Minister Pusić in Parliament: The Agreement was violated in a way which contaminates the case itself

Closing remarks of First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Vesna Pusić, during the Extraordinary Session of the Croatian Parliament:

„Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ladies and gentlemen members of parliament. I also thank all the parliamentary caucuses and individuals who took part in today's discussion.

Let me add a few closing remarks, as well as a few remarks about the next steps.

We found ourselves in this situation after de facto transcripts of phone calls were first published in the Serbian media, and then transmitted by the Croatian media, too. This is neither a good nor a happy solution or a situation for Croatia. We accepted the resolution of our boundary dispute through the Arbitration Agreement, and acted entirely lege artis within the framework of the Arbitration Agreement, which also included the preparation of our submissions in response to Slovenia’s submissions and the preparation of a large body of material and its presentation to the Tribunal. We absolutely believed in the procedure which would take us to a solution and the definition of delimitation, i.e. a permanent boundary between Croatia and Slovenia; it was in our interest, we wanted to resolve it and we acted within the scope of the Agreement.

The first indication that there was something wrong not with the Agreement, but on the contrary, with the violation of the Agreement, came with statements by the Slovenian Foreign Minister Karl Erjavec on his apparent information, from reliable sources, about the final outcome of the arbitration. We reacted to these statements by sending a letter to this ad hoc arbitration, as well as to the European Commission because the European Commission was in a way an intermediary in achieving the Arbitration Agreement at its inception.

First, the transcripts, and second, the audio recordings which were made public, in the Serbian, and then in the Croatian media, showed that the entire process was contaminated, i.e. that the problem was not just the behavior of the Slovenian judge and the Slovenian Agent, Ms. Drenik, but that the problem was in the case itself, i.e. in the records of the case pursuant to which the arbitration should now continue and reach a decision, because material has been inserted into those records which should not have found itself there. Today nobody can distinguish between legal and legitimate parts of that material and parts of those records which were subsequently inserted by actions of these two people. This makes this case, no matter the judges, even if the judges are the best judges arbitrators, even if they are the best in the world, this makes this case contaminated with additions which should not be there.

This is our reason, this is our main reason why we, as the Government, are of the opinion – but, of course, in the first place we come here to hear this discussion and to get the opinion of the Croatian Parliament – that we need to get out of this arbitration and put an end to it. Not because the Agreement is bad, but because the Agreement was violated in a way which contaminates the case itself, no matter the status of individual judges, which contaminates the material on the basis of which the decision should have been reached.

It is in Croatia’s interest, of course, to resolve open issues with its neighbors, and it is doing so, and with all the tasks in front of us, this includes also the definition of our boundaries with all our neighbors.

At this point, we have a temporary delimitation regime with Montenegro, and we also have an Agreement on the State Boundary with Bosnia and Herzegovina which was signed, but not ratified, but is applied as of the date of its signing, i.e. since 1999. With Serbia, we have a protocol on the principles for the determination of the boundary and the conclusion of an agreement on the boundary, and, of course, with Italy, we have a defined boundary at sea by the Treaty of Osimo and a delimitation of the continental shelf by succession which stems from 1968.

In this case, the Government and the state were really interested to resolve this issue through an agreed mechanism. Once it has been undoubtedly established, and by no means denied by our partners, i.e. the Slovenian side, that what was made public is true, the Government reacted precisely the way it should have, in terms of the speed, and by following the procedure without skipping a single step, without nervous reactions or succumbing to a nationalistic fever. The Government reacted in accordance with the agreed steps, which means we acted in good faith, but this good faith showed that the other side acted in a different manner. Or that they thought that the Agreement was not good enough to guarantee the achievement of the desired goals, and when that was violated, we reacted in accordance with the defined steps.

We are not engaged in a principled dispute or a fight with Slovenia, we attempted to resolve the question of our boundary through arbitration, but it is evident that through this arbitration, this will not be possible and we will have to keep on looking for a solution, of course that we will have to keep seeking a solution.

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which was mentioned here, has this difficulty that it can only deal with the boundary at sea, and not with the boundary at land. The International Court of Justice is, in my opinion, and in our opinion, the only institution to which we will have to resort to.

But, for both institutions, we need an agreement of both sides. Croatia cannot resort to any of those international courts to resolve the question of the boundary, it needs be done in agreement by both Croatia and Slovenia.

Lobbying, which is in our politics often mistaken for foreign policy, often ends precisely this way. Lobbying is sometimes, in certain situations, the task of lower-ranking officials in foreign ministries, but foreign policy is a clear posture, a clear vision and a clear information. Croatia does that and Croatia will continue to do it. Lobbying is not foreign policy. In this case, it got Slovenia into a position which I really regret, because I am confident that a vast majority of Slovenia’s citizens would have favored lobbying, but rather that regular politics was conducted and that today, we are on a path toward a legal and a legitimate conclusion of this arbitration process.

A clear posture, adherence to the rules and keeping your word is always the best approach and the best policy, and we will continue to abide by this.

The Parliament will, of course, have its say and the Parliament will vote, but from the debate that we heard here, and which I listened to very attentively, it is obvious that in these circumstances Croatia should end its participation in this Arbitration Agreement and the process itself. The question is – what next?

On the basis of what was said here today, the Croatian Government will tomorrow adopt a decision and notify the Republic of Slovenia thereof, thus beginning with the process of terminating or leaving this arbitration process. Let us not fool ourselves that this will be met with widespread approval. Everyone appreciates when problems are solved, nobody is particularly interested in the details. This is a procedure which was defined with the Commission, with the help of various states and everyone wishes this had not happened, and now that it had, everyone would like to see the process continued as if it had not. We have to have a perfectly clear posture here and remain calm because we also wish this had not happened. But now that it had, we will advocate our opinion and defend ourselves like any other normal country would, fully aware that Croatia and Slovenia still have this issue in front of themselves, meaning that they need to resolve the boundary question. This is important because of the two states, and it is of particular importance because of those fishermen of Istria, people of Žumberak, Međimurje and Prekmurje, as well as all others who live next to the border. But it is also important because of the two states. We have to continue working on this issue.

The institution which remains is very likely the International Court of Justice. It is also very likely that some time will be needed for us to get there, but after this experience, the only fully reliable thing for us is for those decisions to be made on the basis of international law.

I thank you. We will proceed in accordance with the decision which the Parliament reaches today. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.”

News | Govori i izjave | Foreign policy