Croatia's new 'graveyard law' stirs Serb minority's sentiments
ADVERTISEMENT
Croatia's war of independence ended almost 30 years ago. However, the EU and NATO member's lawmakers felt some matters stemming from the conflict had not been fully laid to rest.
On Wednesday, MPs overwhelmingly voted in favour of a new piece of legislation called the Graveyard Law, replacing the two-decades-old policy with a fresh set of rules which now demand the removal of graveyard inscriptions and plaques erected during the 1991-1995 conflict "not in line with the constitutional order".
The new law, as explained in a statement released by the Ministry of Physical Planning, Construction and State Assets, outlaws inscriptions made during the "occupation and peaceful reintegration" and contains "symbols that might offend the morals and feelings of citizens."
The law particularly targets gravestones made after 30 May 1990 — the day when the former Socialist Republic of Croatia inaugurated its first multi-party parliament, an initial step on its path to independence from the rest of Yugoslavia.
Its ethnic Serb minority, backed by Belgrade and the nationalist regime of Slobodan Milošević, increasingly disagreed with Croatian President Franjo Tuđman's push for independence.
The ethnic Serbs, who were at the time Croatia's largest minority and represented some 12.2% of the population according to the 1991 census, soon unilaterally declared a breakaway state of Republika Srpska Krajina, or the Republic of Serb Krajina, in the country's east.
By April 1991, the armed rebellion escalated into a full-fledged war, with the newly-founded Croatian armed forces on one side and the rebels, paramilitaries and the Yugoslav People's Army troops on the other.
A private car passes beneath the barrel of a Yugoslav federal army tank that is on guard at the village of Glina, 5 July 1991
AP Photo
A series of initial skirmishes and sieges laid waste to cities like Vukovar in Croatia's northeast and led to an international community-arranged stalemate monitored by UN peacekeepers.
However, in 1995, the regrouped and rearmed Croatian army's Operations Flash and Storm, respectively, ended the war by pushing out the Serb forces — and most of the ethnic Serb population — from its territory.
Now, the new law plans to remove any memorials glorifying either the Republika Srpska Krajina or otherwise celebrating the enemy forces, including referring to Croatia as "Serb land".
The legislation states that any citizen can report a tombstone, plaque or other monument as potentially problematic. If found to be at fault, plot owners or relatives of those interred will have 30 days to change the inscription. Otherwise, they would face a fine of €1,000 to €5,000.
The decision on what might be in breach of the law will be in the hands of a local commission, consisting of five independent members, including a historian, an art historian and a lawyer.
Earlier in April, Minister of Construction, Spatial Planning and State Property Branko Bačić said that the changes to the law were prompted by the fact that "after the occupation of a part of Croatia during the Homeland War, certain graves, monuments and memorial plaques remained with inappropriate names contrary to the constitutional and legal order of the Republic of Croatia."
'We are afraid of what might bother you next'
Serb minority representatives have blasted the new legislation, arguing it has turned a communal issue into a political one.
Lawmaker Milorad Pupovac, from the SDSS party, earlier criticised the law, saying it creates an impression that Croatia was "pockmarked with (Serb nationalist) graveyards," which he said was not true.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There are people who are bothered by symbols associated with the Ustasha ideology and idea, which can also be found in certain cemeteries, but also outside the cemeteries on monuments, and they offend their religious and national feelings," he said at a parliament session in late April, referring to the Croatian Nazi collaborationist units from World War II and their tombstones and other memorials, which the law does not ecompass.
While his party was in favour of removing any troubling remnants of the 1991-1995 war, Pupovac added, "We are now afraid of what might bother you next".
This is not the first time in recent years that Croatian authorities have attempted to tackle this sensitive issue.
In August 2024, a judge in the city of Zadar on the Adriatic coast fined two Croatian citizens who are singers in a local folk band over references to the Republika Srpska Krajina and the Serb participation in the war.
ADVERTISEMENT
In his rationale, the judge stated that "songs with this content cause unrest among citizens, especially among citizens who were directly exposed to war suffering," and "disturb the coexistence of Croat citizens of Croatia and citizens of Serb ethnicity."
