Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09ZAGREB365
2009-06-16 14:40:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Zagreb
Cable title:
CROATIAN REACTION TO LATEST REHN PROPOSAL ON
how-toVZCZCXRO0906 RR RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSR DE RUEHVB #0365 1671440 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 161440Z JUN 09 ZDK FM AMEMBASSY ZAGREB TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9321 INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE RUEHLJ/AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA 6460 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
C O N F I D E N T I A L ZAGREB 000365
SIPDIS
PASS TO EUR DAS JONES & DAS GARBER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/16/2019
TAGS: PREL HR SI EUC
SUBJECT: CROATIAN REACTION TO LATEST REHN PROPOSAL ON
BORDER DISPUTE WITH SLOVENIA.
REF: ZAGREB 281
Classified By: ROBERT A. BRADTKE, AMBASSADOR FOR REASONS 1.4 (b) and (d
)
.1. (C) Reacting to the latest round of negotiations on the
Croatian-Slovenian border dispute, Croatian officials have
been publicly restrained, but privately pessimistic about the
prospects for a breakthrough. Speaking after the June 15
negotiating session with Slovene Foreign Minister Zbogar and
EC Commissioner Rehn, Croatian Foreign Minister Jandrokovic
described the latest Rehn proposal on the border issues as
featuring "creative thinking." In a June 16 briefing for
members of the Zagreb diplomatic corps on a number of topics,
MFA State Secretary Matkovic stressed Croatia's willingness
to continue the dialogue with Rehn, and noted that
Jandrokovic and Zbogar will meet with Rehn again on June 17.
In a private conversation with the Ambassador afterwards,
however, Matkovic said that Jandrokovic had been
"disappointed" and "upset" by the revisions Rehn proposed to
the version of his plan that Croatia had already accepted.
2. (C) In a separate conversation, Davor Stier, Foreign
Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, provided an equally
negative view of the talks in Luxembourg. Stier said that
Rehn's revised proposal contained several significant changes
to his early text. In article 3, dealing with the "task" of
the tribunal, there were now three subsections in the first
paragraph, one dealing with demarcation of the border, a
second dealing with the regime for use of the disputed
maritime area, and a new, third section referring to
Slovenia's "junction" rather than "contact" with
international waters. In addition, the provisions dealing
with the composition of the tribunal had changed. Croatia
and Slovenia would still each select one panel member, but in
case of disagreement over the remaining three, Rehn, not the
President of the ICJ, would pick the remaining three, drawing
upon lawyers and legal experts.
3. (C) Commenting on these changes, Stier said that they
had "complicated" and "confused" the negotiation. For
example, the meaning of the word "junction" was unclear, and
open to various interpretations. Croatia, he said, had
accepted the previous Rehn proposal "with difficulty," since
it already represented a significant concession from
Croatia's desire for the ICJ to determine the border. The
latest proposal had "changed the balance," making it more
difficult for Croatia. At the same time, Stier acknowledged
that Rehn had rejected the Slovene proposal to determine the
border line on the basis of fairness (ex aequa et bono),but
opined that this would probably mean the Slovene government
would also find the proposal unacceptable.
4. (C) While seeing little prospect that Rehn's efforts
would prove successful, Stier maintained that there was still
a "window of opportunity" for Croatia and Slovenia to reach
an agreement on the documents submitted in Croatia's EU
accession talks that Slovenia had considered prejudicial to
the border issue. Prior to the European Council meeting
later this week, Prime Minister Sanader would be in Brussels
on June 18 for a meeting of leaders of the European Peoples'
Parties, while Slovene Prime Minister Pahor would be there
for meeting of European Social Democratic Parties. This,
Stier said, would provide a possible opportunity for the two
leaders to see whether a solution relating to the documents
could be worked out.
5. (C) Comment. Even the EC Rep in Zagreb has acknowledged
to us that the Croatians would find it difficult to accept
the latest Rehn proposal, and suggested that some further
change might be needed to make it more attractive to the
Croatians. Given the fluid negotiating situation, we believe
that our position should continue to be to support the Rehn
process, without expressing our backing for the particular
formula Rehn is proposing, as well reiterating our support
for any solution upon which the two sides can agree.
