MEETING WITH PRESIDENT MESIC ON SLOVENE BORDER

C O N F I D E N T I A L ZAGREB 000218

SIPDIS

EUR FOR DAS JONES & DAS GARBER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV SI EUC HR
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH PRESIDENT MESIC ON SLOVENE BORDER
DISPUTE/REHN PROPOSAL

REF: ZAGREB 00215

Classified By: Robert A. Bradtke, Ambassador, for reasons 1.4 (b) &(d).


1. (c) In a one-on-one with President Mesic this morning
(April 27),I told President Mesic that the United States was
following closely the progress of EU Commissioner Rehn's
efforts to establish a mechanism to arbitrate the
Croatia-Slovenia border dispute and unblock Croatia's EU
accession talks. For the United States, I said, this was not
just about Croatia, but the future of Southeastern Europe.
The United States believed that bilateral disagreements
should not be used to block progress towards Euro-Atlantic
integration. The United States, therefore, welcomed the
progress that had been made in the Rehn talks last week.


2. (C) Noting that only Croatia could decide whether the
latest Rehn proposal was acceptable and in its interests, I
gave Mesic my view that the proposal contained important
elements of international law, as Croatia had insisted, that
it would lead to the unblocking of Croatia's accession talks,
and it could prevent the further poisoning of bilateral
relations between Croatia and Slovenia. For these reasons, I
hoped that Croatia would respond quickly and positively to
the proposal.


3. (C) Responding, Mesic said that the Rehn proposal was
still somewhat general, rather than detailed. However, he
saw the proposed five person panel, including the option of
having the President of the ICJ name three jurists, as
particularly important. His one concern was the language in
the proposal about Slovenian "contact with international
waters." It was not clear, Mesic said, what this meant.


4. (C) I commented that there was obviously ambiguity on
this point, and perhaps from Croatia's perspective a certain
risk. However, my assessment was that this ambiguity would
be important for Slovenia's acceptance of the proposal and if
Croatia was confident of its position under international
law, it was a risk worth taking. I also added that I saw no
other process, either involving the United States or the EU,
that could bring a resolution of the border issue. In a
brief rejoinder, Mesic said that he was less concerned about
the point on "contact with international waters" after seeing
the language of the Rehn proposal stating that the boundary
line would be drawn in accordance with the principles of
international law.


5. (C) Finally, I told Mesic that Croatia needed to be
careful in any statements it made about the latest Rehn
proposal. Portraying it as a victory for Croatia, rather
than as something in the interests of both countries, could
make it hard for the Slovene government to accept. Mesic
agreed, saying that it would be important to give the Slovene
government the chance to "save face."


6. (C) Comment. Mesic did not say "yes" or "no," and there
will be further discussion this week within the Croatian
government about the Rehn proposal. However, he listened
closely to my points and can be under no illusion that we see
any alternative to what Rehn has put on the table. I expect
to be able to follow-up with Prime Minister Sanader later
this week.
BRADTKE