ࡱ> ~{|}q` bjbjqPqP .4::3%8  ZZZ8.D 2~~"" $hIV zzz izN  z r A4Z{RvD0#6 > TfY^zzzz Z Z  Albert Bing: KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid! Critical Observations of the Croatian American Intellectuals During the Establishment of Political Relations Between Croatia and the United States, 1990-1992 Croatia secured its state independence during the turbulent collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) from 1990 to 1992 under exceptionally complex international circumstances. The worlds most influential countries, first and foremost the United States, upheld the unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia despite clear indications of its violent break-up. After the democratic changes of 1990, an exceptionally important matter for Croatias independence was the internationalization of the Yugoslav crisis. The unraveling of the Yugoslav state union dictated a redefinition of the status of the republics as its constituent units; in this process, in line with national homogenization which constituted the dominant component of societal transition at the time, the question of redefining national identities came to the forefront. The problem of presenting Croatia as a self-contained geopolitical unit, entailing arguments that should accompany its quest for state independence, imposed itself in this context. Political proclamations in the country, media presentation and lobbying associated with the problem of becoming acquainted with the political cultures and establishments of influential countries and the functioning of international institutions became the priorities for newly-emerging Croatian diplomacy. What is Croatia? What does it want? How should it present itself to the international public? How should it achieve its objectives? In this work, this matter is examined in the context of Croatias affirmation in the United States, based above all on the views of members of the Croatian American intelligentsia who became involved in this political discourse with their observations in the Croatian media (the newsmagazines Danas and Globus). What follows is a selective overview of the most important events in the establishment of Croatian-U.S. relations is provided for the period beginning with the first more or less independent Croatian ventures onto the international scene in the second half of 1990 until recognition of the Croatian state by the United States in April 1992; relevant events from later periods and their interpretation are only provided exceptionally. Croatian migr communities played a unique role in the promotion of political pluralism, securing of independence and the resistance to Greater Serbian aggression. From a chronological distance of fifteen years after the beginning of Croatias Homeland War and the achievement of independence, the first historiographic considerations of this matter indicate the need to analyze and contextualize the problem of Croatias position in the international community given the contributions of Croatian migrs to this process. One of the most intriguing questions in this context pertains to the role of the Croatian migr intelligentsia. Were Croatian intellectuals abroad, particularly in countries with a great deal of influence on the course of the Yugoslavia crisis, like the United States, adequately employed at crucial moments during Croatias appearance on the international stage? What was the attitude of the Croatian authorities, and what was the attitude of the intelligentsia? What problems were generated in the process of Croatias international affirmation and what was the correlation between the processes of democratization in Croatian society and the approach to associations and processes in which Croatia wished to participate? The public statements of a target group of highly-educated intellectuals, generally Ph.Ds and university professors from the United States, were taken as the reference framework for an initial attempt to illuminate this research question. Individuals such as Vladimir P. Goss, Ivo Banac, Tomislav Suni, Mate Meatrovi, Petar Kuzmi, Jerry Blaskovich and others constitute a cross-section of Croatian Americans who were witnesses and chroniclers of the momentous years of Croatian history at the beginning of the 1990s. Although they differ in their political affinities and orientations, they contributed to the analysis and critical observation of events in Croatia and, particularly, in the international reception of events associated with Yugoslavias collapse. Many of them even opted to return to Croatia and become actively involved in political life. Members of the Croatian American intelligentsia constitute a target group that represents the dual perspective of Croatia and the United States, and Croatia and the international community in the wider context. The period covered by this work runs from the second half of 1990 to the first half of 1992. Contemporary pieces in the media were used as the primary source. By way of exception, later sources and memoirs that testify to this topic or substantially complement individual themes were also utilized. The research motives postulated here pertain to several essential problems of Croatias affirmation in the international community at two basic levels: the first deals with the genesis of Croatias institutional appearances in the international community as a an independent political entity, and the second deals with the problem of adopting the value systems of liberal democracy and attempts to become integrated with its most eminent manifestations (the developed West; Euro-Atlantic integration). Croatia and the United States, 1990/1992 A joke was circulating in Croatia at the end of the 1980s that illustrated the political preferences of many residents of Croatia (Yugoslavia): What color will the Sava River be if the Russians attack us? Red. From our blood, because well defend ourselves. What color will the Sava River be if the Americans attack us? Red again. From our (red) communist party membership booklets. As the worlds top democracy and the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States played a major role in the formation of the political consciousness and reception of the West in Croatia and Yugoslavia, which in turn had particular significance in the tumultuous years of the Yugoslav crisis in 1990 and 1991. Pro-democratic political groups expected the active support of the United States in the turbulent process of society-wide transition. At the same time, the political bloc backed by Serbian strongman Slobodan Miloevi, especially the top officers of the Yugoslav People s Army (YPA), feared any response by the U.S. Immediately after the democratic elections in Croatia and Slovenia, in the spring of 1990, the newly-elected authorities of these republics tried to draw the attention of the United States on an independent basis, presenting themselves as pro-democratic political options, as opposed to Miloaevi s nationalist/communist movement. At the end of 1990, Croatian President Franjo Tuman traveled to the United States. Even though this visit had a practically marginal impact on Croatian-U.S. political relations (until Croatias international recognition, political legitimacy was borne by the SFRY which was unwaveringly supported by the U.S.), the public in Croatia and Yugoslavia was informed thereof in excessively optimistic tones, which clearly indicated the instigation of a propaganda war. The Croatian media, under the influence of the authorities, exaggerated the impact of the state visit of the Croatian delegation, led by Tuman, to the White House; thus the press, through the national wire agency HINA, reported that  Dr. Tuman (...) informed President Bush of the situation in Croatia and Yugoslavia.  According to Slaven Letica, who was a member of that Croatian delegation, the meeting between Tuman and Bush lasted less than two minutes and consisted of  handshakes and  photographs.  Nonetheless, the  Croatian question attracted some limited attention by the U.S. government. The Croatian delegation did manage to hold a brief meeting with National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, to whom it presented the confederation project for Yugoslavia and sought his support to implement the idea of transforming the former SFRY into an alliance of independent, sovereign, democratic states. As noted by Slaven Letica, who together with Darko Beki, was one of the lead associates on this project, together with  about thirty top Croatian economists, geo-strategists, military experts, geographers, political scientists, historians, lawyers, theologians and others, the project was the result of  over three months of studious work. This fact testifies to the importance placed at that time by the Croatian authorities on the visit to the United States and the confederalization of Yugoslavia. The project itself was positively reviewed by leading constitutional and international law experts at Yale Universityone of the worlds most prestigious universitiescertainly thanks to two of its professors, Mirjan Damaka and Ivo Banac, who organized a lecture at Yale by Tuman. Even though the meeting between Tuman and Bush was symbolic in nature, and the Draft Confederation Agreement was  rejected by the Bush administration as unacceptable, Croatia s attempts were not entirely without effect. The U.S. did not officially endorse Croatias positions, but the well-known organization Human Rights Watch sided with Croatian and Slovenian projections of the outcome of the Yugoslav crisis in the influential The New York Times. At the very beginnings of Croatias international affirmation in 1990, it became obvious that bringing Croatias positions closer to the U.S. was one of the priorities of Croatian foreign policy, and the role of the Croatian intelligentsia in the United States (and among migr communities as whole) was welcomed in the top echelons of the Croatian government. At the end of 1991, when the leadership of the YPA threatened a military coup, President Tuman responded by sending a letter to U.S. President George Bush. Although the significance of this act, similar to Tuman s meeting with Bush, was over-exaggerated when presented to the Croatian public, it did articulate Croatia s positions. In this letter, which was supposed to be delivered through the mediation of U.S. Senator Robert Dole, the Croatian president publicly sought American endorsement of a peaceful settlement of the Yugoslav crisis that would guarantee future stability, respect for internal borders and cooperation between the national states. Tuman emphasized that the  path to stability has only one direction, and that is the success of democratic society. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia have elected democratic governments. The election of the Marxist communist Slobodan Miloaevi cannot be compared to the democratically elected governments in the north. In his message the Croatian president did not conceal his expectation of direct support from the United States: A disaster in Yugoslavia can be prevented by an explicit message from the United States of America that it supports the majority, meaning the newly-established democratic republics, calling on a peaceful solution to secure future stability and to respect internal borders and ensure cooperation between the national states. Yugoslavia is not the Soviet Union; Serbia is not Russia; the Yugoslav Army is not the Soviet Army. Although it was apparent that Washington did not endorse the separatism of Slovenia and Croatia, by the same token it was more than obvious that it was not pleased with the interference of the YPA in politics, particularly the increasing affinity of the top military leadership for Miloaevi s regime. In December 1990, the United States sharply condemned the saber-rattling in Belgrade. In his memoirs, U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmermann stated that the putschist statements of Defense Minister Veljko Kadijevi had aroused  deep concern in Washington. Kadijevi, in fact, addressed the Yugoslav public immediately before the elections in Serbia on 9 December 1990;  in a press interview clearly designed to help Miloaevi at the polls, he threatened to use the JNA to disarm the Croats and Slovenes by force.  The U.S. attitude provoked a revolt by the military leadership. Thus Kadijevi notes that  it was known (...) that all activities by western embassies in Belgrade were coordinated by Mr. Zimmermann; he will be remembered as a man who bears great responsibility for the dissolution of Yugoslavia and great responsibility for much bloodshed in Yugoslavia. Verbal attacks on the U.S. embassy included orchestrated accusations made by the Serbian press about anti-Yugoslav activities, so that they even claimed that Zimmermann was certainly a CIA operative. The newly-formed political party called the Communist Alliance/Movement for Yugoslavia went the farthest, as it called for the deportation of U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmermann at its annual convention. The denunciation of Zimmermann in Belgrade was not only excessive, it was entirely misplaced given his (American) standpoints. The U.S. ambassador was certainly no admirer of Miloaevi s policies, but he similarly did not support the Slovenian nor, especially, the Croatian divergence from the pro-Yugoslav option upheld by Federal Prime Minister Ante Markovi. For Zimmermann,  Slovenian nationalism was unique - it had no victims and no enemies ; although the Slovenes  hated Slobodan Miloaevi, they built no ideology against him. They practiced a  Garbo nationalism  they just wanted to be left alone. Their virtue was democracy and their vice was selfishness.  As for Croatia, Zimmermann, in his own words,  avoided meeting with Tuman prior to his electoral victory  because of the extreme nationalism of some of his campaign statements.  For Zimmermann, Tuman, as opposed to Miloaevi  who was driven by power,  betrayed an obsession with Croatian nationalism: his devotion to Croatia was of the most narrow-minded sort, and he never showed much understanding of, or interest in, democratic values. Zimmermann readily rejected the Croatian presidents requests for U.S. intervention and military assistance. Nonetheless, given Yugoslavia s complex circumstances, U.S. support for Ante Markovi proved entirely erroneous. When the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker visited Belgrade on 21 June 1991, his support to the Yugoslav prime minister and the preservation of Yugoslavia s unity was interpreted as a green light for intervention in Slovenia by the YPA, after which war broke out in Croatia. Upon the arrival of representatives of the European Community with the goal of extinguishing the Yugoslavia crisis, the United States left the entire matter in the hands of Europe, falling back on some form of neo-isolationism. By proclaiming independence on 25 June 1991, Croatia, together with Slovenia, made public its separation from the Yugoslav federation despite repeated warnings not to do so from the worlds most powerful country. Under such circumstances it was certainly impossible to develop bilateral relations, and the insubordination demonstrated by Croatia and Slovenia could be interpreted as an additional motive for U.S. withdrawal from the Yugoslav crisis and relinquishing its settlement to the European Community. When the twelve member states of the European Community recognized Croatia and Slovenia six months later, the U.S. remained silent. Recognition by the U.S. would come several months later on 7 April 1992, while a U.S. embassy in Zagreb was only opened on 28 June 1993. During 1994, after the genocidal wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the United States once more became actively involved in the Balkan war zone, which culminated at the end of 1995 with the Pax Americana signed in Dayton, Ohio and, ultimately, the military intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, which lead to peace and stabilization in the region. Just as the United States played the most important role in the end-game of the Yugoslav crisis in the second half of the 1990s, at the beginning of this crisis, in 1990 and 1991, its passivity contributed to its flare-up. While democratically oriented Slovenia and Croatia idealized the American devotion to democracy and nurtured unrealistic expectations of the U.S., Miloaevi and the YPA, in equal measure, feared U.S. intervention. Croatian Americans also participated in Croatian media assessments of the interpretation of U.S. policies concerning events tied to the collapse of Yugoslavia. Thus in his  View from America (the title of his column in the newsmagazine Danas), one of the most respected pro-democratic migrs, Mate Meatrovi, tried to explain the tenets underlying U.S. foreign policy at the time of the YPA assault on Slovenia and the worsening situation in Croatia (the end of July and the beginning of August 1991). The passive attitude of the United States confused the public in Croatia and Slovenia, which expected support from the world s  first democracy in the conflict between the democratic northwest and the nationalist-communism of the Miloaevi bloc. About his, Meatrovi wrote:  This has to do with the contradictory American self-image: the confrontation between egoism and idealism. As the leading superpower, the United States longs for world domination, which it often achieves through restraint, even though sometimes it is prepared to affirm itself by means of merciless war, as recently demonstrated in the Persian Gulf. At the same time, the United States believes that it is the land of the free and home of the brave, the leading world democracy and capitalist economy whose manifest destiny is to promote the interests of democracy and capitalism worldwide. Meatrovi goes on to talk about aspects of American policy, which were particularly significant to the question of legitimizing Croatia in the international community in the context of the Yugoslav conflicts:  As part of the affirmation of democracy, a crucial aspect is support for the principle of self-determination of nations, which was proclaimed in 1917 by President Woodrow Wilson in his famous 14 Points, as one of the foundations of lasting and just peace in the world. The conflict between the United States as a superpower engaged in realpolitik to further its own strategic, military and economic interests (even though there is some disagreement in the United States as to what these interests actually are), and America as the torch-bearer of freedom, democracy and human rights, incorporated even in the policies that Washington implemented in Yugoslavia, creates constant tensions and contradictions. The State Department stubbornly insisted on preserving the unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which it believes is an interest of the United States, while at the same time it demands respect for democracy and human rights, and establishment of the rule of law and a market economy. In the spring of 1992, writing for the newsmagazine Globus, historian Ivo Banac caustically summarized U.S. policy at the beginning of the 1990s in the territory of the then already former Yugoslavia: The United States actually has no specific Yugoslav policy. It goes without saying that the superficial nature and cynicism of U.S. policy, obsessed with Yugoslavia as an integral state, ignoring the centrifugal force of national movements and post-communism in general, revering the golden calf of  stability with Ante Markovi playing the role of Bush s beloved Gorbachev, and relying on the Yugo-expertise of certain key officials in the Bush administration, have contributed to expansion of the conflict, legitimization of the unconstitutional pretensions of the YPA, marginalization of anti-imperialist forces in Serbia and Montenegro, and the bloodshed and aggression in Croatia. This is the bottom line of Bushs opportunistic policy. If opportunism, in the positive sense, means adaptation to newly-emerging conditions, then the Bush administration has fallen short even in its principles. The fact that these virtual dwarves are now administering foreign policy in what is now the world s sole superpower is actually unbelievable.  The criticism of Petar Kuzmi, a theology professor from Boston, carried in the weekly Danas after the tragically late U.S. recognition of Croatia (7 April 1992), was no less biting. Emphasizing that U.S. recognition greatly improves Croatias standing on the international scene and observing that it will be followed by an avalanche of recognition from many countries for which America serves as a reliable weather-vane, Kuzmi also made the following point:  A bitter feeling remains over the fact that the Americans waited so long, unrealistically insisting on a peaceful and comprehensive solution to the Yugo-crisis, and their inconsistency in their own principles and their apparently hypocritical and indifferent policies means that they share in the responsibility for many victims. All of the contributions by Croatian American intellectuals commenting on events in Croatia and Yugoslavia from the dual Croatian-American perspective are characterized by outright, harsh criticism of official U.S. policy. However, the Croatian governments foreign policy was not spared in this regard, either. Two fundamental historical processes crystallized in Croatia in 1990 and 1991 under wartime conditions: the political affirmation of Croatias independence in the international community and the gradual change of the social system as a result of the introduction of political pluralism. Even though the stance of a superpower like the United States could hardly be altered by the Croatian governmentthe leadership of a small emerging state beset by warthe policies conducted by its top officials in this vital period often left much to be desired. As observed by well-informed journalist and writer Vinja Stareina, the three most important forms