Rotten Croatian Politics
WikiLeaks has made public some secret diplomatic documents of the U.S. Embassy in Zagreb, which describe a shameless fraud of the Croatian people by those who were chosen to represent them. It is no doubt that leading Croatian politicians in the first decade of the 21st century have deceived their voters. Diplomatic documents claim that Ivo Sanader betrayed everything he said in his famous speech in Split, even before he came to power.
Great Prime minister - Sanader
Just four days before he would become a prime minister, he had a phone conversation with Carla del Ponte, where he promised her to fully cooperate with Hague tribunal. This was the completely opposite of all the promises that he made publicly, and meant that he was willing to hand over Croatian generals to a tribunal in Hague.
In order to deceive the public in Croatia about the essence of Sanader's politics, cooperation of all the factors was required in hiding the truth. This meant involving another 'great' and 'decent' Croat, Miomir Zuzul. Zuzul has requested a guarantee from head of the Office of the Hague Tribunal- Thomas Osorio,that Croatian public will not find out about the agreement.
Carla del Ponte, during one of visit to Croatia in 2003, met with Mesic and Racan, and talked to representatives of the embassies accredited in Zagreb. On this occasion Del Ponti gave them information that a year ago President Stjepan Mesic told her that he had personally seen general Gotovina in Zagreb, under the police escort!
Mesic today, of course, is 'astonished', about this statement made by Ponte. However, it is interesting that no one ever throughout the years has denied these claims. Although the content of the conversation with representatives of the embassies could not remain secret to Croatian officials.
It's probably not necessary to explain what kind of the effect did the claim that 'Ante Gotovina is strolling through Zagreb', made by the President of the Republic, have on foreign representatives. There is probably no greater evidence of the corrupted and dishonest politics, Â but when the President itself appears as a witness that the government of his country is lying.
After all that's been exposed, the question that naturally arises is; what role in all this has Jadranka Kosor. And not just in the events that were mentioned on WikiLeaks, but also today. The question that arises is; how come Croatian government continues to generously finance the Office of the former president, when the chief editor of Vjesnik newspapers, that is under the direct control of the government, Bruno Lopandic, explains in details how Stjepan Mesic had damaged the country, only in the aspect of policy concerning Libya.
A strange and unprincipled Kosor- Mesic coalition, actually has a long history. It must be remembered that it was Jadranka Kosor who was HDZ's presidential candidate assigned just to cede second presidential term to Mesic. Her work in favor of Mesic, Jadranka Kosor did during the campaign so well that danger occurred, that instead of her, the runner in second round of Presidential elections will be Boris Miksic. The difference in votes was so tight that the doubts about the set up have never been removed. The aim was to put into a second round of elections a person that could surely be defeated by Mesic.
The illusion of democracy
The question that should be asked is; What is the purpose of an election process in Croatia? What do people choose when they are so shamelessly deceived and manipulated, as it reveals WikiLeaks? What's the point of the illusion of the democracy when the political affairs in Croatia are being resolved on levels that are not available to public eye.
Someone recently said that any real change in Croatia will be able to take place only when Stjepan Mesic is left without office, or at least one member of the "left" political establishment finally ends up in jail. Everything else only indicates that Croatia is ruled exactly the same, as it has been ruled before the first democratic elections, when democracy was practiced in a system of one-party rule.