“If ever any danger threatens your nation, America and NATO will stand behind you and no one will be able to take away your freedom“ – that was a crucial remark from American President George W. Bush addressed to the Croatian public during his visit to Zagreb. This statement shows best what has changed in Croatia’s strategic international political situation over the past several days, which will have far-reaching consequences for Croatia’s future and the country’s foreign policy, as well as internal policy and economic development.

In politics, Americans have always been known for trying to simplify complicated situations and processes in the world. That is how they acted in the Yugoslavian crisis. When they began to get involved in the crisis in 1994, they identified the aggressor and the victims and decided to help the victims. First they forced Croatians and Muslims in Bosnia to reconcile, and brought the conflict with three fighting sides down to a two-sided conflict. Understanding that Serbia was to blame for the war, they assisted Croatians and Muslims in becoming stronger, and weakened the Serbian side with air attacks. They estimated that the Croatians were the only side capable of dealing a decisive blow to the Serbians, so they assisted in the preparation of Operation Storm, which created a key step in 1995 to end the entire war.

At that time, the foundation for an alliance was laid but the former Croatian government at the time did not know how to use the advantage because they did not – immersed in theory from the 19th century – understand what was happening in the global plan. Therefore, more than a decade had to pass for a new situation to emerge where the former alliance could continue with a delay. This new situation occurred because the Americans have once again focused their attention on the area of the former Yugoslavia over the past several months, in the context of a significant new realignment in a wider space where East meets West, and once again established that Croatia should be the country which this alignment leans on.
The past several months were once again vital for the future of the region of the former Yugoslavia. Serbia, and its position, was once again in the centre of attention, which could determine the future of the neighbouring countries. That issue was opened by Russia, which was not so interested in Serbia alone, but more so for their estimate that Russia could interfere in moves made by the United States and NATO in areas which the Russians were much more interested through Serbia, such as the Black Sea region, where the West is attempting to include the Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, as well as Caucasus and areas of Central Asia.

Understanding that the entire Serbian society is deeply divided between pro-European urban Serbia and the anti-European nationalistic rural Serbia, Russia began an attempt to secure Serbia for itself by offering political assistance to Serbia, as well as economic benefits in the energy sector. The European Union reacted to this, offering Serbia great advantages if the country separates from Russia. Serbia was offered immediate signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and the EU was prepared to give up on conditions for full cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, which meant that fleeing war criminals, such as Ratko Mladic, would not have to be extradited to The Hague. Serbia was also offered other significant economic and political benefits, and there were even announcements that the European Union could slow down the accession process with other countries in the former Yugoslavia so that lagging Serbia could join at the same time.
That was the moment when Serbia should have defined its position. Three dates were important for this definition. The first date was 20 January, the day when the Presidential elections were held. Pro-European Boris Tadic had an unconvincing victory, and after he gave significant political advantages to the other side, political blackmail did not allow any significant pro-European moves by Tadic and his coalition government at the time. The second date where the position of Serbia was determined was 17 February, when Kosovo proclaimed its independence, after which Belgrade began demonstrations against western countries, which were possibly organized by certain government leadership circles. Through these destructive demonstrations, Serbia showed its nationalistic face in a wide spectrum. The third date on which Serbia’s position will be determined is 11 May when the Parliamentary elections will be held, mainly because the current government coalition fell apart because of the issue surrounding what is more important for Serbia – Kosovo or European integration.

The United States have been watching from afar. For years they have tried to actively influence the political situation in Serbia, and American Ambassadors William Montgomery and Michael Polt have acted accordingly. Polt recently left Belgrade, where he was replaced by Cameron Munter, a man, it seems, with a completely different understanding. With his appointment, some analysts believe that America proved that they have given up on direct attempts to attract Serbia to the west. Other moves have also proven this, especially after the attack on the US Embassy in Belgrade.

It seems that that attack was a key moment for America’s western European allies, because they suddenly retracted the attractive offers given to Serbia by the European Union, which no longer offers Serbia the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, but is only offering a short, informal non-binding paper on mutual intentions to assist Serbia in joining the EU. The Slovenian Presidency of the EU is the only country making certain efforts to turn Serbia towards a European perspective. It is clear now that western politics towards the region of the former Yugoslavia has changed significantly, because it is clear that no one will beg Serbia or wait for the country, but are inventing new blueprints for different architecture in the region without Serbia, which they obviously cannot count on. In the meantime, anti-European forces have strengthened in the nationalistic atmosphere following recognition of Kosovo, so media and political speeches are full of anti-European rhetoric, where absurd requests can be heard as well as statements that the EU must beg Serbia to join, and that Serbia will join the European Union only if the United States and other western countries retract their recognition of Kosovo, and announce that Kosovo is a part of Serbia.

It is clear that these new blueprints, which do not include Serbia, are underway when it was announced that invitations for membership to NATO would be offer to Croatia, Albania and Macedonia at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, while intensive accession would be offered to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Montenegro. It was announced that Serbia has open doors to NATO, but this invitation did not receive a response from Belgrade, especially since the Serbian Parliament had a majority vote several months ago in favour of a resolution on Serbia’s neutrality, which bans Serbia from joining any military alliances. Washington has confirmed Croatia’s key role in these blueprints, after Croatia was included in Bush’s European tour, while Zagreb was selected as the location for him to address his message to the entire region.

In accordance to the American practice that all things should be simplified, Bush was extremely direct in Zagreb. While giving a toast to President Mesic at the formal dinner, he said something which left an echo: he called Croatia an ally. In his speech the following day at Markov Trg, he was equally direct. It was a speech which did not accuse or condemn any sides, but Croatians who were present could clearly understand what Bush meant when he spoke about Croatian freedom: “There are those who wonder whether people lived better under the old tyranny. You can tell them that freedom is the only path towards prosperity, security and peace. There are those who wonder whether the pain and sacrifice for freedom was worth the cost. They should come to Croatia. You can show them how valuable it is to fight for freedom.˝ It is clear that, speaking about Croatia’s freedom, he was talking about something which occurred recently. Those present also understood what he mean when he said ˝if ever any danger threatens your nation, America and NATO will stand behind you and no one will be able to take away your freedom˝. This can only be understood in one way in Croatia today, that the threats which have been mentioned over the past several months on the Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica borderline are even empty.

Every modern state, in order to prosper, must build up four basic things: it must strengthen its security, build up its democracy, improve its economy, and – especially important in this modern age – secure energy sources for the future. After receiving its invitation to NATO, Croatia solved the first problem. Now the others have to be solved. Even though some will claim differently, entrance to NATO was a strong precondition for Croatia and for EU accession; without joining NATO, Croatia will not receive EU membership, which is a sure and upcoming problem. It is hardly a coincidence that the rhetoric within the European Union on accepting Croatia has changed dramatically, that more concrete statements are made on possible dates for completion of pre-accession negotiations, and that new chapters are being opened. In these negotiations, there will still be large problems for Croatia when chapters on shipbuilding, agriculture and the judicial system are opened, but the situation is significantly better than it was several weeks ago.

Croatia is entering a completely new period, which will strengthen the country in the international sense, and will have a great repercussion on internal relations. In three months, the Slovenian Presidency of the European Union will end which will stop the influence of unnecessary bilateral conflicts negatively affecting the relations of Croatia and the EU. It is a different situation with the Hague Tribunal, because – it seems – that positive changes for Croatia have occurred with the absence of Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.

All of this will change the political situation in Croatia because the forces which lobby for Euro Atlantic integration have strengthened, while euro scepticism has weakened. That will strengthen the role of the strongest advocates of Euro-Atlantic integration, President Stipe Mesic and Premier Ivo Sanader, as well as the leaders of parties which did not hesitate to provide support for integration; it will also weaken the situation of those politicians who signed the petition for a referendum and who boycotted the events in the program for Bush’s visit to Zagreb.

From now on, processes in the area of the former Yugoslavia will occur in accordance to this new strategic architecture and these completely new circumstances. There will still be significant complications with Kosovo. The situation in Kosovo is tense so a breakout of new violence cannot be completely excluded, especially in the period up to the Serbian Parliamentary elections. The results of the elections are uncertain. Some political analysts, for example, in Belgrade’s Politika, claimed that the nationalistic parties strengthened and the pro-European parties weakened after Kosovo announced independence. Any turn of events in Serbia will influence events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where all political processes have stopped due to a disagreement surrounding police reforms. Croatia will be able to follow all these uncertainties from a completely new position.