of creating perceptions of the war in Croatia were left to chance and private initiative: the relationship with the foreign media, the relationship with European monitors and political lobbying. Even diplomacy was just being created, in a very peculiar manner at that. Thus, for example, during 1992, a course on public relations (with focus on the U.S. and Canada) was held at the initiative of Assistant Information Minister Ante Beljo (himself a returning migr from Canada) for the staff of the Croatian Information Center in Zagreb. Lecturer Laurie Vandriel stressed simplicity as an axiom in communicating with the U.S., expressing the principle in the witty acronym KISS (Keep it simple, stupid). Vandriels offer to conduct systematic training of Croatian officials in the relevant institutions was not accepted, even though it was quite obvious that Croatias culture of political communication with foreign countries was not satisfactory. However, events in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia during 1991 and 1992 proceeded at an exceptional pace. Croatian-U.S. relations can also be examined in this historical context, as these relations increasingly slid to the peripheries of Croatias foreign policy interests since the U.S. left the Yugoslav crisis in the hands of the European Community in the second half of 1991. To be sure, the problem of Croatias independence and its international affirmation, as well as a series of matters tied to democratization of Croatian society, were the subject of observation (and political involvement) by Croatian Americans. Croatian diplomatic activity in the United States in 1990-1992 and critical observations by the Croatian-American intelligentsia The steps taken by Croatia to prepare for its declaration of its independence, particularly in the international sphere, were generally symbolic. The socialist institution of chairman of the Republic Foreign Relations Committee, an office held by Zdravko Mrai after the elections, followed by Frane Vinko Golem, was transformed by decision of the Croatian Parliament on 20 June 1990 into the appropriate ministry (and the presiding member of the Presidency became the President of the Republic, the Executive Council became the Government as the highest executive body, and the remaining secretariats and committees were transformed into ministries, and so forth). However, the process of institutional transformation that stressed republic (state) sovereignty and the aspiration for independence proceeded much more slowly than in Slovenia; while Croatia demonstrated its international aspirations by establishing associations such as the Croatian Council of the European Movement, on the same day (23 June 1990) Slovenia released its new draft Constitution which was supposed to be a step toward state independence within the proposed confederal reorganization of Yugoslavia. Following Slovenias example, on 18 January 1991, President Tuman decided to establish Foreign Offices of the Republic of Croatia, which were supposed to facilitate more independent activity by Croatia abroad. Over the coming months, such Republic of Croatia offices were established in major European cities, in the United States and Canada, and in South Africa and Japan. The practice of opening offices abroad did not violate the Yugoslav Constitution nor did diplomacy at the federal level have any specific opposition thereto. Yugoslavias foreign missions included, besides embassies, consular offices and culture and information centers. The visit by Croatia s first foreign minister, Zdravko Mrai, to New York in the autumn of 1990 was partially organized by the Culture and Information Center in that city, just as Yugoslav diplomatic institutions assisted the travel of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovi to Iran and Macedonian President Kiro Gligorov to Canada and the United States. Under conditions of increasingly tense relations between the republics in Yugoslavia, the expansion of a network of foreign offices certainly contributed to reinforcement of the position of individual republics in internationalizing the Yugoslav crisis. A decision of the Supreme State Council on 9 April 1991 led to establishment of the Republic of Croatia Foreign Office in Washington, D.C. (it commenced operating on 8 July). The foreign minister at the time, Frane Vinko Golem, was appointed to head the office as the fully authorized representative of the Republic of Croatia in the United States. As the Croatian foreign office in Washington began functioning, Croatia was preparing (in an effort to keep pace with Slovenia) to declare its independence. The individuals most responsible for foreign relations, President Franjo Tuman and the new Foreign Minister Davorin Rudolf, placed their highest hopes in help from the United States. On the eve of the visit by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Belgrade in June 1991, news arrived that Germanys Bundestag ratified a draft declaration on Yugoslavia that stressed the constitutional right of Yugoslav republics to self-determination and secession. According to later testimony by Rudolf, who was traveling with the president to meet with Baker on 21 June, Tuman was emboldened by the news from Germany, and very optimistic in his expectations of U.S. support. Even though the United States announced its support for the autonomy of the Yugoslav republics provided that the country s unity was preserved as a  major turnaround on the eve of the visit by the Secretary of State, Tuman was convinced that the U.S. would support Croatia s decision to declare independence and, moreover, he  claimed (...) that it would provide armed support. Although more restrained, even Rudolf did not conceal that he had expected the most support from the United States: I always placed an absolute priority on relations with the Americans. I was convinced that only they were capable of saving a young state from eradication, a state fighting against considerably stronger opponents. The emphasis that the Croatian leadership, especially the Croatian president, placed on the American card in the spring of 1991 is also demonstrated by Tuman s personal offer to the Democratic senator and former Minnesota governor, Rudy Perpich, an American of Croatian descent, to assume the duties of Croatian foreign minister from Frane Vinko Golem. Even though the appointment of Perpich came to naught, and Rudolf became the minister, the United States was still highly regarded by Zagreb in its attempts to attract the attention of the international community. However, the reality of relations between Croatia and the United States was quite different. The actual steps taken by Croatia in the United States were based more on rhetoric about Croatias place in the West than on practical steps to set the foundations for effective lobbying. As noted in his subsequent writings by President Tuman s advisor at the time, Mario Nobilo, summarizing Croatia s official relations with the U.S. at the beginning of the 1990s:  Croatia did not, unfortunately, place sufficient emphasis on publicity in New York and throughout North America, even though the role of the United Nations and the U.S. was crucial to resolving the crisis. The Croatian authorities were more obsessed with the status symbols of hard-won independence rather than on deployment of resources to end the war and facilitate reconstruction. Nobilos assessment is reflected in the reminiscences of officials of the time, and in numerous articles in the media and other publications. Judging by available sources, including the observations of Croatian Americans, something of a paradigm for emerging Croatian foreign policy in 1991 and 1992 was encapsulated in the activities of Frane Vinko Golem, first as foreign minister and then as Croatias authorized representative in the United States. Even though it is possible to find a few laudatory evaluations of the role of the second Croatian foreign minister at the beginning of 1991, according to many sources his response to the tempestuous events surrounding Croatias achievement of independence was not up to the level demanded by circumstances. In the extensive writings of former Prime Minister Franjo Greguri (prime minister from 2 August 1991 to 12 August 1992), Frane Vinko Golem and his work in the Croatian office in Washington are only mentioned sporadically, in the briefest notations. Thus, Croatian Government minister and authorized representative of the Croatian Government in the United States, Dr. Vinko Golem reported to the Government on the work of his office. Golem warned that since the U.S. administration only acknowledges official communication, everything directed at the United States should go through the Republic of Croatia Foreign Office in Washington D.C. Based on the proposal that it is necessary to consider the possibility of a representative of Croatias International Relations Office to visit the U.S. and address the Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, one can discern the topics that preoccupy the American public. This attitude of the Croatias top leadership toward the U.S. and the restrained stance of the chief of Croatias diplomatic mission to the U.S. were at odds with the dramatic escalation of the war in Croatia. Frequent violence and mass destruction began to attract the attention of the U.S. media and this opened the doors for explanations and promotion of Croatias positions in the United States. Referring to confidential interviews in her book from 2004, Vinja Stareina also testifies to the work of Golem and the Croatian office from July 1991 to the second half of 1992 (when, after Croatias recognition by the United States, Petar `ar evi arrived as the Croatian ambassador). The Croatian office should have been a  center that would coordinate information and lobbying activities to get the U.S. to recognize Croatia as soon as possible. However, it was opened in a questionable neighborhood, and Frane Vinko Golem was only joined in his work at the end of 1991 by a graduate student from Zagreb and a Croatian American. To meet the needs of lobbying from Zagreb, a low-profile lobbying agency was hired for some laughable fee, for which someone in America would not even assent to shine shoes for the contracted period, much less lobby for state interests in high U.S. political circles; Stareina also states that there were no known results of this lobbying, nor did anybody in the Croatian office ever see their Washington lobbyist, while diplomatic contacts remained at the most rudimentary level. Nonetheless, Golem tried to attract the attention of the U.S. administration and he invested efforts incommensurate with his resources. Due to meager funds, ignorance of protocol and conventions and inadequate command of the English language, his activities did not represent Croatia properly. With help from the Croatian migr community in the U.S., which attempted to help its homeland with great enthusiasm, in August 1991 Frane