Most ethnic Serbs have not returned to Croatia following Operation Storm, and the minority now comprises around 3.2% of Croatia's population, according to the 2021 census.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Ukraine: Kharkiv hit by massive Russian aerial attack
The US administration has appointed Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich as both the next top US general in Europe as well as the SACEUR. The appointment by Trump will be especially welcomed following media reports in recent months that the US was considering relinquishing the role of SACUER which has always been appointed by a US president to NATO. "It's a very important decision and there is relief from NATO's point of view as it's a positive sign of American engagement and staffing," a US-based source familiar with the issue told Euronews. US Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower was NATO's first SACEUR in 1951, and the role has remained with the US ever since. 'Upon completion of national confirmation processes, Grynkewich will take up his appointment as the successor to General Christopher G. Cavoli, United States Army, at a change of command ceremony at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons, Belgium, expected in the summer of 2025,' a statement from NATO read. Meanwhile, NATO defence ministers agreed to a significant surge in defence capability targets for each country, as well as moving to spending 5% of GDP on defence. They've agreed that 3.5% of GDP would be used for 'core defence spending' - such as heavy weapons, tanks, air defence. Meanwhile 1.5% of GDP per year will be spent on defence- and security-related areas such as infrastructure, surveillance, and cyber. However, the full list of flexibility has not yet been negotiated. 'These targets describe exactly what capabilities Allies need to invest in over the coming years,' NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told journalists. The US has been pushing NATO allies to dramatically increase spending, and expects to see 'credible progress' immediately, according to US Ambassador to NATO Mathew Whitaker. 'The threats facing NATO are growing and our adversaries are certainly not waiting for us to re-arm or be ready for them to make the first move," 'We would prefer our Allies move out urgently on reaching the 5%,' he told journalists in a briefing on the margins of the meetings. Ambassador Whitaker also said the US is 'counting on Europe' to the lead in providing Ukraine with the 'resources necessary to reach a durable peace' on the continent. Mark Rutte reiterated NATO's recent warnings that Russia could strike NATO territory within the next couple of years. 'If we don't act now, the next three years, we are fine, but we have to start now, because otherwise, from three, four or five years from now, we are really under threat," he said, adding: "I really mean this. Then you have to get your Russian language course out, or go to New Zealand.' 'It's good to have continuity about the US in NATO, but with Ukraine it's a different story. I just don't think Trump really cares about Ukraine," the US-based source told Euronews. 'Trump just doesn't care about Europe – it doesn't make him richer or help him politically,' the source said. Referring to the forthcoming NATO summit taking place next month in The Hague, the source said the presence of Ukraine at the summit "will likely be scaled back", since the US will say, "they're not members' so they don't need to be there". A large Russian attack with drones and missiles has hit Ukraine's eastern city of Kharkiv on Saturday, killing at least three people and injuring 21, local officials said. The barrage — the latest in near daily widescale attacks — included aerial glide bombs that have become part of a fierce Russian onslaught in the three-year-war . The intensity of the Russian attacks on Ukraine over the past weeks has further dampened hopes that the warring sides could reach a peace deal anytime soon — especially after Kyiv recently embarrassed the Kremlin with a surprise drone attack on military air bases deep inside Russia. According to Ukraine's Air Force, Russia struck with 215 missiles and drones overnight, and Ukrainian air defenses shot down and neutralised 87 drones and seven missiles. Several other areas in Ukraine were also hit, including the regions of Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, and the city of Ternopil, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said in a post on X. 'To put an end to Russia's killing and destruction, more pressure on Moscow is required, as are more steps to strengthen Ukraine,' he said. Kharkiv's mayor Ihor Terekhov said the attack also damaged 18 apartment buildings and 13 private homes. Terekhov said it was 'the most powerful attack' on the city since the full-scale invasion in 2022. Kharkiv's regional governor Oleh Syniehubov said two districts in the city were struck with three missiles, five aerial glide bombs and 48 drones. Among the injured were two children, a month and a half year old baby boy and a 14-year old girl, he added. The attack on Kharkiv comes one day after Russia launched one of the fiercest missile and drone barrages on Ukraine, striking six Ukrainian territories and killing at least killing at least six people and injuring about 80. Among the dead were three emergency responders in Kyiv, one person in Lutsk and two people in Chernihiv. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Air Force said it shot down a Russian Su-35 fighter jet on the Kursk front inside Russia, the Ukrainian daily Ukrainskaia Pravda reported. No more details were given immediately. U.S. President Donald Trump said this week that his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, told him Moscow would respond to Ukraine's attack on Russian military airfields last Sunday with "Operation Spiderweb" In a new statement bound to cause offense in Kyiv and amongst its allies, Trump told journalists on board Air Force One on Friday evening local time when asked about "Operation Spiderweb": "They gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night. That's the thing I didn't like about it. When I saw it I said 'Here we go, now it's going to be a strike'." The European Union is readying a new round of sanctions against Russia to pile extra pressure on the Kremlin and pressure it to agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, a step that Western allies consider indispensable for serious peace negotiations. Ursula von der Leyen has already provided an outline of what that package, the 18th since February 2022, is supposed to target: Russia's financial sector, the "shadow fleet" and the Nord Stream pipelines, which are currently non-operational. On top of that, the president of the European Commission has pitched a downward revision of the price cap on Russian oil to further squeeze profits from worldwide sales, a crucial cash flow to sustain the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. "We need a real ceasefire, we need Russia at the negotiating table, and we need to end this war. Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else," von der Leyen said earlier this week after meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham. But there's a catch: unlike other sanctions the bloc has imposed on Russia, such as the multiple export and import bans, the price cap has a political and practical dimension that exceeds the institutional sphere of Brussels and stretches across the ocean. More specifically, to Washington, DC. The price cap on Russian oil was introduced in December 2022 by the Group of Seven (G7) under the initiative of the Joe Biden administration. It was hailed as an ingenious, ground-breaking mechanism to mobilise the collective power of Western allies and cripple Russia's high-intensity war machine. As part of the plan, the G7, together with Australia, passed laws prohibiting their domestic companies from providing services, such as insurance, financing and flagging, to Russian tankers that sold seaborne crude oil above a predetermined price. The secret lay in market power: for decades, Western firms, particularly British ones, have dominated the sector of Protection and Indemnity (P&I), a type of insurance that gives shipowners broad protection and allows them to cover potentially huge costs from any accidental harm caused to the crew, their property or the environment. Due to the inherent risks of moving oil in high waters, P&I is today considered the norm in maritime trade and a must-have to be accepted in a foreign port. By leveraging their leading firms, the G7 intended to create an extraterritorial effect that would cap the price of Russian oil not only within their jurisdictions but all around the world. Following intense behind-the-scenes talks, the cap was set at $60 per barrel, a compromise between hard-line and cautious member states. The strategy only worked up to a point however. Although the price of Russian Urals oil gradually decreased, it consistently remained above the $60 mark, often exceeding the $70 threshold. The blatant circumvention was attributed to the "shadow fleet" that Russia deployed at high sea. These tankers are so old and poorly kept that they fall outside P&I standards and rely on alternative, obscure insurance systems that escape G7 surveillance. By the time the cap entered into force, Moscow "had spent months building a 'shadow fleet' of tankers, finding new buyers like India and China, and creating new payment systems, to the point that its oil does not need to be greatly discounted to sell," Luis Caricano, a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in a recent analysis. "What should have been a blow became a manageable problem," Caricano said. With few sectors in the Russian economy left to sanction, Brussels has turned its sight to the cap as a means to tighten the screws on the Kremlin and secure a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Commission has reportedly pitched a revision between $50 and $45 per barrel, which the UK and Canada are believed to support. However, the US has so far refrained from endorsing a lower price cap, raising the stakes ahead of crunch talks at the G7 summit in Alberta, scheduled for mid-June. Now, a tough question emerges: Can the EU dare, and afford, to go it alone? In the strictest legalistic sense, the EU could, indeed, establish a lower price cap on its own. After all, the G7, as an organisation, lacks regulatory powers: each ally amends its laws individually to fulfil a collective mission. In this case, the EU introduced new legislation to prohibit EU companies – rather than, say, American or British companies – from servicing Russian tankers that bypassed the $60-per-barrel cap. Similarly, the bloc could now change the text to adjust that prohibition to a tighter price without waiting for other allies to reciprocate. Here appears the first roadblock: any change to sanctions must be approved by a unanimous vote among member states. It is highly unlikely that all 27 countries would choose to move forward with a lower cap without having an explicit guarantee that Washington will follow suit. Hungary, in particular, has fully aligned itself with the Trump administration and could veto any proposal opposed by the White House. Even if the bloc managed to overcome internal differences and agreed to a lower cap on its