosecutor’s syntax of the “criminal
operation” which described Operation Storm, and lists
the main executors as Franjo Tudjman, Ante Gotovina
and “others”, among whom are Cermak and MarkaC.

The Hague Prosecution has been given a deadline of
thee weeks to explain its case and to support it with
further evidence, as in the case placed before the
court, there were no elements to support such an
indictment. In the next two weeks before her response
is due, Carla Del Ponte will have a difficult time in
offering arguments to support that portion of her
indictment, and therefore it is logical to expect that
portion of the charges to be removed. This would
significantly ease the position of Cermak and MarkaC,
and for Gotovina, the conditions would be in place to
throw out the charges against him. Though there is no
explicit mention of Gotovina anywhere in the Trial
Chamber ruling, all rulings in the Cermak and
MarkaCcases regarding the “criminal operations” will
automatically be applied in his case as well. And it
is this “criminal operation” which Gotovina is accused
of. This indictment, regardless of what Carla Del
Ponte and her fans in Croatia and part of the EU
believe, is on very shaky legs, and according to legal
experts, this in the end will have to be thrown out.

In order to amend the indictment or throw it out, it
is not necessary for the accused to also be a prisoner
in the Scheveningen prison, even though many “well
acquainted” with the ICTY regulations claim this is
so. According to Articles 50 and 51 of the Statute of
the Hague Tribunal, the accused does not need to be in
prison for the indictment against him to be discussed,
amended or rejected. This is confirmed by precedent,
the best known of which is the case against Serbian
General Zec. While he was a fugitive, due to new
information and documents obtained, the Trial Chamber
threw out the case against him, despite the fact that
he never appeared before the Hague Tribunal.
Therefore, Gotovina does not need to be in the Hague
for the case against him to be amended or rejected.
This has happened once before, when the Hague
Prosecutor amended the indictment against him one year
ago, even though he was a fugitive.

Carmel Agius, chairman of the three-member Trial
Chamber, and Chamber members Jean Claude Antonetti and
Kevin Parker described in detail which sections of the
indictment against Cermak and MarkaCneeded to be
supplemented and explained by the prosecution. In the
introduction to the Chamber ruling, they stated that
Cermak and MarkaCwere accused of persecution,
deportation, violent eviction and other inhumane acts
which according to Article 5 of the ICTY Statute are
described as being crimes against humanity, in
addition to murder, looting and destruction of towns
and villages.

The Trial Chamber stated that the indictment requires
the precisely described facts and crimes charged
against the men. The Prosecution in particular has to
explain upon what basis they claimed that the
indictees planned, stimulated or ordered the acts they
are accused of. The Trial Chamber requested that the
prosecution also secure special evidence for those
sections of the indictment in which the men were
accused of personally committed the acts they were
accused of.

The Trial Chamber also requested that the prosecution
explain those sections of the indictments based on the
thesis of a joint criminal operation. The prosecution
was asked to explain the nature and purpose of the
criminal action, when it occurred and over what
period, the identity of those persons involved, and
the nature of the participation of Cermak and MarkaC.

Where the indictment is based on the responsibility of
the accused men as superiors to the perpetrators, the
accused according to the Trial Chamber have to know
not only which conduct the Prosecution based the
thesis of their responsibility, but also which conduct
by those persons inferior to them are accused of.

In the cases where MarkaCand Cermak are accused by the
Prosecution on the basis of command responsibility,
the indictment had to be supplemented with the missing
facts which prove that these two men were in fact
superior to those persons who directly committed the
crimes in question, facts which prove that they in
fact had effective control over their inferiors,
especially in the sense of the direct prevention or
penalization of criminal conduct, and facts describing
which criminal conduct Cermak and MarkaCare accused
of.