Vinko Golem organized a large demonstration of Croats in front of the White House. Stareina picturesquely describes his attempts to point out to Washington the crisis that had slid into war and his striving to encourage consideration to recognize Croatia: It was a hot and humid Washington summer, about forty degrees Celsius in the shade. The unrecognized Croatian ambassador, the demonstrations keynote speaker, did everything he could and endured much to appear stately and represent a country as he believed it should be represented. He wore a formal black frock coat, in which he, corpulent as he was, perspired in the humid weather. He put an ambassadorial sash over it the symbol of the state sent to his delegates by President Tuman. He wore white tennis shoes on his feet, because they were so swollen from the heat that the could not wear anything else. This was the image Croatia sent to the world. Tragicomical at first glance. But in fact it was so archaic, so maladroit, so ineffective, so tritely childish. Frane Vinko Golem really tried hard, but he was the wrong man in the wrong place. Despite the dramatic changes under way in Croatia and Yugoslavia at the end of 1991 and beginning of 1992, the situation surrounding Croatias representation in the United States did not essentially change even later. When the United States finally granted recognition to Croatia at the beginning of April 1992, the staff of the Croatian office in Washington was notified thereof by Zagreb. On the same day the United States recognized Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the latter was also recognized by Croatia on that date. Despite this, Golem responded to the news of the Serbian massacre of civilians waiting in a bread line in the besieged Bosnian capital Sarajevo, genuinely distressed but without consulting anyone, by writing a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State for the first time; in a letter that began with the words Dir Mister Baker, Golem called attention to events in my country, forgetting that  Bosnia was now another country.  According to Stareaina, Golem s associates described him  as an honest, simple and above all frugal man, who was  exceptionally loyal to Tuman. However,  he knew nothing about diplomacy, nor did anybody tutor him prior to his arrival; his spoken English was passable, but his writing skills were poor. Golem himself made no particular effort to conceal his diplomatic shortcomings. His ingenuous attitude toward diplomacy was not well-accepted by some in the Croatian media. Thus, the weekly Danas mockingly cited his statements given to television reporter Damir Matkovi in the news program Slikom na sliku ( Picture to Picture ). Croatia s official representative in the United States spoke for television  after much calumny and confirmed that he although the only Croatian representative in Washingtondoes not have the best command of the language of his new workplace. The Danas reporter accompanied the statement made by the Croatian representative in the United States, who talked about his knowledge of English, with this joking commentary: He revealed something we didnt known that Americans find broken English pleasing! Continuing in this tone, the reporter concludes: Unfortunately, it seems that Dr. Golem is suffering from culture shock. He sees Americans laughing at him and believes they find him molto simpatico. Otherwise, so-called broken English is only acceptable if you are speaking to Little Joe from Dock 43. But it is no secret that Golem could not even be invited to one of the most respected American political news programs, McNeil-Lehrer, because his knowledge of English is below McNeil-Lehrers minimum standard. To be sure, the work of Frane Vinko Golem and the Croatian office in Washington, and Croatian foreign policy as a whole, elicited much commentary from Croatian Americans as well. Danica Ramljak, who actively lobbied for Croatia in the United States, commented on the functioning of the Croatian office in Washington in a newspaper interview in the spring of 1993: I believe that the offices chief of staff, Mr. Frane Vinko Golem, had the best intentions, but intentions and reality are entirely different things. For example, one I wanted to ask him to send me some data I could use for a round table that I had organized at the Department of Political Science at the University of Georgia. He was not in the office, and his clerk informed me that they do not have this type of information, directing me to the Ministry of Information in Zagreb. But she could not even give me the ministrys phone number! Danica Ramljak also noted that Cyrus Vance received her twice, while he never met with Frane Golem, and she pointed out the poor cooperation with Croatia: Ton i Vrdoljak never sent me a news piece from Croatian Television for CNN!";  After the fall of Vukovar, Ante Beljo could not even manage to send at least a few people from that city s to the United States to act as witnesses.  Several Croatian Americans, university professors, commented on the shortcomings of emerging Croatian diplomacy and the problems of representing Croatia in the United States during 1991 in the newsmagazine Danas. In a text published in August 1991, at the time of the distressing demonstration of Croats in Washington, Tomislav Suni and Vladimir P. Goss warned that  a year after the establishment of a democratic government in Croatia, the Croatian Government is still wanting in its presentation of events in Croatia to the international public ; they similarly note that so far any of the modest victories for Croatia should, paradoxically, be largely credited to the primitivism of Serbian politics and much less to any initiative made by Croatian diplomacy. In the United States, Croatian foreign policy is limping, and the officials who should be representing Croatia are not suitably qualified: It appears as though the Croatian Government is employing a considerable number of dilettantes who are, perhaps, capable of writing moving obituaries for Croatian historical figure Stjepan Radi, but who, unfortunately, can, with the best intentions but rather stupidly, lead Croatia into a political catastrophe. Whether we like it or not, Croatia s state legitimacy is obtained not only in Zagreb, but also in Washington and the Quai d Orsay. A well-qualified staff of public relations experts in the United States is much more effective than two well-trained divisions in Croatia.  As residents of the United States, Suni and Goss emphasized that  on the American political scene, and in formal contacts with the media, it is necessary (...) to know how to impose oneself elegantly, rather than wait for foreigners to begin crying out that Croatia is threatened on our behalf. Americans love the initiative, especially when it is well-formulated. One cannot discount that the reason for U.S. unwillingness to recognize Croatias independence lies in the constant reshuffling of the Croatian Government and in statements made by certain Croatian officials that are unacceptable to the language of international diplomacy, and particularly for American soft politics (...). Impeccable knowledge of the American language in all of its finesses and body language [authors note: certainly an allusion to the poor impression left on interlocutors by individuals such as Frane Golem or Franjo Tuman] acceptable to Anglo-Saxon ears and eyes are today more important trump cards that the Croatian lyrical heart and epic horizons. Something this is obvious to a Croat in Croatia need not be obvious to an American.  Writing twelve years later on the general problem of communication between Croatian politicians and Americans at the beginning of the 1990s, Mate Meatrovi also made this observation:  I daresay that almost no politically-involved Croat in the United States, with the possible exception of myself, was aware of how to successfully communicate with the Americans. It is a matter of different mentalities. This difference was even greater between Americans and Croats from the homeland, who grew up in more than a half-century of communism and seven decades of Yugoslavia. Lack of proficiency in communicating with Americans was immediately apparent among representatives of democratic opposition parties, and later those of the Croatian authorities, who came to the United States in larger numbers. Meatrovi shared his views on the problems of Croatian communication with the world in 1991 as well. Thus, in an article published in Danas in May 1991 under the headline  Croatian catastrophe, Meatrovi harshly criticized Croatian foreign policy, obviously prompted by the attitudes of Croatian representatives in the United States. He leveled his criticism at political amateurism and improvisation formulated for the objective of short-term propaganda effect. Observing that over a single year (...) three and half Croatian foreign ministers had come and gone [authors note: Z. Mrai, F. V. Golem, D. Rudolf and Z. `eparovi], Meatrovi warned that  foreign policy has largely (...) consisted of President Tuman traveling around the world.  Due to this critical observations, in which he also mentioned the state s top leadership, Meatrovi was fiercely criticized in a response printed in the very next issue of Danas, in an article under the headline  Indulgence of an Americanized Croat.  In this article, Meatrovi s critic states that  in several recent articles that we have all read, Meatrovi demonstrates a deep-seated lack of understanding for the fates of ordinary Croats who have been thrust into the grindstone of potent historical forces, and then thoroughly pulverized and discarded ; the author ask  whether it is possible that Meatrovi has succumbed to a stereotype when speaking of communists? Perhaps he was thinking otherwise, but he wrote that the communist authorities were only formally overthrown in the first Croatian elections and that they are actually in power and sharing in the spoils of victory. So to him the new authorities are undemocratic and corrupt. His opinion of Croatian freedom fighters in exile is just as poor. He himself, as opposed to the views of ordinary people, illustrated his stance in the case of Bruno Buai. Americans, Meatrovi writes as a genuine American, believe that airline hijackers and one of their principle ideologues was Bruno Buai are terrorists who have to be prosecuted as such (...) With these examples, Meatrovi wants to expose urbi et orbi the structure of the Croatian Democratic Union and the structure of the new authorities, which to him are Bolshevik and Ustasha. Elements of day-to-day politics but also major differences in the political and cultural standpoints of America and  Croatia are notable in the arguments of Meatrovi s critics. Meatrovi s views on the need to create a government of  national salvation that would  consist of the most qualified people of all political orientations in Croatia together with the establishment of a government  that will have the genuine authority to