PAHOR-SANADER MEETING: NO PROGRESS ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L ZAGREB 000107

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2019
TAGS: PREL PGOV NATO HR
SUBJECT: PAHOR-SANADER MEETING: NO PROGRESS ON
SLOVENIAN-CROATIAN BORDER ISSUE

REF: ZAGREB 00069

Classified By: Ambassador Robert A. Bradtke for reasons 1.5(b)
& (d)


1. (C) Summary. In a February 24 meeting with the
Ambassador, Croatian Foreign Minister Jandrokovic reported
that the talks earlier in the day between Croatian Prime
Minister Sanader and Slovene Prime Minister Pahor resulted in
no progress on the Croatian-Slovenian border issue and the
related issues of Croatia's accession to the EU and NATO.
Jandrokovic described the atmosphere of the meeting as
"tense" and "difficult," with each side repeating well-known
positions. Jandrokovic reiterated the Croatian position that
the border issue should be arbitrated by the International
Court of Justice, rather than left to a "political" decision
as proposed by the EU Commission. On NATO and the threatened
Slovene referendum on Croatia's accession, Pahor reportedly
complained to Sanader that Croatia does not appreciate his
internal political problems, and warned that the signature
campaign for a referendum could gather increased strength.
Jandrokovic said that he and his Slovene counterpart Samuel
Zbogar would meet next week on the margins of the NATO
ministerial, and that another Sanader-Pahor meeting would
take place in Croatia. End Summary.


2. (C) In a late evening, one-on-one meeting on February 24,
Croatian Foreign Minister Jandrokovic provided the Ambassador
with a readout on the meeting that took place earlier in the
day between Croatian Prime Minister Sanader and Slovene Prime
Minster Pahor in the Slovene town of Mokrice. A somewhat
dispirited Jandrokovic began by describing the atmosphere of
the meeting as "tense" and "difficult." According to
Jandrokovic, Pahor presented the Croatians with an
"ultimatum." Unless the border issue was resolved, Slovenia
would continue to block Croatia's accession to the EU.
Jandrokovic noted that in fact, Slovenia had blocked that day
the closing of another chapter in the negotiations, Chapter 6
on corporate law.


3. (C) Pahor insisted, Jandrokovic said, that documents
submitted by Croatia in the EU accession process would
prejudice the outcome of any mediation or arbitration on the
border issue. Sanader countered by asking Pahor why documents
submitted by Slovenia in its accession to the EU did not
prejudice the border, showing Pahor a Slovene map that
included the entire Piran Bay as part of Slovenia. The two
Prime Ministers also disagreed on the proposal by EU
Commissioner Rehn for mediation of the border dispute. Pahor
told Sanader that he would take the Rehn proposal to the
Slovene parliament for its endorsement. Sanader argued for
arbitration by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and
the continuation of the bilateral commission, which he and
Pahor's predecessor Janez Jansa had established in the August
2007 Bled agreement.


4. (C) On the threatened Slovene referendum on Croatia's
accession to NATO, Pahor expressed his government's support
for Croatian membership in NATO, but told Sanader he was
dealing with difficult internal political problems.
Jandrokovic described Pahor as complaining to Sanader that
Croatia did not appreciate everything that he was doing for
Croatia, a comment that did not go down well with Sanader
given Slovenia's problems with the ratification process.
Pahor also warned that Slovene nationalist leader Podobnik,
who had agreed to abandon his support for the referendum, was
now reconsidering engaging in the effort to gather enough
signatures to force a vote. This information, Jandrokovic
said, caused considerable concern on the Croatian side that
the referendum campaign might actually succeed.


5. (C) Commenting on the talks, Jandrokovic expressed deep
concern that Croatia would find itself blocked by Slovenia in
both NATO and the EU. It was difficult to see how the
differences over the border as well as over the process by
which those differences should be addressed could be
resolved. On the Rehn proposal, Jandrokovic said that during
the meeting last week in Brussels with Rehn and Zbogar, Rehn
had presented a slight alteration to his proposal (reftel).
Rehn had added a brief mention of the process being carried
out "in keeping with international law" but had also changed
the proposal so that only some of the blocked chapters would
be unblocked. Jandrokovic complained that the Rehn proposal
was still too vague.


6. (C) More importantly, Jandrokovic said that Croatia did
not understand why the EU was rejecting Croatia's proposal
that the International Court of Justice arbitrate the
dispute. The EU tells us, Jandrokovic complained, about the
importance of rule of law and our cooperation with the
International Tribunal in the Hague (ICTY),yet it will not
support arbitration by the ICJ and prefers a "political"

process, i.e. the Rehn proposal, to determine the border.
Another problem with the Rehn proposal, Jandrokovic noted,
was that it provides no real guarantee that any decision it
reached on the border would be accepted by Slovenia. What,
Jandrokovic asked, was to prevent a referendum in Slovenia to
reject an unfavorable outcome or to keep Croatia from joining
the EU?


7. (C) In conclusion, Jandrokovic said that for the present
Croatia would stay focused on finishing the NATO ratification
process. Perhaps after Slovenia's ratification there would
be "greater confidence" on the Croatian side and some way
might be found to deal with EU accession problem. One
possibility, he opined, would be to find some third body,
other than the ICJ or the group proposed by Rehn, to
arbitrate the dispute. Jandrokovic noted that he would be
meeting Slovenian FM Zbogar in Brussels on the margins of
next week's NATO Ministerial, and that the two Prime
Ministers had agreed to meet again in Croatia at a date to be
determined.


8. (C) Responding to Jandrokovic's comments, the Ambassador
stressed that the United States would continue to work for
completion of the NATO ratification process and Croatia's
attendance at the April Summit as a full member of NATO. The
Ambassador also urged that the Croatian government continue
to exercise restraint in making comments that may play
negatively in Slovenia and have an impact on the referendum
campaign. Finally, the Ambassador welcomed the continuation
of direct bilateral contacts between the two countries. It
was important, he noted, that the publics in both countries
see their leaders talking to one another.


9. (C) Comment. It is not surprising that there was no
progress on the substance of the Croatian-Slovenian dispute,
but it is troubling that the atmosphere at the meeting was so
poor. For now, we believe that the U.S. focus has to be on
NATO and completing the ratification process. Without that,
the problems in trying to encouraging progress on the EU
track may well be insurmountable.


BRADTKE