Judging by the ruling of the Trial Chamber, the
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence in
the existing version of the indictment to prove that
Cermak and MarkaCknew of the criminal acts they are
accused of. The prosecution must also secure the facts
which will confirm that these two men knew that their
inferiors had committed criminal acts. The Trial
Chamber claims that it is aware that information
cannot always be precise, but ordered the prosecution
to secure the information it can obtain. The
Prosecution also needs to submit those facts which
support the claims that the indicted men failed to
take the necessary and reasonable measures in order to
prevent criminal acts by their inferiors, and that
they failed to punish those responsible.

Where the indictment stated that the indicted men were
aware of the criminal acts they are accused of, the
Trial Chamber ordered the Prosecution to describe that
state of awareness as a material fact, or to secure
evidence upon what basis this thesis of the state of
awareness of the accused was made. The Trial Chamber
warned the Prosecution that they cannot simply assume
that in this case the legal assumptions for
incrimination of the accused is achieved. The Trial
Chamber stated in its ruling that in general, each of
these facts should be stated quickly and openly, even
though in certain situation, they can be additionally
described with the necessary implications.

The Trial Chamber rejected the remarks by Defense
council in the sections where they claim that the
Prosecutor incompletely and irregularly stated and
described the fact context in which the crimes were
committed and which Cermak and MarkaCare accused of,
and as such the entire indictment is irregular. These
two men in particular responded to the fact that the
indictment treats Operation Storm as a criminal
operation. In its response, the Prosecution claimed
that it is not dealing with the legality of Operation
Storm, but only with the crimes committed while the
Operation was ongoing.

The Trial Chamber stated that the facts which the
accused are accused on only in some cases can be based
on the description of events in which, among others,
Storm is treated as a criminal operation, and the
so-called Republic of Srpska Krajina is placed
alongside Croatia as a state. The Trial Chamber stated
that the facts burdening the accused must be
accompanied with the necessary specificity, however,
the lack of specificity in the description of events
in this case is insufficient to grow into a formal
irregularity of the indictment.

The Trial Chamber set out that the questionable claims
on the description of actions in Storm must be proven
by entering evidence into the proceedings, and it is
in general considered that the way of presenting Storm
within the indictment is not relevant for the content
of incrimination against Cermak and MarkaC.

The Trial Chamber rejected the comments by council
that the identity of the victims and the destruction
of property are not precisely stated, particularly in
the section claiming that Generals Cermak and
MarkaCmust have known that the crimes would be
committed or that they had been committed by their
inferiors. The Trial Chamber holds that the indictment
in that section requires stronger argumentation and
evident to support it. On the contrary, the indictment
will have to rely on those sections which state that
the representatives of the international community
warned the accused that the crimes had been committed.
Paragraph 18 of the indictment, according to the
interpretation of the Court, is not clear in its
intent. In the first part of the paragraph, it claims
that the accused had authority to prevent the crimes
or to punish the perpetrators. The contents of
paragraph 17 and 18 of the indictment state that they
were authorized to prevent or punish the crimes
entrusted to those forces who were inferior to the
accused. Therefore, the Trial Chamber requested that
the Prosecution precisely determine the forces that
were under the command of accused General Cermak. And
here the situation is very clear. Under Cermak’s
command were about 30 people concerned with logistics
and the functioning of Knin: garbage removal, sewage,
hospitals, supplies and removing dead animals.

The Prosecution was asked to identify all the facts by
which the accused Cermak and MarkaCcould be tied to
the claims that they knew they crimes would be
committed or had already been committed by their
inferior units. In terms of the nature and intent of
the criminal organization, the Trial Chamber was
satisfied by the general interpretation by the
Prosecution that a criminal organization is two or
more individuals with a common plan to commit a
criminal act according to the ICTY Statute. The Trial
Chamber was also satisfied by the explained time
period in which the Prosecution claims that the crimes
were committed – from 4 August to 15 November 1995.
However, the Trial Chamber also accepted the claim by
Defense council that the Prosecution had failed to
offer sufficient evidence in the identification of all
the members of this criminal organization. If they
fail to do so, the Prosecution will have to state in
the indictment that not all the participants of the
alleged criminal organization can be identified. Also,
the Prosecution will have to explain the nature of
participation of each participant in the criminal
organization.