make decisions and formulate Croatian policies together with the Croatian Parliament ensued from his calls for reinforcement of democracy in Croatia. Meatrovi did not limit the establishment of Croatias freedom and democratization to Croatia alone, rather he saw the need for a just solution to the national conflict in Yugoslavia (which cannot be achieved unless everybody is equally involved in talks, meaning the Albanians and Muslims, Hungarians and others ). Meatrovi s theory of the maintenance of  one-party rule in Croatia even after the introduction of political pluralism, his demand for an end to  narrow-minded partisan politicking in Croatia and his calls for new elections and new electoral legislation were met with hostility among top Croatian officials because they impinged upon the integrity of the president, the governing party (Croatian Democratic Union) and the state leadership. Other contributions by Croatian Americansfor example, letters to the editor published in Danas indicated the differences between American and Croatian cultural and political paradigms. Thus, for example, President Tuman was the butt of their criticism for his purchase of a jet aircraft with funds donated by migrs and his tendency to create a cult of personality (Does Croatia need another Tito?); they criticized the ethnocentrism of individual Croatian officials (e.g. statements such as only someone whose father and mother are Croats can be a good Croat) and they criticized government moves such as opening debate on the renovation and future function of the medieval Medvedgrad fortress on the mountain above Zagreb (Altar of the Homeland) in light of more pressing events in Croatia (Medvedgrad and Vukovar). A brief interview granted to the weekly Danas by theology professor Petar Kuzmi from Boston also contained recognizable themes that most often characterized critical overviews of Croatian actions in the United States.  Croatia has lost the media war.  How are we portrayed in the American media? that was what they asked me in Osijek last week for Croatian Television. Quite poorly, I mean, not at all... I refrained from elaborating because they told us Croatia shouldnt be criticized while its blood is being shed... Generally I agree... but perhaps less blood would have been shed if we had subjected certain careless moves and euphorically conveyed shallow speeches and statements to critical scrutiny... Youre poorly represented in Washington, a U.S. congressman otherwise fond of Croatia told me last week. This was confirmed by others from the media and friends as well. Youre represented by a man who does not know enough English, who has no strategy to promote Croatia and who doesnt know how to articulate your pain and suffering... I immediately reported this to my friends in Zagreb and Osijek, who personally told the Croatian president that we need a more capable representative in Washington. Nothing helped. In mid-December I once more informed President Tuman of this severe defect of Croatian diplomacy. He asked me why the United States does not support us. I agreed with him that we have many enemies of Croatia in America, such as Mr. Eagleburger, a strong Serbian lobby, high-profile Congresswoman Helen Delich-Bentley, the financially and informatively biased CNN and others, but that we largely had ourselves to blame because we were working to our own detriment. In America elections and wars are won and/or lost in the media. We lost ours because we were represented in diplomacy and the media by a man who is by nature and profession allegedly good, but who is entirely illiterate in these two key fields. He doesnt know anything himself, but will not give others the opportunity. He classifies Croats into those who have money and merit because they helped the governing party, and those who, albeit perhaps the most patriotic and the most clever, but who are nonetheless morally and politically unsuitable. All of America knows about this, but one-party Zagreb has remained deaf (and mute) for an entire year. Perhaps it is a matter of a third thing  which everyone is talking about  but about which my Christian pen cannot write!  Kuzmi s frequent criticism, of which some were directly aimed at Frane Vinko Golem, were answered in Danas by Croatia s representative in the U.S. himself, saying that  without any detailed analysis and lacking any factual citations (...), I was brutally slandered and insulted by Kuzmi. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that  Croatia was poorly portrayed in the media in the United States and that what little there was, was (...) at odds with Croatia and its entire leadership; however, he stressed that since the opening of the Office in Washington (8 July 1991), the situation had gradually but surely began changing to Croatias benefit, and the opposing side frequently complained to American media outlets that they favor Croatia. To this he added a list of American senators and congressmen with whom contacts had been set up by the Croatian office. Even though he was a persona non grata to the governing HDZ, Mate Meatrovi was contacted for assistance in the U.S. by many Croatian officials during 1991 and 1992. Prior to the arrival of Foreign Minister Zvonko `eparovi to the U.S., Meatrovi was asked to set up a meeting with U.S. officials. Even on this occasion, ignorance of American protocols and conventions came to the forefront. Not without some bitterness, Meatrovi testified to these  double standards :  Despite mistrust of me, the Croatian authorities continued to ask me for favors. (...) Yesterday they called me from Zagreb. Minister Zvonimir `eparovi was coming again, so they asked me to arrange a meeting with James Baker, Bush s Secretary of State. I m not sure who they think they are. They obviously think I can ring Baker and schedule a meeting with `eparovi just like that. When they need me, they seek my assistance urgently. When they don t need me, they denounce me as a CIA agent and a traitor to the Croatian people &   Meatrovi also states that even  before (...) I had unpleasant experiences when arranging `eparovi s meetings with Americans :  When he arrived in the U.S. the first time as foreign minister, I arranged a meeting with the editorial board of The New York Times. This paper, not without reason, is considered almost as influential as the White House. After a series of phone calls, and intervention by friends, I managed to set up a meeting for `eparovi with The New York Times. But then he cancelled at the last minute, saying he had more important obligations. This flippant gesture on his part angered the otherwise busy editors, and certainly ensured that their already negative views of Croatian officials became even poorer. I was puzzled that Zvonimir `eparovi was not aware of the immeasurable influence of this paper in the United States. Perhaps he thought he could treat them like a man in high authority, the way they treated reporters from Vjesnik or Ve ernji list in Croatia!  In an analysis entitled  Legend-Induced Paranoia of the Serbs and Hits and Myths of the Croats, contained in his book Anatomy of Deceit, Jerry Blaskovich, an American physician of Croatian descent, shared some exhaustive and fascinating observations on the specific causes of Croatias misunderstanding of the American political milieu and media at the beginning of the 1990s. He noticed that the attention of the international public concentrated on Croatia from the moment the Serbs unleashed their onslaught on Croatia, and this resulted in the appearance of many pundits, reporters and authors of the most diverse backgrounds who offered highly speculative and suspect opinions on the Yugoslav crisis. He notes they persistently pontificated that regional history was the exclusive genesis of todays conflicts, without accurately understanding that history. So theyve invariably recounted Serbian mythologies instead. Under circumstances marked by media concentration on Croatia, there was room for Croatian interpretations of events as well. Blaskovich provides broad observations of Croatias lack of readiness to confront these challenges. Here he dedicates considerable attention to Croatias counter-productive attempts to explain the complicated historical background of the Yugoslav conflicts. Although speaking in general terms, it is not difficult to discern criticism that applies (and probably pertains to) the rhetoric of President Tuman:  To the detriment of more important priorities, the Croats have spent a great deal of energy trying to set the record straight. In the process, they ve gotten caught in the trap of quoting their own history ad nauseam. The Croats felt that history was on their side and once the world learned the real truth, in contrast to the Serbian version, everything would miraculously fall into place for Croatia. He goes on to observe: Instead of discussing the contemporary political situation, most Croatian government representatives spent all their time trying to deconstruct the Serbian take on Croatias past. Croatian spokesmen didnt comprehend that the attention span of their audiences started to drift as soon as they brought up the Croats significance during the time of Christs birth. By the time the spokesmen reached the seventh century, when the Croats finally settled in the Balkans, they had lost their audiences completely. Croatian officials never reached the point where they could articulate the real issues and Croatias present agenda because they spent all of their energy explaining history. Historical interpretations of practical political matters were particularly problematic for pragmatic Americans: Croatias representative to Washington, Franjo [sic] Golem, always thought the answer to an American legislators question, What can we or what do you want us to do for Croatia? was carte blanche to deliver a lesson on Croatian history. One leading congressman told me that he dreaded having to meet with Golem, but did so because of protocol. He described these meetings as analogous to asking someone for the time and receiving a lecture on how to make a clock instead. The only protagonist from the territory of the former Yugoslavia that did not utilize a version of history to embellish their own agendas were, according to Blaskovich, the Slovenes. Blaskovich concludes his review on the role of history in the diplomatic activities of the warring peoples with a comment that reflects the views of an American who, even though Croatian by descent, provides an American portrayal the political culture of his people of origin: Whether that history was credible was of least importance. For a long time we were bombarded with the Loony Tunes Serbian version because it was the only one used by Western leaders and the media. But I have no doubt that because of the decisive Croatian military victories in 1995 well soon be inundated with the Croatian Merry Melodies. The progenitor of the approach based on proving the historical right in which historical interpretations played a vital role was President Tuman himself, who represented Croatia to the largest degree. During a visit by foreign reporters, President Tuman  patiently and exhaustively recounted a historical and scholarly interpretation of the roots of the Croatian-Serbian conflict, the pedigree of Croatian statehood, culture and identity and his views on the future of this part of Europe and the European continent as a whole. Foreign reporters did not like Tuman because he seemed morose, close-minded and outmoded with his fanatical historicism, but they came to him persistently in increasingly larger groups, because their professional instincts told them that something major and bloody was about to happen. The president rejected any instruction on press relations, zealously adhering to his historical approach, to which diplomats and journalists either did not respond or among whom it provoked concealed laughter. However, one of the most influential international a"#Bh@ G K L s | +T\`hkov !"$vlhdhdhdha$hZ/hPCJmH sH !h*>ha$B*CJmH phsH ha$CJmH sH h*>ha$B*mH phsH h'cmH sH ha$5mH sH hjSmH sH h. mH sH ha$6mH sH hN_mH sH jha$0JUmH sH hZ/mH sH hYmH sH hwmH sH ha$mH sH & ,`4*+TU" W $- $hdh`ha$$dh]`a$ $dh]a$ $dh`a$$dha$$dha$`$((q)r)++--//<2@2K2R2_2{2=3>3I3Q3n3o344446666::;;@@9B:B;BGGHHԾԾԾԾԾԾԶԭԶz.jhsGha$0JB*CJUmH phsH !hsGhB*CJmH phsH hCJmH sH ha$6mH sH hqmH sH hZ/mH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH hZ/CJmH sH jha$0JCJUmH sH ha$CJmH sH +-4t8;BHbL-UXY]*aio4w|}2&' $dh]a$ $dh]a$$dh]`a$$hdh]`ha$$hdh]`ha$HHJJJJJJPKUKKKL!L`LaLbLLLOOPPP$P,PrPtPPPPPPPP QQQ"Q:QHQPQQQQQQQRS`SdSfSº««*jhha$0JB*UmH phsH hhB*mH phsH hha$B*mH phsH h?1mH sH ha$mH sH jha$0JCJUmH sH h?1CJmH sH ha$CJmH sH !hsGha$B*CJmH phsH 4fSSSSSSSTT0T2T9T?TOTRTiTmT|TTTTTTTTTT+U,U-UqXrX&Y(Y,Y/YVYWYXYYYYZ2[;[^^*atabbccccLghg²¨¨²ha$6mH sH hmH sH h?1mH sH h?1CJmH sH jha$0JCJUmH sH ha$CJmH sH jha$0JUmH sH hha$B*mH phsH hhB*mH phsH ha$mH sH 8hggghhii!m,moooooopphvjvvv0w2wwwww=x>x||_}i}u}x}z}{}}} EKT|&QUևއ89ÐhBmH sH ha$h(6RmH sH hha$6mH sH hmH sH h$&mH sH ha$6mH sH jha$0JUmH sH hmH sH ha$mH sH B':8.Atd^0V$!$dhx]^a$$dh-D7$8$H$M `a$$dh]^`a$$dh]`a$ouʘIJefxħv| !#$*,.:ޮ߮[`28׶BGx12<=h}emH sH h{,QmH sH h|mH sH h mH sH hBmH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH L={rs,/OV`bef%*dTYcs}MU:@G\] !h=3HmH sH hGqha$mH sH ha$6mH sH h?)mH sH hGqha$6mH sH hGqmH sH h1mH sH jha$0JUmH sH h}emH sH ha$mH sH @,. :,RT8LRVJL8RZb-  h0FmH sH haLmH sH h mH sH h`smH sH hYmH sH h=3HmH sH ha$6mH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH E   "hjEQ28:  !!##Z%~%8)H)N)h))))))))))!*"*$*.*:*K*L*M*N*>++++++,A,J,P,s,,,,,h mH sH h_+mH sH h]~mH sH h/mH sH hbmH sH hWmH sH ha$6mH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH hS2mH sH B!)h-{57:cPgLv&(@ ܦ`nrp$a$gdb:$dh]`a$$dh]^`a$ $dh]a$$dh]`a$,,--- - -----(-d-f-g-B0112 2.2y2222233"3Q3]3a3i3q3x3333333333333444!4&494S4444445555 5!5$5,5>5K5Q5y5z55hJmH sH hha$mH sH hmH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH h_+mH sH h]~mH sH H555 66#6*66666667737>7K7t7w7z777777777#8%8&8.898W899::!:f:k:s:~::::::::::::====??:@;@Q@R@"A1AAAAAAABbUhC)mH sH h mH sH hDgmH sH jha$0JUmH sH hv7ha$mH sH ha$mH sH hv7mH sH Juthorities on Yugoslav history, Ivo Banac, who has been one of the most strident critics of Tuman s policies since 1992, has an exceptionally poor opinion of Tuman, not just as a politician, but also as a historian. Many years later, Ante uvalo from Chicago made similar observations at an international seminar,  about how Americans who deal with our problems, look at or looked at Yugoslavia ; among other things, uvalo stressed:  Too much is said about the Balkans and local matters, so don t be surprised when a reporter, expert or sub-expert on this part of the world comes home and writes that we live solely off of history here. Many of them do not understand this.  The justification for objections raised by Croatian Americans and other qualified observers of the weaknesses of Croatian policies vis--vis the United States and the world in general is reflected in a study of foreign receptions of Croatia and the (post)Yugoslav territory and the manner in which the international community responded to Yugoslavia s collapse. In a synthetic overview of analyses of various  crisis management models  applied by the great powers and international organizations in the Yugoslavia case American historian James Sadkovich critically examines an indicative example of consideration of the Yugoslav conflict that was unfavorable for Croatia. Sadkovich states that individual foreign interpreters of (post)Yugoslav circumstances  committed grave errors in citing the facts and making conclusions that they could not defend ; thus the  Serbs in Croatia are portrayed as insurgents and the role of the YPA and Serbian propaganda in initiating, supplying, training and supporting the Croatian Serbs is ignored. Instead, they stress Tuman s use of  Ustasha symbols as an evocation of  memories of past crimes of Croats against Serbs. Because they saw the conflict as a  civil war, they believed that it was a  bafflingly complicated and  irredentist conflict in which  kaleidoscopically changing alliances at the local and national levels make it difficult to discern who holds the power. The authors of the analysis saw the Bosnians as  Muslim Serbs, Yugoslav history as dark and violent, everyone was proclaimed equally culpable of cease-fire violations, Germany as the driver of the EU, the  early recognition of Bosnia as an obstacle to the formation of a sustainable federation, and they ultimately condemned the U.S. for undermining the EU and UN peace efforts, the frustration of negotiators such as David Owen, the provocation of the Serbs and encouragement of the Muslims.  Certainly this comment (as one of many) prompts the basic question of the level of accountability of the protagonists in the Yugoslav conflicts and the (co)responsibility of international community  factors. It remains an open question as to what Croatia could have objectively done to improve its image in the world given the circumstances: an imposed war and the unwillingness of the international community to stop the escalating conflict. The example of Slovenia, which made optimum media use of the invasion of the Yugoslav People s Army during its  ten-day war, shows that the negative image of  nationalist separatists can be turned into the notion of a  David vs. Goliath confrontation overnight. While Yugoslav Army tanks lumbered down Slovenia s roads and its warplanes with their red star insignia strafed its citizens (the most effective footage was nevertheless shot at the border crossing with Austria, where Turkish truck drivers were largely the victims of air strikes), Ljubljana Television alternated images of the YPA aggression with scenes of Soviet tanks entering Prague in 1968. The response by the international public was not long in coming. Even though Croatia was in a radically different position than Slovenia (geopolitical position, rebel Serbs, reprisals going back to the Second World War, etc.), the observations of Croatian Americans confirm the stance that emerging Croatian foreign policy did not choose the best approach to promoting Croatia s interests abroad. Commenting on the problems surrounding Croatia s initial forays into foreign affairs, Mate Meatrovi concludes:  The extent of Tuman s understanding the soul of our people and success in mobilizing them in the struggle for independence was matched by his inaptitude in contacts with the international community. And his envoys who came to the United States before the first democratic elections, and afterward, proved no more adept in their contacts with Washington and the American public.  Vianja Stareaina also observed the poor organization of Croatian diplomacy in the United States and other important world centers in 1991 and the beginning of 1992:  Many Croatian politicians solemnly departed for so-called lobbying tours of European capitals, later characterizing them as their great contributions to recognition: they recounted the talks they held in the British Foreign Office, or what they said in the Quai d Orsay. The impressions that they left were not, in fact, so brilliant. For example, Croatian migrs in the United States who helped arrange meetings between Croatian politicians and even ministers and major officials from the U.S. administration were often astounded when they saw that all these Croatian  political lobbyists wanted was to be photographed with an  important person and then  leave. No talks! Later they realized the reasons for such photo opportunities, when they saw  mission accomplished photos in the Croatian press. This was a typical Croatian stunt. The main goal of diplomatic and lobbying efforts were to provide the Croatian public and Tuman  proof of their own successful efforts. To show off for the domestic audience.  Conclusion: The public commentary by Croatian American intellectuals at the beginning of the 1990s was characterized by the dual Croatian-American perspective of observation, wherein (Croatian) patriotic feelings and the direct and open ( American ) approach to the problem of Croatia s position in the United States and the world became intertwined. Criticism of the U.S. stance was increasingly accompanied by a tendency to more harshly criticize the Croatian authorities. This latter tendency deepened in the subsequent period, primarily because of the negative reception of Croatian policies toward Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Croatian authorities (especially President Tuman) first ignored but then confronted a portion of the Croatian American intelligentsia, and this served as a vital indicator of misunderstanding, not just of the importance of incorporating the highest quality persons from Croatian migr communities in the struggle for Croatia s status in the United States and the world, but also of the American political milieu as a whole. The central themes of this confrontation during the period covered by this work pertain to criticism of the  partisan approach to setting up diplomatic structures in the United States, wherein the most qualified members of the Croatian American intellectual elite, who were very familiar with American circumstances and institutions, were neglected. This miscalculation by the Croatian authorities during this period primarily manifested itself in media and lobbying fiascoes. However, the more significant consequences of the failure to include, or even the outright marginalization, of Croatian Americans (and many other eminent Croatian migr intellectuals such as Jakaa Kuaan, Chris Cvii, Neven `imac or Tihomil Radja) were, over the long term, reflected in the problems of democratic and economic development. Croatia s official policy toward Bosnia-Herzegovina, the absence of growth of civil society (which did not adequately accompany the process of national emancipation) and the problematic  economic transformation resulted in a burgeoning deficit of democracy that was already, and frequently, observed by Croatian Americans at the beginning of the 1990s. From the second half of 1992 until President Tuman s death in 1999, relations between Croatia and the United States were generally strained, despite close political cooperation and military alliance in 1994-1995 (from the Washington Agreement to the Dayton Accords). One of the best-informed experts on the attitude of the U.S. media (public and politics) to the collapse of Yugoslavia and Croatia, the author of the book The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, historian James J. Sadkovich (also of partial Croatian descent), made the following observation in 1997:  In a word, President Tuman has a poor image because he hasn t changed for the better. He is often portrayed as a rigid personality, rooted in nationalist ideology and a party that wants to rejuvenate the Ustasha state and its symbols.  Regardless of their different political backgrounds, most critically-oriented Croatian Americans agreed about the importance of Croatia s democratic and economic development, where relations between Croatia and the United States were seen as vitally important, especially in the first half of the 1990s. In this sense, the question of understanding and establishment of a dialogue between the Croatian authorities and that segment of the migr community and the latter s potential active involvement in social processes and Croatia s affirmation in the U.S. and the world in general was exceptionally important to the development of Croatian-U.S. relations during the 1990s. The significant involvement in Croatia s public life by intellectuals whose views on life and politics were formed in a country that was for many Croats at the beginning of the 1990s the  world s top democracy, heralded the historical possibility of accelerating the process of overcoming stagnant one-party intellectual uniformity and a heritage of historical controversies and adopting the precepts of democratic culture. In mid-December 1992, Ivo Banac made the following point at the Assembly of the cultural and literary association Matica Hrvatska:  I am at liberty to say that Croatian Americans, particularly our intelligentsia, see the culture of openness and freedom, the culture of truth and democracy, as the only real option&   In May 1995, similar sentiments were expressed by Ante uvalo:  I believe Croatia has no choice. Croatia must create a democratic legal and economic system  the sooner, the better.   David BINDER,  Evolution in Europe; Yugoslavia seen breaking up soon, The New York Times Nov. 28, 1990. Reference to information from this article can be found in the Croatian press as well; see, for example: Mirko GALI,  Ni rat ni mir , Danas, 12 Feb. 1991.   Dr. Tuman doputovao u New York , HINA, 21 Sept. 1990;  Predsjednik Tuman odr~ao predavanje na sveu iliatu Yale , HINA, 21 Sept. 1990;  Dr. Tuman razgovarao s ameri kim kongresmenima , HINA, 25 Sept. 1990;  Dr. Tuman se vratio u domovinu , HINA, 2 Oct. 1990;  Potpisana izjava o suradnji Hrvatske i Minnesote , HINA, 14 Dec. 1990.  See:  Bushov susret s Tumanom, Izvatci iz tiska, Miroslav KRMPOTI, ed. Kronologija rata Hrvatska i Bosna Hercegovina, Zagreb: Hrvatski informativni centar/Slovo, 1998, 30.  Slaven Letica,  Javni apel Mesiu i Ra anu: Molim vas da priupitate predsjednika Clintona za fonograme Tumanovih i mojih razgovora u Bijeloj kui iz rujna 1990!, Globus, 11 Aug. 2000. There are other account of this event. In his memoirs published a decade later, one of the most respected Croatian Americans, Mate Meatrovi, described this event as  an unpleasant incident when Franjo Tuman waited in the corridor of the White House in the hopes of meeting with Bush, but the latter simply rushed past him barely waving his hand, without even knowing who he was. According to Meatrovi  Tuman insisted on this alleged meeting because he wanted to show the public in Croatia that the U.S. president supports him, and  because of this attempt to at least be photographed with Bush, Tuman was ridiculed in the Serbian media for days. See: Mate ME`TROVI, U vrtlogu hrvatske politike  kazivanje Peri Zlataru, Zagreb: Golden marketing, 2003, 276. See also: Mario NOBILO, Hrvatski Feniks, Diplomatski procesi iza zatvorenih vrata 1990.-1997., Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus, 2000, 147.  Slaven Letica,  Javni apel Mesiu i Ra anu: Molim vas da priupitate predsjednika Clintona za fonograme Tumanovih i mojih razgovora u Bijeloj kui iz rujna 1990!, Globus, 11 Aug. 2000.  Ibid. Jeri Laber and Kenneth Anderson,  Why Keep Yugoslavia One Country, The New York Times, 10 Oct. 1990.  On this see: Davor Glavaa,  Jovieva ucjena Bushom, Danas, 5 Mar. 1991. A similar assessment of policies aimed at  propaganda effects, such as the letter to George Bush, was made thirteen years later by Vianja Stareaina:  Croatia s foreign policy initiatives from Zagreb were also very specific. Franjo Tuman liked to write letters to international statesmen, which would then be published in Croatian newspapers and read on Croatian Television. Thus the Croatian public was given the impression of a vigorous foreign policy. Nobody else shared this impression. For example, while European monitors, who could have conveyed these messages to their governments, were ignored by the Croatian authorities and the Croatian leadership attempted to convey messages to them by means of domestic television broadcasts. Vianja Stareaina, Vje~be u laboratoriju Balkan, Zagreb, 2004, 80.  Tuman s letter is printed in its entirety in Slaven Letica and Mario Nobilo, Rat protiv Hrvatske-KOS-tajni dokumenti, Zagreb: Posebna izdanja Globusa, 1991, 86.  Ibid., 86.  Warren Zimmermann, Origins of a Catastrophe, Times Books, New York, 1996, 96.  Veljko Kadijevi, Moje vienje raspada, Belgrade: Politika, izdava ka delatnost, 1993, 21.  See: Politika Ekspres, 18 Feb. 1991, cited in: V.P. Gagnon, Jr.,  Yugoslavia: Prospects for the Stability , Foreign Affairs Vol. 70., No 3., Summer 1991, 25.  Ve ernji list, 2 Feb. 1991.  Warren Zimmermann, Origins..., 71.  Ibid., 71.  Ibid., 75. Zimmermann was the first in a series of U.S. officials (Peter Galbraith, Madeleine Albright) to have a particularly low opinion of the Croatian president because of his lack of political sensibility for democratic values.  Warren Zimmermann, Origins& , 95.  Janez Janaa, Pomaci-Nastajanje i obrana slovenske dr~ave 1988-1992, Zagreb: Mladinska knjiga, 1993, 83.  On this see: Laura Silber & Allan Little, Smrt Jugoslavije, Opatija: Otokar Keraovani, 1996, 139-164. See also the first episode of the television series of the same name.  Mate ME`TROVI,  Zapad u aoku, Danas, 9 July 1991. This dichotomy in U.S. foreign policy  the tension between pragmatism and principle  has been examined by many authors; thus Peter Scowen stresses that the U.S. has always struck a balance between  instinctive isolationism and the conviction of its own  heroic superiority and international mission as the  defender of freedom. Peter SCOWEN, Crna knjiga Amerike, Zagreb: Izvori, 2003, 221-223. These issues of  contradictory foreign policy stances were also covered by Henry Kissinger in his contemplation of the redefinition of U.S. national interests in the  multipolar world of the twenty-first century. See: Henry Kissinger, Diplomacija, Zagreb: Golden marketing, 2000, 272.  Mate ME`TROVI,  Zapad u aoku, Danas, 9 July 1991.  Ivo BANAC,  Ameri ki patuljci spaaavaju Jugoslaviju!, Globus, 6 Mar. 1992.  Petar KUZMI,  Zahvalnost bez oduaevljenja, Danas, 14 Apr. 1992.  Vianja STARE`INA, op. cit., 68.  On this see: Davor Glavaa,  Raskraa Jugo-diplomacije, Danas, 14 May 1991.  It would be wrong conclude that the option of international affirmation was only exploited by Slovenia and Croatia. This practice was initiated by the Socialist Republic of Serbia, whose representative Aleksandar Prlja virtually functioned as Serbia s foreign minister abroad before Slovenia and Croatia even held elections to change their governments. See for example:  Sudbina Jugoslavije nije vezana ni za jednu partiju- Prenosimo: Intervju Slobodana Miloaevia ameri kom Njuzviku, Borba, 1 Feb. 1990.  Davorin Rudolf held the post of foreign minister from 3 May 1991 to 31 July 1991.  Davorin Rudolf, Rat koji nismo htjeli, Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus, 1999, 250.  Ibid., 250.  Kreao `PELETI,  Guverner kao ministar, Danas, 16 Apr. 1991. An opposing candidate was respected maritime law expert Hrvoje Ka i.  Mario Nobilo, op. cit., 266.  A positive assessment of Golem as foreign minister was made by Danas reporter Kreao `peleti; citing  outside observers, he states that the news of Golem s replacement with Croatian American Rudy Perpich was accompanied by the question of  how much sense does it make to send an exceptionally dynamic and resourceful minister to the U.S. and simultaneously appoint an American to his post, when the former, according to general assessments, has found his bearings with uncommon speed and acumen. Kreao `PELETI,  Guverner kao ministar, Danas, 16 Apr. 1991. Some of the controversies surrounding emergent Croatian diplomacy can be found in a description of the stay of a Croatian mission in Stuttgart (Baden-Wrttemberg), when unexplained and alleged abduction (!?) of Golem occurred, contained in the memoirs of the energy minister at the time, Bo~o Udovi i. The bizarre scene of the minister s  abduction took place in front of the hotel in which the Croatian officials were staying (he was pushed into a car which drove off in an unspecified direction), and it was reported to the German police by the minister s wife. The first assumptions pertained to the involvement of  Serbs or some secret service. After several hours, Golem returned to the hotel, and the event was never explained to Udovi i. The poor organization of this visit was also illustrated in the events surrounding a scheduled visit to the parliament of the state of Baden-Wrttemberg by the Croatian delegation; according to Udovi i, when the Croatian ministers, headed by Parliamentary Speaker }arko Domljan, arrived at the parliament building,  nobody was there to receive them, and not even the doorman had been informed of their visit. . See: Bo~o UDOVI I, Statisti u demokraciji- itanka za buduu povijest, Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk, 1999, 171-172. These and similar incidents demonstrate the level of organization and coordination in Croatian institutions at the beginnings of Croatia s independence.  Franjo Greguri, Vlada demokratskog jedinstva Hrvatske 1991.-1992., Zagreb: Naklada Zadro, Zagreb, 1998, 298.  Ibid., 298.  Vianja STARE`ina, op. cit., 77-79.  Ibid., 78.  Ibid., 79.  Ibid., 80.  Ibid., 77.   Molto simpatico Golem, Danas, 28. 4. 1992.  Danica Ramljak was in the United States at the beginning of the 1990s completing her doctoral studies. When the war in Croatia began she began to successfully lobby for the country. Later she became a member of the management of the Croatia House, a Croatian American organization that promotes Croatian culture.  