own, more formidable obstacles could impede its success. The bloc's revised cap would have to co-exist with America's existing cap. This means that one side of the Atlantic Ocean would apply a $50-per-barrel limit while the other side would apply a $60-per-barrel limit, creating a cacophony for all actors involved. "Different price caps across G7 countries could confuse maritime service providers and weaken overall enforcement," Petras Katinas, an energy analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told Euronews. "A solo move by the EU could cause friction within the Price Cap Coalition, damaging trust and coordination, both of which are crucial for keeping pressure on Russian oil revenues," Katinas added, warning the project could be rendered "largely symbolic". The legislative chaos would immediately benefit the Kremlin, which has long sought to exploit loopholes to evade and undermine international sanctions. Moscow, though, would also face hurdles: the continued crackdown on "shadow fleet" vessels has forced the country to increase its reliance on G7 insurance, which, in theory, could make it easier for the EU to apply the revised measure. "If the EU alone decides to tighten the screws on the cap, it's an additional constraint on Russia's oil exports but not as tight as with a whole of G7 approach," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Reform (CER). Besides practical snags and legal matters, there is geopolitics to consider. One of the reasons why the G7 initiative has fallen short of expectations is that, as the name suggests, it has remained a G7-exclusive plan. Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have refused to play along and join the coalition. China and India openly buy Russian crude oil, sometimes to refine it and resell it under a different label. Having the EU and the US go separate ways would further destabilise the Western alliance and create the impression of a transatlantic break-up. But for many, that is already a reality: the "Coalition of the Willing", born after Donald Trump unilaterally launched negotiations with Vladimir Putin, bears testament to the political divide. "The price cap was a G7 + EU initiative, and so in its current form, I do not see any pathway in which the EU could adjust the cap without the support of the broader coalition, including the US," said Ben McWilliams, an affiliate fellow with Bruegel. "That said, the EU is free to implement whatever measures it wants on its own domestic ships and insurance companies, which it could likely encourage the UK to join," McWilliams added. "So the EU can still move ahead – it would just need to be under a different institutional format than currently exists."
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
European Commission goes on the offensive against NGO accusations
The European commission on Saturday denied German media reports that it had signed 'secret contracts' with environmental NGOs to promote the bloc's climate policy. 'Contrary to media allegations, there are no secret contracts between the European Commission and NGOs,' a commission spokesperson told Euronews. 'The Commission exercises a high degree of transparency when it comes to providing funding to NGOs. The commission's denial comes after German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag claimed that the EU's Executive arm had allegedly secretly paid environmental NGOs up to €700,000 to promote the bloc's climate policy. The paper said it got hold of 'secret contracts' from 2022, which involved well-known NGOs like 'ClientEarth,' and 'Friends of the Earth.' In the Welt Am Sonntag claims, the former allegedly 'received €350,000 'and was supposed to 'entangle German coal-fired power plants in court cases in order to increase the operators' financial and legal risk,' the paper said. The paper also reported that EC officials commissioned the latter to fight against the Mercosur free trade agreement between Europe and South America – 'even though colleagues in their own house were pushing it forward at the same time,' the paper reported. In its statement to Euronews on Saturday, the European Commission underlined that 'NGOs play a crucial role in shaping, monitoring, and enforcing legislation. NGOs also remain fully autonomous and free to establish their own views on all policy matters.' The German report comes at a time when the issue of NGO funding has become an extremely divisive political issue in Brussels. The conservative European People's Party (EPP) has claimed that the Commission instructed NGOs to lobby members of the parliament to further specific policies within the Green Deal, a central political agenda of president Ursula von der Leyen's first term between 2019 and 2024. MEP Monika Hohlmeier (Germany/EPP), told Euronews back in January that her concerns were raised when she examined some 30 funding contracts from 2022 and 2023, as part of the parliament's annual scrutiny of EU budget spending. In January, Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin conceded that some financing from the EU's €5.4 billion environmental programme LIFE may have been inappropriate. 'I have to admit that it was inappropriate for some services in the Commission to enter into agreements that oblige NGOs to lobby members of the European Parliament specifically,' he said. But he also defended the role of NGOs in EU policy making. In April, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) also concluded following a lengthy probe that the Commission's funding of NGOs was 'opaque' and exposed the executive to 'reputational risk.' But the court did not find any breach of EU values from NGOs. To overcome ambiguities, the European Commission issued clear guidance last year to streamline how it provides funding to NGOs. On Saturday, the commission spokesperson told Euronews that EU funding to NGOs was provided 'based on grant agreements, which are complemented by work programmes whose preparation falls under the responsibility of NGOs.' 