Furthermore, in paragraph 22, the Prosecution defines
the category of participants of the criminal
organization as members of the Croatian forces. If
this was the intent of the Prosecution, this is not
exactly clear. Paragraph 11 of the indictment names
only two suspects, General Ante Gotovina and the late
President Franjo Tudjman as members of the criminal
group. Other members were not identified, they were
instead only mentioned as ‘others’. The Trial Chamber
considers that this could, in the material sense of
proving the indictment, result in the failure of the
Prosecution. The Trial Chamber requested that the
Prosecution provide a clear position on whether it
believes the intents and objectives of the criminal
organization were carried out by Croatian forces under
real command of the members of that organization, such
that the defense council could be informed.
Furthermore, the Trial Council requested that the
Prosecution explain its claims in the case of General
MarkaCas to how the accused was aware of the criminal
activities and how he consciously agreed to his role.
All in all, not an easy task for the Prosecution,
which will have to be completed in the only three
weeks.

The situation is not identical for MarkaCand Cermak.
They are both most burdened by the “Grubori case”, a
crime committed on 26 August 1995 in which Serbian
civilians were killed and which to date has not been
prosecuted. The fact that this case was never
prosecuted is one of the greatest points of shame for
the Croatian justice system, as the perpetrators in
this horrible crime are known. In recent days in
Zagreb, members of the special units who participated
in this ‘cleansing’ action have been giving their
statements to ICTY investigators. It is known who
commanded that unit of special forces, as it is also
known that General Cermak as a civil official
responsible for Knin, had nothing to do with this
case.

Nacional has learned that yet another indictment,
announced against a Croat, will be raised for the
“Grubori” case, against the direct commander of the
special forces unit. In 95% of crimes which arose
following military action during Storm, criminal
charges have been laid and the majority of those cases
prosecuted. Mladen Bajic, then the military prosecutor
responsible for Gotovina’s South Sector, sent in
documentation on more than 4000 criminal charges
against known and unknown perpetrators of crimes
during and after Operation Storm. Bajic sent in the
last CD with his final report to the Hague two months
ago.

It is not completely clear that the majority of the
indictment based on the “criminal operations” is
founded on the famous “Brijuni transcripts” of 31 July
1995 during the final discussion between President
Tudjman and his military commanders. If it can be
proven that this document is not credible, and that it
is a forgery, then the entire thesis by the
Prosecution of a criminal operation no longer stands.
In order to prove a “criminal operation”, this will
have to be made more concrete as to who was who in
this criminal operation and what each participant in
the operation did. They will also have to answer on
what basis they claim that there was a criminal plan.
The third item that will need to be more precisely
described is which units committed which crimes, and
they precisely state who the commander was of those
units, and who will then be held accountable for
“command responsibility”. Here Carla Del Ponte is in
big trouble. She used the concept of a “criminal
operation” in order to avoid concretely listing the
criminal acts, as not a single act can be directly
attributed to Gotovina, either in commanding or trying
to cover up a crime. It is for these reasons that the
Hague Prosecutor decided to use the syntax of the
“criminal operation” which is much more favourable for
accusations, as it only has to proven who the members
of the operations were, and then each member is as
responsible as the next for crimes committed, even
though one may have had no knowledge of what the other
was doing.

One Hague attorney described the situation as follows
for Nacional. “For example, I agree with a friend to
rob a bank. I’ll drive the car and he’ll rob the back.
He’s to enter the back, pass a piece of paper with a
threat to the teller if he won’t give the money out of
the safe. I agree in advance with him that there will
be no use of force and that he will not be armed. But
without my knowledge, he takes a gun, fires in rage
and kills five bank employees. I have no idea what
he’s done, as I’m sitting in the care, and I drive him
away. According to the concept of a ‘criminal
operation’, I can also be tried for five-time murder,
because I knew that we had the criminal intent to rob
a bank, and I should have known that there were many
possible outcomes, including that my friend might kill
people, even though we agreed to otherwise. According
to that, by the concept of a ‘criminal operation’, I
am as responsible as the man who killed five people. I
would likely only receive a somewhat smaller sentence
because he was the actual executor.”