Interview by Rosa GRCA with Danica Ramljak,  Sinjanka koja je osvojila Ala Gorea, Globus, 15 Mar. 1993.  Ibid.  Tomislav Suni, Vladimir P. Goss,  Defanziva, Danas, 6 Aug. 1991.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Mate Meatrovi, U vrtlogu hrvatske politike  kazivanje Peri Zlataru, Zagreb: Golden marketing, 2003, 269. In this context, it is interesting to read Meatrovi s view that  one of the rare Croats who knew how to approach the Americans was Slavko Goldstein. I became convinced of this at the beginning of 1990 when he arrived with Vlado Gotovac as the head of the newly-established Croatian Social-Liberal Party . However,  Goldstein, with his views, diverged not only from those of radical Croatian migrs but also from a large majority of people in the homeland. Ibid., 269.  Mate ME`TROVI,  Pogled iz Amerike-Hrvatska katastrofa, Danas, 14 May 1991.  Ibid.  Mate MARSIN,  Popustljivost amerikaniziranog Hrvata, Danas, 21 May 1991.  Ibid. Meatrovi s confrontations with the Croatian authorities go back to the pre-election period, which can certainly, at least partly, explain his uncompromising criticism. After joining the National Accord Coalition (rather than the Croatian Democratic Union/HDZ) in the 1990 elections and supporting moderate stances pertaining to the dissociation of Yugoslavia, Meatrovi came into full frontal conflict with the HDZ. In April 1990, President Tuman rejected a proposal by politician Dra~en Budiaa that Meatrovi be appointed Croatia s representative to the United Nations, despite his experience and flawless knowledge of English. See: Mate Meatrovi, op. cit., 320.  Mate ME`TROVI,  Pogled iz Amerike-Hrvatska katastrofa, Danas, 14 May 1991.  Ibid.  See: Dr. Slavko KNE}EVI,  Cincinnati, Oh, USA, Tumanov avion-Kada lete predsjednici, Danas, 2 June 1992; Tomislav NAGY,  River Forest, USA, Dobri Hrvati-Neukusna izjava, Danas, 26 May 1992; Stjepan BORI EVI,  Chicago, Medvedgrad i Vukovar, Danas, 24 Mar. 1992.  Davor Glavaa,  Nobelova nagrada za Cyrusa Vancea, Danas, 10 Mar. 1992. See also: Petar KUZMI,  Zahvalnost bez oduaevljenja, Danas, 14 Apr. 1992; Petar KUZMI,  Popaljeni olimpijski gradovi, Danas, 12 May 1992; Petar KUZMI,  Doalo im do mozga, Danas, 2 June 1992.  Frane GOLEM,  Dr~ite se Biblije, Danas, 14 Apr. 1992.  Ibid.  Zvonko `eparovi was foreign minister in the so-called Government of National Unity led by Prime Minister Franjo Greguri from 31 July 1991 to 27 May 1992 (he replaced Davorin Rudolf at this post). `eparovi traveled to the U.S. three times as minister. On this see: Davor Ivankovi:  Intervju sa Zvonimirom `eparoviem - Kako smo (s)lomili uvare Jugoslavije, Slobodna Dalmacija, 28, 29 & 30 May 1994.  Mate Meatrovi, op. cit., 320.  Ibid., 320.  Jerry Blaskovich, Anatomy of Deceit, New York: Dunhill Publishing, 1997. At the behest of the J.P. Mackley, head of the Foreign Press Bureau in Zagreb, Blaskovich traveled to Croatia in December 1991 as a medical specialist to ascertain the facts surrounding the massacre of Croat civilians in Voin.  Ibid., 13.  Ibid., 13.  Jerry Blaskovich, op. cit., 13.  Ibid., 13.  Gordana UZELAK,  Franjo Tudjman s Nationalist Ideology, East European Quarterly, Volume XXXI, Number 4, Winter 1997, 451. Based on an analysis of Tuman s rhetoric in fifty articles containing his statements, Uzelak came upon the term  history, in various contexts and meanings, 35 times.  Mario Nobilo, op. cit., 108.  Ivo BANAC,  Krv nije dr~ava-Kako je Tuman krivotvorio povijest hrvatske nacionalne integracije, Feral Tribune, 26 Dec. 1994. See also the interview by Tatjana TAGIROV with Ivo Banac in Arkzin (no date  author s personal photo-copy). For an assessment of Tuman as a historian, see also: Vladimir uro Degan, Hrvatska dr~ava u meunarodnoj zajednici, Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus, 2002, 267.  Meunarodni znanstveni skup  Jugoisto na Europa 1918.-1995.  Dubrovnik, 23-25 May 1996, Zagreb: Hrvatski informativni centar, 2000, 195.  James Sadkovich,  Klimavi po etak: `to mo~emo nau iti iz raspad Jugoslavije? Polemos 2, Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk, 1999, 156.  Mate Meatrovi, op. cit., 276.  Vianja Stareaina, op. cit. 81.  Bartol LETICA,  Slavenka Drakuli najutjecajnija je hrvatska novinarka u Americi!, Globus, 4 July 1997.  Pozdravna rije  na Saboru Matice Hrvatske, 19 Dec. 1992; See: Ivo BANAC, Cijena Bosne, Zagreb: Europa danas, 1994, 46.  Meunarodni znanstveni skup  Jugoisto na Europa 1918.-1995.  Dubrovnik, 23-25 May 1996, Zagreb: Hrvatski informativni centar, 2000, 194.     PAGE  PAGE 3 bccLgNgtgzgVhjhRm\mmmssHvJvz(z|{~{{{||}}bދ\blvLŽЎ"$&(@zԛأ(ئڦƮȮ*,6hRmH sH hh6mH sH ha$5mH sH hciha$mH sH hcimH sH hRmH sH hbbemH sH h mH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH @6D\^`bDNnpZbZbrtʺ. DPpr .NPx 46"|~̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺h(3;mH sH h(36mH sH h(3mH sH jh(30JUmH sH jha$0JUmH sH ha$mH sH hRmH sH IpN4|62nRvVN$a$gdb:~268HZ^ ^j246PnpпЮПwwwl`llTlho\7h(3;mHsHho\7h(36mHsHho\7h(3mHsHh(36mH sH h(3;mH sH h(3mH sH jh(30JUmH sH h"tFh(3B*mH phsH  h"tFh(36B*mHphsH h"tFh(3;B*mHphsHh"tFh(3B*mHphsH*jh"tFh(30JB*UmH phsH ha nh(3mHsH v : bl"$@fl~*4RTLVvx.8VX &0NPʵʬʬʬʬʬʬʬʬʬʬʬʬh(36mH sH hWh(36mH sH h(3;mH sH h(3mH sH jh(30JUmH sH h(3mHsHho\7h(3mHsHhWh(36mHsHD D8<Fhj68lv  ,4R\z|񵩵ho\7h(3;mHsHho\7h(3mHsHho\7h(36mHsHho\7h(3mHsHh(36mH sH h(3;mH sH h(3mH sH jh(30JUmH sH Bh6 z"hL\v  B $d]^a$gdb:$a$gdb:|&"$@Jhjz$.LN\^LVvxxlv    < N   B D P b   кh(3;mH sH h(36mH sH h(36CJmH sH h(3;CJmH sH h(3CJmH sH jh(30JCJUmH sH jh(30JUmH sH h(3mH sH BB   2v2LL $x]a$gdb:$a$gdb:       24BVvx4|246LN\nLNZl|<TȾhHh(36CJmH sH h(3CJmH sH jh(30JCJUmH sH h(36mH sH h(3;mH sH jh(30JUmH sH h(3mH sH Dha$mH sH h*>0JmHnHuh(3 h(30Jjh(30JUhHjhHU$dh]`a$h]h&`#$,1h/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtH Z@Z  Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJtHDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List >@>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*4 @4 Footer  !.)@!.  Page NumberVR@2V Body Text Indent 2dx^tH<P@B<  Body Text 2 dxbOQb Body Text Indent 2 CharCJ_HaJmHsHtHu4@b4 Header  !dC@rd Body Text Indent$dh]`a$ mH sH u<B@< Body Text5mH sH uKU #%?(*,01M235j6u77j9O:EJOR|W1cfRilmcosv|wz|!߉c'xwO٢̥Ȧ2 Fq5,{y}Xm9  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLX Lw I ,9$G_Cy -{w,  7 D Q ^ k !@"H""""$0%8%%'(v(~()***q,,,--- ..=/\/0v112822333m94 , `m\#&, 037Q:>@EJORS+Z\\] ]3cf5k;ptv{#ezQΥ4H7.}1Z   *7McgNm0%%%%%%%&6&q''')(1(9(}*** +-..'/60o0w0 2.2<2k3x33334467777?88F9G9I9J9L9M9O9P9R9S9^9i9j9n9I00I00I00I00I00I00I00I000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0003@0I00@0I00@0I00@0I00I00!@0@0I00 $$$'$HfShg= ,5b6~| -'!pB   '!! _Toc116661014\n9\n96  ? ?  ?D? d?? $?d? ?$? ? ?$? d? ?? $? d? ?? d?  $?!?" ?#$?$ d?% ?&?' $?(d?) ?* ?+ d?,$?- ?.?/ d?0 $?1 ?2?3d?4$?5?6d?7?8$?9 4?:?; ?<4?= t?> ?? ?@t?A 4?B?C ?D t?E 4?F ?Gt?H ?I ?J4?K t?L?M ?N4?O ?P t?Q4?R ?S?T t?U ,?V?W ?X ,?Y l?Z?[ ?\ l?] ,?^?_?` ,?a l?b?c ?d l?e,?f?g?h l?i,?j ?kl?l ?m >n ,?o>p t>q4>r =s=t t=u4=v <w<x 4<yt<z;{ ;| 4;}t;~ : :t: 4:\/  |8  | d  <|  2 : '7 |? $  \   |] |  |   l"<    | L> $ 9  9  A X6 9|D ? |A: T!: Db  *d: D <$?  dd \l 9   9l |T^? 2D?<f  ll?,D?lD?   ̗ <?|? cc  * L* < =  T0 0 \9 9t/: /:Drr2 2 `a    4 >  >  4? 45?t5? j?j?,k?4SJ?K? TK?K?  $d S?\S?S? S?  T?!\T?" \# $ % & \'( d) * +$, d- ./ $0 12 T34 56 T78 9̇: ; L<=̈>  ?L@ A d?B ?C ?D$?E d?F ?G?H $?Id?J $?K d?L ?M?N $?O d?P?Q?R $?Sd?Td?U?V?W$?Xd?Y ?Z?[ $?\ d?]?^ ?_ $?`d?a?b ?c ?d$?e d?f ?g?h $?id?j ?k?l $?md?n ?o?p $?qd?r ?s ?t$?u d?v ?w?x ?y4?z t?{?| ?}4?~t? ? ?4? t?? ? 4?t?? ?4? t?? ? 4?l? ?? ,? l?? ?,? l?? ?,? l?? ?,? l?? ?,? l?? ?,? l?? ? T T   T  T   T  T ¯ Tïį ů Ư Tǯȯ ɯʯ T˯ ̯ͯίϯ ЯTѯү ӯTԯ կ֯ׯ )د 4*ٯt*گ*ۯ4+ܯ +ݯ +ޯ4,߯ t,, ,4- t--- t.. .4/ t/// t0 00 41t1 11 42t2243344 4 445 t5 5 546t66t7 748t8 ??  D? ?  ?  ? D? ?? ?D??? ???? ?D? ??? ? ??  ?!?" ?#D?$?%D?&?'D?(?)D?* ?+?,D?-?. ?/ ?0D?1?2 ?3 D?4?5 ?6 ?7D?8 ?9?:?;?< => T? @DDj   n AAHH0@SSW``%1t=IIaa  m"""k$k$$$$)*#*#*,,,,->-K-K-7.m.m.//s/s/$0$00>1x1x11122<3<33355667778888809b9b999:p:~:::;;;;<<<<<='=7=7=Q=>>??F@|@|@@#A#ABBBBEEKhKyKyKOPPP PR S~S~STiTiT3U3UVVWWHXeXnXzXXXXXYY>ZUZUZ[H[[[3]3]aa*b6b~b~bbbb cc+c+ccceeffggg'ggggg h>hththDiDiiiiij'k'kEk-l@l@lmmnnoooepupuppppp)v)vvv6w6wwwUxxxxxxyhyyy2zVzzzzz<{{{{o|||D}V}V} ~ ~OO**ppZ‚DDMYȆȆ3ׇa \FFeTT%%.QQ ߺߺ 22/bbyy ..dd^^$$[[++ SSHH!11EEooS : :       Qtt))  ))$CHHV w 4AAKYo$o$%%v%%%R&R&&&'(((*+,,5-5-.7.G.{...../c///)0a0Y1Y1c2c2222k56[6[6666m7m728l888899n9      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345KK  q # # x HHRR7MZZ^jj  ,9xDSSee  z"""r$r$$$$* *,*,*,,,,-F-R-R-D.u.u.//y/y/(0(00H1111122D3D3335577778 8 888889i9i999:|::::;;;;<<<<<=+=====]=>>??J@@@@-A-ABBBBEEKrKKKOPPP,PSSSS TpTpT@U@UVVWWNXmXyXXXXXXYYEZ_Z_Z"[L[L[[[:]:]aa2b=bbbbbcc&c0c0ccceeffg%g+g+ggggg*hEh|h|hQiQiiiiij+k+kRk1lGlGl%m%mnnooolppppppp0v0vvv@w@wwwYxxxxyyyoyyy9zZzzzzz@{{{{v|||H}]}]}~~SS11ttdɂKKTcՆՆ:ˇ߇%%h''cš MMr[[ŢŢ((,, )2XX883ff55kkee++bb22YYUU(>>LLuu_ @ @       \%%zz 33///GLLa<HHUeu$u$%%|%%%_&_&&&''(((*+,,<-<-.A.J......%/o///40m0]1]1k2k2222w5$6a6a6666s7s7=8x888999n9  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123459*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdateV5*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/_6*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName !11011121415161819199019911992199319941997220002124252628331456789DayMonthYear65656565656656656665665656656566656566655 5 6565666565666656656565665656656665666566565565656656565565655665665 6665665 665666566656 65 65666656656665656665665 66656656565666 5656566566565656 65 666656565 5 6566565665665666565565665666565  56566 5665666665666566566556565656565666656656665665655 556656566566565656565656656565565665655656565656655656565656565656565656565566565656656565656565666565665  5 55 65  65555 65655 6655655    6656665   5 56556565  5  6565 6 56       65565 555  55/&///B5G5,79JLdf%%%%%%G9G9I9I9J9J9L9M9O9P9R9S9k9n9io'([4455H5_|@B).ݠեae Eio8;V}G I g x     ]JCD,69hlJLa%%%%%%%%%%%& &,&s''q*w*11)2,20262m3s3z33336677&8(88888G9G9I9I9J9J9L9M9O9P9R9S9k9n93333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333///066:7:7M7P7R7U7]7]7`7a7@LG9G9I9I9J9J9L9M9O9P9R9S9k9n9G9G9I9I9J9J9L9M9O9P9R9S9k9n9~g]zh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH~g]hgB) . W /bMf Yq4Y C!0[!a$$&C) *_+,h.?1(3O44o\7v7R8b:]<*>LA"tF=3Hm0NN~N{,Q(6RjS,\N_}eL,e.ebbe~hci,la nVt0F1rs$sGwN\ |`svjsRZ/YGq'cA1G6W1~ 9mXJB h K]C'WK3dHSVDg?)aLPRS2]~ +G9I9L9O9R9k9n9#0@|bH !#$&*-034678?@ABCEFKLNOPQ]^ab d f h ijlnolqlrlvlw|}ܞܠܢܣ#########UUUUUUUUUUUUUm9@4@$P@*\@0d@4l@8@D@NP@V@`b@f@j@r@v@z@@ @,@4@@@H@P@\@l@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @0@ (T@0d@<>@bUnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hHFFA '. 8!4d82QHX?2 KristomotiviBertiBerti Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hpKristomotiviBerti Normal.dotBerti21Microsoft Office Word@Ɣ @@V '՜.+,0 hp|     Kristomotivi Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqrtuvwxyzRoot Entry FLData 1Table#WordDocument.4SummaryInformation(kDocumentSummaryInformation8sCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q