Tudjman Extreme Nationalist As Well As Strong Leader

To the editors:

Regarding Berislav Marusic's opinion piece "The Croatian George Washington," (Opinion, Dec. 20) there are some rather simple answers to the question, "Why has there been such a cold response from the West [to the death of Croatian president Franjo Tudjman]?"

Tudjman came to power in Croatia at a critical time in the history of the former Yugoslavia. He won the elections in Croatia by preaching a fiery, intolerant nationalism, rallying Croats to the point of view that only Croats knew how to govern Croats, and that Croatia was for them alone. At a time when ethnic unrest was being stoked on the Serbian side by Slobodan Milosevic, Tudjman jumped in on the other side and denounced Serbs as eagerly as Milosevic denounced other nationalities.

Tudjman did successfully lead Croatia to a break from Yugoslavia, holding off a much more powerful Yugoslavian Army. But in so doing, he perpetrated human rights violations on the Serbian population of Croatia, displacing many, forcing them to swear to loyalty oaths and dismissing them from jobs.

Perhaps most tragically, the radical and implacable nationalism of Tudjman and Milosevic contributed strongly to the disintegration and bloodbath that occurred in the neighboring republic of Bosnia. With their insistence that all Croats or all Serbs be united in one unified, ethnically pure state, they and other narrow-minded leaders tore apart communities in Bosnia that had peacefully coexisted for decades.

Yugoslavia found itself in a precarious, fragile situation entering the '90s. There were in large numbers throughout the country moderate citizens and politicians, Croat, Serb, and of other ethnicities, who hoped to see the country transform itself peacefully into a loosely knit confederation in which all citizens would play a part in governance.

Unfortunately, the extreme nationalists carried the day with their hateful rhetoric and destructive politics, and unleashed the ethnic violence which so horrified the world in Bosnia and still bleeds today in Kosovo. Tudjman deserves respect as a head of state, and for his role in creating a new country, no mean feat under any circumstances. But he does share with many others a great responsibility for the conflagration that shattered so many millions of lives in the former Yugoslavia, and it is entirely comprehensible that the West viewed his passing with reservations.

Jai L. Nair '99-'01

Dec. 20, 1999

Compromise, Have Burton Resign as Vice President

To the editors:

As a distanced observer to the politics of the Undergraduate Council and a former student at Harvard, I was frankly shocked by the appearance of this latest scandal in student government (News, Dec. 20).

Obviously the margin of Fentrice Driskell and John Burton's election makes the situation difficult. A new election is out of the question and would only waste time and result in low participation.

As a neutral party, I recommend the following course of action. Since Driskell won by so much, it would be equivalent to spitting in the face of voters not to allow her to take office. However if there were campaign infractions, and from The Crimson's coverage it seems like there were, someone must be punished.

Therefore I suggest that John Burton not be allowed to take his office as vice president and whoever the second place finisher is be allowed to assume the office instead. Ms. Driskell should also be given immunity from being impeached by the council for anything connected to the campaign finance scandal. People will be alienated and upset if either both Driskell and Burton are allowed to assume office or if they are both barred from holding office. I believe that a compromise such as the one listed above is needed for the good of the already ailing and extremely weak council.

Patrick C. Crosetto

Dec. 20, 1999

The writer is a sophomore at Stanford.