INTRODUCTION:

In order to understand the current relationships within the Croatia and neighbouring countries, it is necessary to have a broader historical perspective which we do not have time to present fully on this occasion. Some issues must be touched upon briefly, though, to facilitate an understanding of present-day relations and various tensions.

Empires, cultures and civilizations have clashed on this territory over many centuries, with many positive and negative consequences reflected in the culture, religion, architecture and the system of values of the societies which emerged from the collapse of Yugoslavia.

THE WORK OF THE “JUSTITIA ET PAX” COMMISSION OF THE CROATIAN BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE

The work of the Croatian “Justitia et pax” Commission should be observed at several levels. First of all, one should bear in mind that all the members of the Commission (the president, the auxiliary bishop of Zagreb, Mons. Vlado Košić, a professor of law at the Law School of the University of Zagreb, three priests who are experts in theology and bioethics, social morality and fundamental theology, one sociologist, one doctor and one journalist) are volunteers, and the commission has no professional staff. This has a significant impact on how the Commission functions and on its presence within the Church and society.

Therefore, the primary way in which the Commission acts is by issuing statements and comments on specific topical issues. In addition, the president of the Justita et pax Commission runs the Centre for the Promotion of Social Teachings of the Church (founded by the Croatian Bishops’ Conference). Then, another Church institution that deals with similar issues is Franciscan Institute for the Culture of Peace, headed by fra Božo Vuleta and founded by the Franciscan provinces of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina .

All three institutions act independently, covering specific areas, while they also cooperate on joint activities.
The activities of the “Justitia et pax” Commission during both the former and the present convocation include:
a statement on narcotics – against the decriminalisation of soft drugs and the relaxation of the penal system in respect of the possession of and dealing in drugs;
a statement on the pre-draft of the law on medically assisted reproduction;
a statement on the preservation of the culture of work-free Sundays;
a statement on child abuse;
a letter of protest to the CNN against their broadcast of falsified historical facts relating to the Blessed Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, the Archbishop of Zagreb;
The work of the Centre for the Promotion of Social Teachings of the Church includes:
Public seminars and discussions on various topics, with the lectures subsequently published as books:
Croatian Identity in the EU;
Croatia on its way to the EU;
Croatian National Consensus;
The Development of a Civil Society in Croatia;
Christianity and Politics;
Solidarity and Subsidiarity in Croatia;
Human Dignity and the Common Good
Seminars for various groups of believers, interested citizens, young people, scientists and politicians;
Cooperation with other churches and state institutions on scientific projects which assess the system of values and religiosity in Croatia;
Faith and morals in Croatia;
European Values Study;
The Theological Basis of Solidarity in Croatia;
Monitoring Poverty in Croatia
The Work of the Franciscan Institute for the Culture of Peace focuses on issues such as:
responsibility for victims of the war in Croatia;
Družba Adria – the protection of the Adriatic from oil pollution;
water protection in Croatia;
reconciliation and forgiveness in the area of the former Yugoslavia;
the culture of Sunday in cooperation with other Church institutions and trade unions.

THE CATHOLIC SITUATION IN CROATIA

According to the most recent census (2001) 87.83% of the current population of Croatia is Catholic. Sociological research shows that between 25-30% of citizens of the Republic of Croatia of the Roman Catholic faith attend Mass in church every Sunday, 30% of them attend Mass at least once a month, 20-30% at least once a year. Also according to the 2001 census, 4.42% of the population is Orthodox, mostly members of the Serbian Orthodox Church, while Moslems make up 1.28%, and 5.21% fall under agnostics, undeclared and non believers.
In order to understand human rights, justice and the possibility of promoting peace in this area, it is necessary to examine the complexity of the relationship between the minorities and the majority. The nature of the previous relationship between minorities and the majority in Croatia differed significantly from the one taken for granted in the West, where the majority has social and political power as well as responsibility which includes the promotion of and care for the rights of minorities.
The situation in Croatia was quite the opposite. Croats of the Catholic faith, although the absolute majority of the population, were not in a position to publicly formulate their own standpoints or a social and political framework for action. The main advocates and promoters of certain realities were various minorities, both national and ideological.
We believe that in the West this reverse relationship between the minority and majority is not clearly understood, and that this has resulted in a whole series of erroneous political decisions which enabled Milošević to wage a war which led to tragedies such as Vukovar in Croatia and Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
After the first democratic elections in Croatia, a portion of the defeated former political elite converted to economic and political neo-liberals, of which a large number found a new refuge in the NGO scene where they continued to advocate their definition of “human rights”. A paradox occurred such that people who had been active participants in the totalitarian communist system and who had persecuted those who fought for democracy, became, overnight, the defenders of “human rights” in Croatia and the partners of many Western governments and non-governmental organisations. Of course, within Croatia these institutions were not able to achieve any significant success, and as a result of their lack of legitimacy, they often deprived the cause they formally advocated of its legitimacy, so that instead of the creation of an atmosphere of trust and the positive formation of a new Croatian society, the results were divisions and a lack of confidence in the system.
The former totalitarian system had a major stronghold in the media. Former editors who maintained and serviced this system are still editors in Croatian media today, and the current media situation is dire. The idea of the “freedom of the press” has been entirely misconceived. There is no insistence anywhere on the “responsibility of the media”. There are no respectable sources of news. Public television, for example, is not aware of the responsibility it has in terms of its influence on the common good. As a matter of fact, the UN recently spoke out against the violation of children’s rights by the Croatian media.
One has to admit that in these newly established circumstances, the Catholic Church in Croatia has also not really found its feet and has failed to put forward a sufficiently Catholic standpoint on various issues such as privatisation and social rights within the new capitalist system, the media, and other matters connected with human rights.
At the same time, this is the context in which Catholics are still are still trying to find room for action in contemporary Croatian society. Several key issues should receive special attention:
1) the attainment of democratic and legislative standards;
2) stabilisation of the media;
3) strengthening and formulation of a civil scene not based on ideology;
4) the issue of the social stratification of Croatian society;
5) the attitude towards the past: “purification of memory”

