The
late Croatian President, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, has left
a variegated legacy in European and international affairs
in the wake of his departure from the historical scene.
The paper published in this issue of the journal was delivered
in January of 1990, on the cusp of democratic changes
in Croatia and the rest of the former Yugoslavia. During
this uncertain period, Tudjman was the president of a
broad movement and emerging political party in Croatia,
the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) (independent political
parties were only just beginning to be legalized in Croatia).
The
paper, On Historical Necessity and Contradictions between
Sovereignty and Integration of European Nations, was
delivered at the "Round Table of Europe" forum,
organized by a foreign policy 'think tank' in Austria.
The forum was co-hosted by the Eine Veranstaltung der
Politischen Akademie der OVP and the Austrian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, with Alois Mock, Austria's foreign
minister at the time, hosting a reception for participants.
In addition to outlining his historical view of European
integration, Tudjman used this opportunity to advance
the democratic process in former Yugoslavia. Along with
the Slovenian participants, Tudjman initiated a resolution
calling for democracy in former Yugoslavia, and the application
of the right of nations to self-determination. In addition,
Tudjman used the forum to inform the broader European
public of the remaining political prisoners in Stara Gradiska,
and address the issue of democratic changes in Croatia.
The
themes that Tudjman addressed are issues which have consistently
followed his political, military and scholastic endeavors,
and which fall under the general heading of national identity
and self-determination. Tudjman's focus on these issues
stems from a diverse historical legacy of the unresolved
national question in the former Yugoslavia, and the latent
national issues that confronted the major European nations
after the Second World War. For Tudjman, Yugoslavia had
twice been a failure, precisely because it could not resolve
the fundamental differences and interests of the disparate
nations. Although he did not believe in historical determinism,
the national question was one of the paramount issues
of modernity, and the emergence of the nation-state a
universal form of political organization. The paper he
delivered was less a policy statement-although there are
also elements of this-but much more a historical elaboration
of the crux of the problem facing the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).
Tudjman
believed that Croatia was part of Europe. Indeed, not
even its membership in two Yugoslavias had severed the
deep and binding ties that Croatia had with Central Europe.
However, he was aware that there was no simple, one-dimensional
solution to any complex international or national problem.
National self-determination was an imperative in Europe
as much as it was in the former Yugoslavia, but there
were solutions short of independence and sovereignty.
The gradations shifted according to circumstances. In
the case of former Yugoslavia, the federation could only
survive if it were transformed into an alliance of sovereign
states. Otherwise, the nations would disassociate and
form independent, sovereign states. These two options
were not mutually exclusive, and the political and diplomatic
efforts that followed were designed to avoid an escalation
of tensions. However, war did ensue, and we were left
with the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to transform
former Yugoslavia into a greater Serbia.
The
underlying theme addressed by Tudjman in his paper relates
to the contemporary problem confronting Europe: the countervailing
process of integration and disintegration. Tudjman's understanding
of these processes is reflected in his views that the
world is becoming more diverse because there is more pressure
to recognize human diversity, despite the ever-increasing
integration of the globe at the functional and technological
level. Unfortunately, Tudjman stopped with the principle
of the nation-state, not because he lacked an understanding
of the the broader issues relating to identity in late
modernity or of the liberal principles of social democracy,
but because he believed that it was precisely the question
of national identity and self-determination that was antecedent
to broader issues of identity, political representations,
and ultimately democracy. In addressing the notion of
an integrated Europe of nations, Tudjman looked beyond
the state, and saw new forms of political organization
on the horizon. These institutions could only be viable
if they guaranteed nations and other forms of political
community, such as ethnic minorities, sufficient freedom
for their development and security. The Europe of the
future will necessarily confront these issues. To date,
Europe has successfully broached the complex issues relating
to identity and integration, a process that is never fully
complete, and always in abeyance.