BRADTKE
SIPDIS
PASS TO EUR DAS JONES & DAS GARBER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/16/2019
TAGS: PREL HR SI EUC
SUBJECT: CROATIAN REACTION TO LATEST REHN PROPOSAL ON
BORDER DISPUTE WITH SLOVENIA.
REF: ZAGREB 281
Classified By: ROBERT A. BRADTKE, AMBASSADOR FOR REASONS 1.4 (b) and (d
)
.1. (C) Reacting to the latest round of negotiations on the
Croatian-Slovenian border dispute, Croatian officials have
been publicly restrained, but privately pessimistic about the
prospects for a breakthrough. Speaking after the June 15
negotiating session with Slovene Foreign Minister Zbogar and
EC Commissioner Rehn, Croatian Foreign Minister Jandrokovic
described the latest Rehn proposal on the border issues as
featuring "creative thinking." In a June 16 briefing for
members of the Zagreb diplomatic corps on a number of topics,
MFA State Secretary Matkovic stressed Croatia's willingness
to continue the dialogue with Rehn, and noted that
Jandrokovic and Zbogar will meet with Rehn again on June 17.
In a private conversation with the Ambassador afterwards,
however, Matkovic said that Jandrokovic had been
"disappointed" and "upset" by the revisions Rehn proposed to
the version of his plan that Croatia had already accepted.
2. (C) In a separate conversation, Davor Stier, Foreign
Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, provided an equally
negative view of the talks in Luxembourg. Stier said that
Rehn's revised proposal contained several significant changes
to his early text. In article 3, dealing with the "task" of
the tribunal, there were now three subsections in the first
paragraph, one dealing with demarcation of the border, a
second dealing with the regime for use of the disputed
maritime area, and a new, third section referring to
Slovenia's "junction" rather than "contact" with
international waters. In addition, the provisions dealing
with the composition of the tribunal had changed. Croatia
and Slovenia would still each select one panel member, but in
case of disagreement over the remaining three, Rehn, not the
President of the ICJ, would pick the remaining three, drawing
upon lawyers and legal experts.
3. (C) Commenting on these changes, Stier said that they
had "complicated" and "confused" the negotiation. For
example, the meaning of the word "junction" was unclear, and
open to various interpretations. Croatia, he said, had
accepted the previous Rehn proposal "with difficulty," since
it already represented a significant concession from
Croatia's desire for the ICJ to determine the border. The
latest proposal had "changed the balance," making it more
difficult for Croatia. At the same time, Stier acknowledged
that Rehn had rejected the Slovene proposal to determine the
border line on the basis of fairness (ex aequa et bono),but
opined that this would probably mean the Slovene government
would also find the proposal unacceptable.
4. (C) While seeing little prospect that Rehn's efforts
would prove successful, Stier maintained that there was still
a "window of opportunity" for Croatia and Slovenia to reach
an agreement on the documents submitted in Croatia's EU
accession talks that Slovenia had considered prejudicial to
the border issue. Prior to the European Council meeting
later this week, Prime Minister Sanader would be in Brussels
on June 18 for a meeting of leaders of the European Peoples'
Parties, while Slovene Prime Minister Pahor would be there
for meeting of European Social Democratic Parties. This,
Stier said, would provide a possible opportunity for the two
leaders to see whether a solution relating to the documents
could be worked out.
5. (C) Comment. Even the EC Rep in Zagreb has acknowledged
to us that the Croatians would find it difficult to accept
the latest Rehn proposal, and suggested that some further
change might be needed to make it more attractive to the
Croatians. Given the fluid negotiating situation, we believe
that our position should continue to be to support the Rehn
process, without expressing our backing for the particular
formula Rehn is proposing, as well reiterating our support
for any solution upon which the two sides can agree.
BRADTKE