'As per the guidance, the Commission has instructed its services not to sign off on work programmes if those contain overly specific activities directed at EU institutions or their representatives,' the EC statement added. The institution will take 'further measures,' the spokesperson said, to strengthen transparency and include appropriate safeguards. 'We have been working closely with the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors to improve this transparency even further. Information on recipients of EU funding, including the names of recipients and amounts, is publicly available on the Commission´s Financial Transparency System website,' the statement said. Argentine President Javier Milei has met with Pope Leo XIV in the Vatican on Saturday, where they discussed the importance of urgent efforts towards achieving peace. The Pope and Milei also spoke about bilateral relations, as well as "matters of common interest, such as social-economic progress, the fight against poverty, and the commitment to social cohesion," a statement by the Holy See Press Office noted. After his meeting with the pope, the Argentine President met with the Vatican Secretary of State cardinal Pietro Parolin, accompanied by the Under-Secretary for Relations with States, Reverend Msgr. Mirosław Wachowski. Milei arrived in Rome on Friday, the first stop of his 10-day European tour, where he attended the signing of a natural gas export deal, local media reported. The event was also attended by Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who hosted the Argentine president for a private dinner afterwards. Shortly after his meeting with Pope Leo XIV, Milei departed for Spain, to attend the Madrid Economic Forum. After Spain, the Argentine president will also visit France, and will end his trip in Israel, where he will receive an award in recognition of his support of Israel in a ceremony at the Knesset on 11 June.
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
Pope Leo XIV welcomes Argentine President Javier Milei at Vatican
Argentine President Javier Milei has met with Pope Leo XIV in the Vatican on Saturday, where they discussed the importance of urgent efforts towards achieving peace. The Pope and Milei also spoke about bilateral relations, as well as "matters of common interest, such as social-economic progress, the fight against poverty, and the commitment to social cohesion," a statement by the Holy See Press Office noted. After his meeting with the pope, the Argentine President met with the Vatican Secretary of State cardinal Pietro Parolin, accompanied by the Under-Secretary for Relations with States, Reverend Msgr. Mirosław Wachowski. Milei arrived in Rome on Friday, the first stop of his 10-day European tour, where he attended the signing of a natural gas export deal, local media reported. The event was also attended by Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who hosted the Argentine president for a private dinner afterwards. Shortly after his meeting with Pope Leo XIV, Milei departed for Spain, to attend the Madrid Economic Forum. After Spain, the Argentine president will also visit France, and will end his trip in Israel, where he will receive an award in recognition of his support of Israel in a ceremony at the Knesset on 11 June. While the Spanish socialist government wants to increase defence spending in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump and European allies, a thousand demonstrators from Podemos, Izquierda Unida and Sumar protested this Saturday in the Spanish capital against increasing the military budget. The demonstration has taken on special relevance after the firm warning of Izquierda Unida (IU) that they are questioning their place in the coalition government. Its parliamentary spokesman, Enrique Santiago, has been categorical in stating that it is practically impossible for his party to continue in an executive that assumes this course. He also urged Pedro Sánchez to stand firm in the face of pressure from NATO, despite the reproaches he may receive, recalling that IU, of which minister Sira Rego is a member, firmly rejects the increase in defence spending. Sumar's presence at Saturday's protest was undoubtedly the most striking. The internal debate within the electoral coalition has once again intensified in the run-up to the NATO summit in The Hague at the end of June, where allied countries are expected to make a new commitment to allocate up to 5% of GDP to defence, up from the current 2%. Labour minister and leader of the left-wing coalition, Yolanda Díaz, has long distanced herself from Sánchez's position, though without breaking the unity of the government. Podemos has also publicly denounced the increase in defence spending approved by the government, saying it is a "betrayal" of progressive principles and a direct alignment with the strategic interests of the United States and NATO. MEP Irene Montero warned on Saturday that, by prioritising rearmament, the central government is laying the foundations for future cuts in social policies, especially affecting public education and programmes such as the Co-Responsibles Plan, aimed at improving family reconciliation. According to a survey by the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS), published in March, 75% of Spaniards are actually in favour of increasing military spending, especially after Donald Trump's re-election.