Carla Del Ponte has begun with the thesis that
Gotovina was part of this criminal operation, and that
he must be held accountable for any possible mistakes
by Tudjman, Su¹ak, Cermak, MarkaCand perhaps even
Jarnjak, as well as the remaining unnamed people from
the Brijuni meeting. However, the indictment must
contain some kind of an agreement on the criminal
operation and crimes committed personally by Gotovina.
According to the Prosecution, this agreement was made
in Brijuni on 31 July 1995, when Gotovina ‘knew’ of
Tudjman’s intent to “hit the Serbs so hard they
disappear”. Knowing this, Gotovina participated in a
“criminal operation” by carrying out Storm. According
to Carla Del Ponte, he knew that Tudjman’s intent was
to scare the Serbs into leaving, even though no crime
was committed during the military-police action that
ended on 9 August 1995 when Gotovina commanded an
“active defense”, thereby halting all offensive
actions and he sent the military units on vacation. He
then went to BiH. However, the Prosecution claims that
Gotovina “knew or should have known” that after
carrying out Storm that various criminal acts would be
committed, including those by civil persons. According
to that, he is responsible according to the accusation
for all that happened after Storm because he knew of
Tudjman’s intentions. He executed Operation Storm and
should have known all that would follow.

In the current indictment against Gotovina, there is
nothing concrete and the indictment is based on the
problematic transcript. If the Prosecution is unable
to prove their claims on the “criminal operation”
following the ruling by the Trial Council, nothing
will remain in Gotovina’s indictment. Therefore, the
contents of the new indictment to be submitted by
Carla Del Ponte in two weeks’ time will be very
important, as within it will be very difficult to tie
Gotovina and his soldiers to any crime. If that
happens, the Prosecution will be unable to defend its
thesis of a “criminal operation”, and with that, the
indictment against Gotovina will be rejected. The
question this raises is for whom this performace has
been carried on for the past few years, which has
destabilized the country and put enormous pressures on
the Croatian state, and who will be held responsible.

Sir Roger Braithwaite:

"I am ashamed of the British politics towardCroatia and BiH"

Sir Roger Braithwaite Vjesnik interview
translation by Hilda M. Foley
March 19, 2005
Media

Vjesnik, March 16, 2005
Antun Kresimir Buterin

On the Eve of March 17: Sir Roger Braithwaite, foreign policy advisor of former British Prime Minister Major: "I am ashamed of the British politics toward Croatia and BiH
If Europe would have had wiser leaders in the beginning of the 1990's we certainly would have acted better at the beginning of the war in former Yugoslavia.

Sir Roger Braithwaite is a respected British diplomat with a rich experience. During the Cold War he served in Warsaw, Jakarta, Rome, Bruxelles and Washington. From 1988 to 1992 he served as Ambassador in the USSR, afterwards the Russian Federation, and after his return to London became the foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister John Major as well as becoming president of the joint intelligence council, having served previously in the military intelligence. In the Vjesnik interview, Braithwaite critically assessed the stand taken at that time by Great Britain and the world regarding Serbian aggression in the nineties.

Croatians, and they are not the only ones', view very critically Britain's role in the war in former Yugoslavia. How did you experience Yugoslavia's bloody collapse?

- It was a painful time for all of us. We all comprehended the horror which was occurring, but no one knew what to do about it. We tried to come up with a thoughtful answer, but it did not exist. At that time, a number of problems emerged in the world: the collapse of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War ... we were all tired, so that the problem of Yugoslavia just crept in somehow. Since we did not believe in getting the support of the British population for a larger military intervention, we sent units to deliver humanitarian aid to at least help some people to survive.

But what about the embargo on arms which was of direct help to the Serbs? Whom did you want to help with this?