THE HAGUE

The Hague Tribunal was established to deal with the crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Through a series of assurances and interpretations by the representatives of the tribunal and its supporters, the indication was that the tribunal would deal with the individual guilt of individuals and that nationality would not be a criterion influencing the judgements of the tribunal. However, the practice of that tribunal has demonstrated several essential departures from this, in various directions. These departures are not only important for Croatia and the countries which emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia, but also for Europe as a whole, because they raise some very important and difficult questions of which contemporary Europe must become aware, and in relation to which a position must be taken.

As regards Croatia, it was a major frustration for the Croats to realise that in the European Community of Nations there was no desire to clearly define who was the aggressor and who was the victim. Every death is tragic, regardless of nationality, race or gender. War is tragic. However, an attempt to make a “neutral” value judgment without consideration of the context within which the actions being judged took place contributes to a loss of legitimacy and decreases the likelihood that the judgments rendered will have a positive influence on the establishment of justice and peace in this area.

Another human rights related issue currently in question in relation to The Hague is that of General Ante Gotovina. There is no evidence that General Gotovina is alive or dead. However, the whole country is receiving treatment analogous to that of blackmail during the “hunt” for the Hague fugitive. Beyond the question of the well-foundedness of the specific indictment against General Gotovina, and what would happen if the same criteria were also applied to British, American, Italian and other generals in Iraq, for example, it is difficult to believe that 4 437 460 people should be prevented from proceeding with their chosen future path because of the actions of one man. According to repeated statements on the part of the government, the general is not on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. The fact that a European institution is practically holding an entire nation hostage is inconceivable, and from a human rights perspective, unsupportable.

A third issue which should be raised here is not specifically focused on the countries of the former Yugoslavia, but concerns Europe in its entirety. This is another aspect of the issue of nationality referred to above. Although it was stated that the nationality issue would not be important in the work of the tribunal, it nevertheless turns out to be the key issue, and nationality is in fact the basic precondition for coming before the tribunal. The court was established for war crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. It was not established for the Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Bosniacs, Albanians, Macedonians or Montenegrins. However, while members of other nations were involved in the conflicts and crimes in this area, they are not being tried and they cannot be, even in principle, indicted for crimes they may have committed, nor can an investigation be conducted against them according to the same criteria under which members of the nations mentioned are being tried. The idea that peacekeeping forces or Western armies and politicians cannot commit crimes is as out of place as is the idea that an army which is defending itself cannot commit a crime. Also, the events in Iraq sadly refute this presumption.

However, only the members of certain nations who are being tried can find themselves before the Hague tribunal, and they are being tried by the members of nations who cannot be subject to the same tribunal. This is a very dangerous point, reached by contemporary European practice: members of some nations are being tried for events that took part on the territory of the former Yugoslavia while members of other nations, despite their involvement in these same events, may not be brought in nor have their testimonies heard or processed by law. We are therefore faced with a serious question of what the real issue here is and what kind of institutions Europe is building today. We know the consequences of this kind of European policy in history. It resulted in two world wars in the former century. We strongly believe that it is very important to warn Europe today to think about the practice it is implementing, precisely in the case of The Hague, because the negative consequences of such double standards will not only affect the small nations and states which have emerged on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, but they will affect all of Europe.

Dr. Željko Tanjić, Secretary of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops
Gordan Črpić, Member of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops