From Washington's perspective Croatia looks to be the regional leader, says Janusz Bugajski Janusz Bugajski is numbered among the very top US experts for post-Communist countries, and thereby also for Croatia. He is professionally active at the Washington-based Center for Strategic & International Studies, where he serves as the director of the New European Democracies Project, and chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State. He is a regular contributor to the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal and has published several books on Russia's expanding influence over the past few years. A decade ago, Bugajski was a columnist with Nacional where he wrote about US policy with a special focus on Southeast Europe.

Last week he visited Kosovo, where the first elections since the declaration of independence are being held, and then spent three days in Croatia, where he met with a number of leading politicians. Many were surprised by his endorsement of presidential hopeful Nadan Vidosevic, but in this interview Janusz Bugajski explains why he is convinced that Vidosevic is the candidate with the greatest credibility.

NACIONAL: How would you describe the situation in Southeastern Europe?
- There is a kind of division of balance. Half of the former Yugoslavia, and here I am thinking of Slovenia and Croatia, are already in NATO and the EU, or about to enter, while the other countries, in spite of a measure of progress, continue to meet with a number of difficulties. There are quite evidently a number of open issues, and this was evident in the current economic crisis, which has opened political problems, such as the dangerous developments in Bosnia & Herzegovina, the strengthening of extremist forces that encourage separatism, even a halt on the accession of some countries to the EU and NATO. There is without a doubt still much to be done in this region.

NACIONAL: What about Croatia?
- From Washington's perspective Croatia looks to be the regional leader, and proof of this are its membership in NATO and immanent accession to the European Union. On the other hand, it appears that some internal policy issues could disqualify efforts to see Croatia enter the European Union. The biggest problem is corruption and a lack of political will to resolve this issue, even at the level of Government. It should be said that the level of corruption disqualifies Croatia in the eyes of the EU, which already has major problems with Bulgaria and Romania. This is especially true of Bulgaria, where massive amounts of money from European funds have been embezzled, and that is why they are now observing Croatia under a magnifying glass. An additional problem is that it appears that Government and political circles have no intention of putting up much of a fight against corruption.

JANUSZ BUGAJSKI with Nadan Vidosevic for whose economic program he has only words of praise NACIONAL: You probably know that many people in Croatia feel that there is also political pressure from some EU members that are traditionally, even historically, indisposed towards Croatia?
- I know of these sentiments, but I truly do not think that Britain is opposed to Croatian accession to the EU. What is at issue is pragmatism; the British advocate the enlargement of the European Union because that is how they weaken European institutions, and London certainly does not want to see a strong EU. Many countries are sceptical towards enlargement, but above all because of the so-called absorption potential of the EU, and not because they are opposed to Croatia. The only country that presents a problem is Turkey, which would with its 70 million inhabitants cause major changes within European institutions, and there is the issue of human rights, the large number of Turkish workers that would go to the EU, and the cultural issues that could ensue with the accession of so large a Muslim country.

The most acceptable program

NACIONAL: Your endorsement of presidential hopeful Nadan Vidosevic has surprised many in Croatia. Why did you choose to do so?
- I have seen the programs of all of the major presidential candidates and Nadan's appears to me to be the most acceptable. We met and I enjoyed the conversation. Vidosevic has the most credible economic program, and in general a program that relates to Croatia in the future. Unlike some of the countries of Central Europe, in which the presidents are relatively unimportant figures, in Croatia the president plays a significant role in foreign policy and in the economy. Vidosevic has experience, economic ideas and plans for the development of Croatia as a regional leader, and I like the fact that, in the political sense, he is not oriented towards the past but is looking, rather, to the future.