- Look, there was a general opinion -( I know what you will say to that) - that the Serbs were not the only ones guilty of the war. I am aware that we are reproached for this, but the British did not at that time support the Serbs. If nothing else, this at least did not exist in the narrow circle of people around Prime Minister Major. We reasoned, if there were more arms in the area, there will be more innocent victims. That is why we installed the embargo. It was not an easy decision and I understand the Croatians' view that it was not a fair one, but our motive was good and honest. Perhaps the British were wrong for lacking understanding of the situation, but we were not pro-Serb oriented.

Many in Croatia still have the same impression even today.

- I know, but believe me, I was there and never heard such a thing. We were almost convinced that the Serbs were the most responsible for the war, to be precise Milosevic, but we also believed that the politics of the Croatians were bad. We did not believe your president Tudjman, we knew about the plans to divide Bosnia, and Izetbegovic also lied to us. The general consideration was therefore that they all lied, that they are all more or less guilty and that the real victims are the ordinary people, Croatians, Serbs and Muslims. In the end, during Oluja Serbs were expelled in the greatest numbers. But, this was Milosevic's fault, I cannot deny it, but the fact is that they all experienced tragedy. We wanted with our policy to limit such a tragedy happening to ordinary people.

But it seems you are forgetting again that the war was conducted exclusively on the territory of Croatia and Bosnia and that is the base of everything, the beginning and the end of the story.

- Yes, you are right, I agree with you. I repeat, today I am not at all proud of our policy, it was shameful and inefficient. I am convinced - that if the Europeans, or at least the British and the French, had acted in 1991 or 1992, we would have with quick intervention stopped the war in the very beginning. If there would only have been enough political will and an adequate yet not too large a military force. If Europe had at that time stronger politicians, wiser leaders, things would certainly have been better, and we would have carried it out better. Instead, the war finally ended in 1995.

Yes, and this thanks to the Croatian action "Oluja".

- There were more facts that led to the ending of the war. First, the Bosnian Serbs got tired and out of breath, and the Croats and Bosniaks succeeded to arm themselves after all. The pivotal move of it all was Srebrenica. After that no one could sit any longer with crossed arms.

A similar situation occurred in Vukovar, but back in 1991.!

- Eh, in Vukovar... You know, I have Serbs in my family, my son is married to a Serb. In her family a young man deserted the Serb army exactly at Vukovar, because he did not approve of the attacks. I repeat, I am not proud of our politics at that time. Even though we had instruments at our disposal, it was inefficient, but not pro-Serb. Would Europe have been able to agree politically and use the instruments? I don't know, and I am now skeptical. For the sake of truth, we have not even tried, and that is shameful! Srebrenica was the cup that spilled over.

Croatia is apprehensive because of the uncertain beginning of the negotiations with the EU, during which Great Britain again with great obstinacy, practically to the point of intolerance, insists on the extradition of General Gotovina. Why Great Britain again?

- There are many factors. First, we all think that the EU is the solution for the Yugoslav problem - for the Croats, the Serbs and the Slovenes, when they finally come to their senses. Second, if we already hunt for Karadzic and Mladic, then we also have to hunt Croats and Bosniaks. Otherwise, it will and already has led to great resistance by the Serbs.

Why did you not fear resistance by the Germans in 1945?

-I we shall discuss history, the Serbs will never find peace within themselves until they forget about the Kosovo Field, until they reconcile with their history. In contrast Croatia has already done this to some extent. We have a similar experience with Ireland. As soon as Great Britain and Ireland joined the EU we were able to confer mutually. It took us 35 years, but now it is a reality. The EU gives the countries of former Yugoslavia and the Balkans in general, the chance to stop thinking of the past . And that is in the interest of Europe and all Europeans.
 

 Croatia's EU Membership Held 'Hostage' by few EU states.

