ZAGREB, March 14 (Hina) - Prior to a vote on a motion by the Social Liberals (HSLS) that a Croatian-Slovene agreement on the jointly owned Krsko nuclear power plant be annulled, party benches in the Croatian parliament remained
divided over the motion - the ruling coalition parties supported the government's view that the agreement going into force strengthened the country's position, while the opposition insisted that the agreement was extremely detrimental to Croatia.
ZAGREB, March 14 (Hina) - Prior to a vote on a motion by the Social
Liberals (HSLS) that a Croatian-Slovene agreement on the jointly
owned Krsko nuclear power plant be annulled, party benches in the
Croatian parliament remained divided over the motion - the ruling
coalition parties supported the government's view that the
agreement going into force strengthened the country's position,
while the opposition insisted that the agreement was extremely
detrimental to Croatia. #L#
Party benches of the ruling coalition believe that Croatia's
position will be particularly strengthened with the adoption of
conclusions put forward by the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS), which
urged the parliament not to accept any obligations in the
implementation of the agreement which may arise from Article 3 of
Slovenia's law on the ratification of the deal and which concern
deadlines for the storage of radioactive waste.
The HSS urges the government to request from Slovenia an integral
and consistent implementation of the agreement and the payment
within 60 days of damages which have resulted from Slovenia's not
delivering electricity to Croatia since last July, said Mato
Arlovic of the Social Democrats.
Luka Trconic of the HSS said that Croatia had to insist on Slovenia
implementing the agreement as well.
The agreement must eliminate all ambiguities about the contentious
Article 3 of the Slovene law on the ratification of the Krsko deal,
as well as any possibility of Slovenia trying to blur that problem,
Trconic said.
Croatia is facing a paradox, said Zlatko Kramaric of the Liberal
Party. He claimed that the agreement enabled Croatia to gain 50% of
ownership in the plant, however, the question remained if that was a
too high price for what Croatia would have to pay, having to manage
radioactive waste.
Opposition MPs claim that Slovenia, acting contrary to the Vienna
Convention, had with a diplomatic note changed the original content
of the agreement which should therefore be rejected and declared
null and void.
Vesna Pusic of the Croatian People's Party/Primorje-Gorski Kotar
Alliance/Croatian Party of Slavonia-Baranja bench disagreed,
stating that Slovenia had ratified the same text of the agreement as
Croatia, but what differed was Croatia's law ratifying the
agreement and Slovenia's, which contained the contentious
provision on radioactive waste management.
She supported the SDP and the HSS, suggesting that the two countries
try to reach agreement on radioactive waste being stored in third
countries, as is done by the European Union countries.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ivan Simonovic said one could not say that
Article 3 of the Slovene law changed the essence of the agreement,
however, it could prove relevant in some other situations, for
example, in case the two sides failed to agree on some other issue.
In that case, a potential arbiter may say that the Croatian side had
been acquainted with the details of the Slovene law, he said.
Simonovic nevertheless stressed that the HSS' conclusions
prevented possible abuse of the said article.
(hina) rml sb