NACIONAL: Do you know that there have been quite a few allegations against Vidosevic of corruption and the dubious procurement of assets?
- I know that much is being said of corruption, and I assume Nadan is also being attacked because he is an independent candidate. I have heard nothing bad about him in Washington, quite the opposite; he is seen as a good Croatian politician. Among top US political circles, of course, the dominant topics are Afghanistan, Iraq and Russia, but among people who daily deal with Europe and the Balkans there is a doubtless interest for Croatia. Croatia is important to the region and if it is successful in Euro-Atlantic integration processes, it will be a positive signal, especially for Bosnia & Herzegovina. Washington does not have its favourite in the upcoming elections in Croatia, but both the US and the EU would like to see someone that is serious and ready to cooperate with the Government in fighting corruption, strengthening the economy and Euro-Atlantic integration processes take the post.

NACIONAL: What is the level of US involvement in resolving the border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia?
- There is no doubt that a certain role has been played by America. It was in the interest of the US that Slovenia back off its blockade of Croatia as soon as possible. I have already spoken of the importance of the stabilisation of the region, in which the status of Bosnia & Herzegovina constitutes the most important element. In some ways a parallel can be drawn between the Balkans and Afghanistan. In both cases the US cannot withdraw because the mission has not been completed. And besides, keep in mind that the current US Vice President Joe Biden was responsible for the Balkans during the Clinton administration and that he remains interested in having the local situation finally stabilised.

NACIONAL: At what level was the US engaged in resolving the blockade?
- I would say this - it was not at the highest level, but not far below it.

NACIONAL: Over the past few years you have written frequently about Vladimir Putin and Russia. Does Russia pose a danger to European countries?
- Russia is engaged in what I refer to as pragmatic re-imperialism. The Russians are using all of the potential at their disposal to regain influence in the areas that were once, during the time of the USSR, under their control. Their private sector is firmly bound to the state - it suffices to see how Russian oil companies work to the benefit of national strategic interests. Russia poses a danger for its immediate neighbourhood - the Baltic states, Poland, Georgia and Ukraine - because it is there that the Russians are trying to renew their imperial position.

NACIONAL: Thanks to the oil industry Russia has a growing role in the Balkans too?
- Eastern Europe has always been a zone of interest for Russia. Thanks to energy-political ties the Russians are trying to regain their influence in Southeastern Europe, to reduce the influence of America and NATO here. Serbia is in a particularly interesting position because many people there and in its government feel that they can play both sides, as a kind of bridge between NATO and the Slavic-Orthodox-Russian community. But this is no longer possible because Serbia is no longer indispensable to the West, but is necessary to Russia in its infiltration towards Western Europe. The Russians want to make the greatest possible advantage of Bulgaria and Serbia as transit countries through which oil and natural gas pipelines pass, with which they can blackmail the countries of Central Europe and the Mediterranean. They do not use energy as a means of supply but rather as a means of blackmail.

Some good moves

US Vice President Joe Biden was responsible for the Balkans during the Clinton administration NACIONAL: You mentioned Russia's pragmatic re-imperialism. Is America not up to something similar?
- Bush's doctrine contained several components, one of which was the positive introduction of democracy in some countries. Of course, this is not possible if societies are not yet ready for democratisation, as is the case with Iraq. But there is certainly a big difference between US and Russian foreign policy. The US is engaged in something we could refer to as liberal or democratic imperialism. Russia is not spreading democracy, quite the opposite; what suits them are corrupt and undemocratic regimes and that is what sets them significantly apart from the US. And besides, under Barack Obama the US is also altering its earlier unilateral policies and is inclined towards multilateralism. The Obama administration has grasped that America is not in a position to be engaged everywhere, and it is interesting that in exchange for security it is ready to postpone democratisation in countries like Iran, North Korea or Afghanistan.

NACIONAL: How would you evaluate US President Obama's first year in office?
- I think it is still too early for a final assessment, but it is evident that he has made some good moves and we can say that he is successful, although not as much as he would like. It is quite certain that he does not yet deserve the Nobel Prize for peace. Obama is trying simultaneously to tackle too many domestic and foreign issues, and it appears to me that he is focused on healthcare reform and is as a result not focused on foreign issues. If he dedicated more time to international affairs, he could better deal with the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, slow down the Iranian nuclear program, and influence North Korea on the long run.