These are the titles of the articles that were published all over the world. In the title it says "WAR CRIMINAL", without trial, they decided who is guilty and who is not. That is UNACCEPTABLE ! What are the legal consequences of these titles, printed in bold. Dismiss the trial would be one and the best solution, plus apology to the whole nation. Is Croatian government protesting about all of this? That is the first point. The second point is that the Europe OWES Croatia more then apology for letting the hordes of barbaric Serbs destroy our land. This issue needs to be addressed, from the start. This same Europe is giving us conditions? Our WAR REPARATIONS check should be on the way or already in our banks. What's up with that? What is up with trying to equalize aggressor with the victim? Who attacked whom. On whose territory did genocide of Croatians happen?

Our priorities are, civil society, with the laws that are implemented into the funcional society, without overburdening legal obstacles. There, our sheer Croatian talent will fly as we see our individual amazing results, from sport, culture and science that are unparalleled to almost anyone in the world, considering the number of Croatians around the world.

General Gotovina, became hero in the eyes of an average Croatian because he symbolizes the independence that we long for so long. Let's not give it away. Premier Sanader doesn't have an easy time and even we who do not agree with joining the big massive administration like EU, should stand behind him at this moment. Just the fact that little court clerk can give us a lesson, is not acceptable. We can give blood, which we've proven that century after century, but not our pride. Ms. Ponti should be dismissed as she was from Rwanda trial.

We need time not to lose focus on who we are and where we want to be in 50 years. Croatia isn't easy. For monumental decisions and big problems we need great people with even better solutions.

Nenad Bach

Editor in Chief, CROWN

SAMPLE of what was written above:

Croatia's EU Membership Held 'Hostage' by War Criminal (op-ed ???)
By Douglas Bakshian
Luxembourg
17 March 2005

Bakshain report - Download 1.8MB
Bakshain report

General Ante Gotovina
The European Union has postponed the start of membership negotiations with Croatia after it failed to cooperate fully with the U.N. war crimes Tribunal in the Hague, which is seeking a fugitive Croatian general. The dispute has prompted a diplomatic struggle in the European Union and put enormous pressure on the small Balkan country.

Late last year the European Union agreed to start membership talks with Croatia on March 17. But chief U.N. prosecutor Carla del Ponte repeatedly called for Zagreb to track down accused war criminal General Ante Gotovina and said Croatia was not doing enough to hand him over.

"I am expecting Gotovina as soon as possible transferred to the Hague," he said. "And I must say that I am convinced that Croatia can do it. So, I invited, many times, the Croatian government to fulfill its international obligation to transfer Gotovina to the Hague."

Prosecutor Del Ponte has said that General Gotovina is likely hiding in Croatia, and that some people in government may be sheltering him. But Zagreb argues it is doing everything possible to find the general and Prime Minister Ivo Sanader says he is not in Croatia.

"Since we have no information, according to all work of services, intelligence services and police, that General Gotovina is in Croatia," he said. "We have no information at all which would confirm that he is in Croatia. I very much support the proposal to have Europol to also be active and to control whether General Gotovina is possibly in one of the member states of the European Union, or in Europe."

The general disappeared in July 2001 when he was indicted for killing Serbian civilians during an offensive against Serbian rebels in 1995. At the same time, he is seen by many Croatians as a hero of their 1991 to 1995 independence war.

Michael Emerson, of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, says Croatian public opinion may be an obstacle to ending the dispute.

"He has also become politically a bit of a folk hero in Croatia," he noted. "And this is today's political problem that Croatian public opinion, it seems, has not made up its mind whether he is a criminal or a hero. And if Croatian public opinion and politicians are bending towards the view that he is a national hero that is precisely what the European Union does not want to hear."

Croatia hopes to be the second former Yugoslav republic to join the European Union. Slovenia became the first when it joined last May. Despite much hard work and sacrifice, things remain in jeopardy. Luxembourg holds the E.U. presidency and Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker says General Gotovina is holding a nation hostage.

"Mr. Gotovina is playing a dangerous game," said Mr. Juncker. "And if he is in Croatia he should be ready to be arrested and transferred to the Hague. Because he does not have the right to take millions of Croatians as hostages. This is not patriotic behavior. And if Mr. Gotovina is the patriot he claims to be he has to do everything possible in order to enable the European Union to start the enlargement negotiations without any doubt in our minds."

