LJUBLJANA, Aug 19 (Hina) - Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel on Monday resolutely dismissed the possibility of new negotiations on the sea border with Croatia, insisting that Slovenia considered the concept of demarcation in
Piran Bay as envisaged in the agreement he and his Croatian counterpart Ivica Racan initialled last year as the "alpha and omega" of any possible solution and the foundation stone for future relations with Croatia. The initialled agreement has met with strong opposition in Croatia.
LJUBLJANA, Aug 19 (Hina) - Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel
on Monday resolutely dismissed the possibility of new negotiations
on the sea border with Croatia, insisting that Slovenia considered
the concept of demarcation in Piran Bay as envisaged in the
agreement he and his Croatian counterpart Ivica Racan initialled
last year as the "alpha and omega" of any possible solution and the
foundation stone for future relations with Croatia. The initialled
agreement has met with strong opposition in Croatia. #L#
"The Racan-Drnovsek agreement, in a minimalist way, suits both
countries as a compromise solution. We believe that the concept of
division of Piran Bay through the middle is unacceptable because it
would turn the wheel of history ten years back. The demarcation line
through the middle of Piran Bay was never an issue with us nor was it
discussed and talks on the sea border started only after it was
given up," Rupel told reporters at a news conference focusing on
relations with Croatia and recent incidents in Piran Bay over
fishing rights and police patrols.
After a longer period of absence due to holidays, Rupel addressed
reporters at his ministry. Over the past few days he was frequently
criticised for "diplomatic inactivity" regarding "Croatia's
provocations on the sea". Rupel said that he had been informed about
the events, but he did not want to react in public to avoid the
escalation of relations with Croatia, which he said Slovenia wanted
for a strategic partner, based on the model of alliance which
existed between the two countries in 1990 and 1991.
However, he made it quite clear that Ljubljana would not accept new
talks on the border because it insisted on its right to have access
to international waters and control Piran Bay.
"The latest incidents in the controversial triangle, which was
under Slovene police control previously as well, is a product of a
new Croatian policy, which to say the least is aimed at undermining
the Racan-Drnovsek agreement and efforts made in the past ten
years," Rupel told reporters. He added that Slovenia did not refuse
arbitration in principle (but it would have to include both the sea
and land border), although it considered it an irrational, long and
expensive process.
"We are not afraid of arbitration, perhaps Croatia should be more
afraid of it. If Croatian politicians cannot finalise the
initialled agreement at the moment, we can reach agreement on
putting it in force temporarily or on freezing the situation in
Piran Bay," Rupel said.
Rupel said that Slovenia could prove with documents that its
fishermen had fished in the disputed part of Piran Bay and that its
police controlled the entire bay before Slovenia's independence.
He said that several agreements on that had been signed on the level
of the Slovene and Croatian interior ministries, and mentioned the
"Pula agreement" from "February 1991".
The Slovene minister showed the reporters a map on demarcation on
the sea in Piran Bay with alternative ex-territorial corridors
according to the initialled agreement and details on police control
in Piran Bay at the time Slovenia gained independence.
He reiterated some known stands of his country towards Croatia,
which did not change over the past 11 years. They include Croatia's
"historical debt" to Slovenia, because, as Rupel and some Slovene
historians claim, with the establishment of Tito's Yugoslavia the
Croats were given a "rounded ethnic territory", while part of
Slovenia's ethnic element remained in Italy. Rupel recalled that
the main criterion for the demarcation of the border between
Yugoslavia and Italy after World War II was the number of Italians
or Yugoslavs in a specific region in Istria and the Slovene Adriatic
coast, which he claims was why Slovenia lost Trieste. Rupel also
reiterated the theory about the "federal sea", which until the
disintegration of former Yugoslavia was neither under Croatia's
nor Slovenia's control. According to the theory, which Croatia
considers controversial, the area should now be divided between the
two countries.
(hina) rml sb