Luxembourg has reassured Croatia that membership talks will open promptly, once the condition of full cooperation with the war crimes tribunal is met. Foreign minister Jean Asselborn says the situation is clear. He is heard through an interpreter.

"It is Croatia which has the key. It is not the Hague, it is not ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], it is not Brussels, Luxembourg, England, Austria or any other member state which has the key. The key is in the hands of Croatia," he said.

E.U. officials stress that Croatia's future is in the European family, and they hope this stumbling block can be cleared away soon.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-17-voa29.cfm

Letter to Guardian re MI6 in Croatia

To: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005
Subject: MI6 in Croatia


Dear Editor:

Regarding Ian Traynor's article of March 18, "The fugitive who stands in
the way of Croatia's EU entry",
I wonder how the British public would feel if some foreign spies,
especially from a country not known to be essentially kindly disposed
toward it, would be allowed to work undercover in England?? Especially if
they felt that the general these spies are trying to find has liberated
part of their country from four years of brutal occupation and the
charges against him are trumped up?

Sincerely,

Hilda Foley
13272 Orange Knoll
Santa Ana, CA 92705, USA
714-832-0289

Nadjen Gotovina

WWW - Win With the Wind

7 Windmills on Pag's Wind farm produce enough for the whole island Pag.
Why don't we build 1007 Windmills?

That is the fact that I heard recently. Clean energy, clean water, clean sea, natural food, why don't we build 1007 Windmills?
Soon. In the next 3 years? And therefore export electricity. On a long run, we can only win with the wind

Nenad Bach
Editor in Chief, CROWN

Issue: Exploring New York City through Croatian Eyes

-Help Needed
 

Dear Croatians of America, especially New York City,

May I introduce you to two German girls of Croatian origin who are going to
travel to NYC for the first time in their lives: Anita Bilos, student of
architecture and Valentina Brajko, copywriter and specialist in dialogue
marketing.

From 1st to 10th April we would love to explore NYC through Croatian
immigrant eyes and/or through the eyes from there children and
grandchildren. Detailly we thought about some kind of "sightseeing by
following Croatian immigrants´ steps in NYC", visiting Croatian self made
man/women at work, having sometimes lunch or dinner in Croatian-American
restaurants, going to Croatian catholic mass, seeing/listening to Croatian
artist (audio, visuals, whatever interesting).

In case, you yourself would like to pass us some pieces of informatian upon
above mentioned issues or even make a Croatian tour through parts of NYC we
would be grateful to receive your massages in Croatian, English or German
at one or both of the following e-mail addresses:

anita@bilos-bilos.de

valentina.brajko@web.de

Thank you very much in advance, stay healthy and keep telling America how
beautiful Croatia is, how innovative her people are.

Sunny regards from Frankfurt/Main, Germany

Valentina Brajko

PS
If you know any e-mail address of "Columbus Studios Hostel" please forward
it to us, too. Hvala lijepa!! Nenad: Hvala lijepa na ljubaznost, paznji i
savijetu.
 

TMA Flight Attendant Recruitment

Croatian and English speaking Flight Attendants preferred

For ORD - Chicago:

Open house held on April 4, 2005 6pm-10pm
Interviews held on April 5th, 2005

Location: Marriott - 9550 West Higgins Rd. #400, Rosemont, IL 60018
(847) 384-2750
Bring an updated resume.
Doors close promptly at 6pm

For JFK - New York:

Open house held on April 6, 2005 6pm-10pm
Interviews held on April 7th, 2005

Location: Hampton Inn/Holiday Inn - 144-02 135th Ave. Jamaica, NY
11436 (718) 659-0200

Bring an updated resume.

Doors close promptly at 6pm

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks very much.

Laura Rae
Director of Inflight
TransMeridian Airlines
678-803-6935
lrae@tmair.com

If confused or have an additional question feel free to email Marina Zadro:mz@vegatravel.net

AMAC:
Preporucamo vam Fundaciju "Ruzickina Kuca" u Vukovaru

From: Zlatko Bacic bacicz@mindspring.com
Date: March 19, 2005 1:09:55 PM EST
To: AMAC-members@mx1.nyu.edu
Subject: AMAC: Preporucamo vam Fundaciju "Ruzickina Kuca" u Vukovaru

Dragi clanovi i prijatelji AMACa,

Zelimo Vam svratiti pozornost na Fundaciju "Ruzickina Kuca" koja
djeluje u Vukovaru, buduci da smo uvjereni da zavrijedjuje Vasu
podrsku. Fundacija je osnovana u svrhu obnove rodne kuce prvog
hrvatskog nobelovca, i jednog od svjetskih velikana kemije, Lavoslava
Ruzicke, koja je bila potpuno razrusena tijekom srpske agresije na
Vukovar, za vrijeme Domovinskog rata. Obnovljena kuca biti ce muzejski
prostor koji ce svjedociti o zivotu i radu Lavoslava Ruzicke. Inace,
uz obnovljenu kucu bit ce izgradjena moderno opremljena dvorana, u
kojoj ce se odvijati razne kulturne i obrazovne djelatnosti, narocito
okrenute mladima, kao i znanstveni skupovi. O Fundaciji, njenom
projektu, i napretku obnove Ruzickine kuce, mozete vise saznati na
vrlo informativnoj web stranici Fundacije,
http://www.fundacijaruzickinakuca.hr/index.htm . Posjetite Foto
galeriju,
http://www.fundacijaruzickinakuca.hr/foto.htm

Takodjer, mozete kontaktirati gdju. Maju Rendulic
maja.rendulic@diners.hr , upraviteljicu Fundacije, koja azurno i
srdacno odgovara na e-mail poruke.

Lavoslav Ruzicka jedan je od samo dva hrvatska znanstvenika nagradjena
za svoj rad Nobelovom nagradom. Drugi je Vladimir Prelog, takodjer
organski kemicar, kojem je Ruzicka bio mentor. Lavoslav Ruzicka je
rodjen 1887. u Vukovaru. Nakon velike mature u Osijeku, otisao je na
studij u inozemstvo. Iako je tada zauvijek napustio domovinu, nikada
ju nije zaboravio i do kraja zivota je odrzavao cvrste i ceste veze s
njom. Gotovo cjelu znanstvenu karijeru proveo je kao profesor organske
kemije na znamenitoj ETH (Visoka Tehnicka Skola) u Zuerichu, u
Svicarskoj. Nobelovu nagradu za kemiju dobio je 1939., za svoje
pionirske radove iz sintetske organske kemije prirodnih spojeva. Umro
je 1976. Kod njega su se decenijama usavrsavali gotovo svi vodeci
organski kemicari u Hrvatskoj. Dobitnik je brojnih najvisih svjetskih
priznanja. Za pocasnog doktora Sveucilista u Zagrebu izabran je 1940.;
iste godine postao je i pocasnim gradjaninom Vukovara. Opsirniji
zivotopis Lavoslava Ruzicke nalazi se takodjer na web stranici
Fundacije, http://www.fundacijaruzickinakuca.hr/index.htm

Nadamo se da ce te pozeljeti ukljuciti se u projekt obnove rodne kuce
ovog hrvatskog velikana. Ako se odlucite, Vase donacije mozete
uplatiti u korist deviznog racuna Fundacije "Ruzickina Kuca":

71304-737761 kod Raiffeisenbank Austria d.d. Zagreb

SWIFT code: RZBHHR2X

Korespondentne banke u US su:

The Bank of New York, NY
Wachovia Bank, NY
American Express Bank, NY

Uz srdacan pozdrav i postovanje,
 
Zlatko Bacic, Predsjednik
AMAC Mid-Atlantic
http://www.amac-ma.org/headlines/