From: josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Irony continues in our history
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:32:39 GMT
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <keWoIlC00WB6MQlco4@andrew.cmu.edu> re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Radu Eugen Edelstein) writes:
>Josip writes:
>Croatia constitution and other laws guarantee its Serbian minority full equality,
>cultural autonomy, etc.  Croatia is not interested in "ruling over" anyone --
>"ruling over" simply does not pay.
>
>
>I say:
>There was an article in Newsweek about Croatians and Serbians in
>neighboring vilages, at the border between Serbia and Croatia, who
>were trying to exchange properties (in one case one whole village
>made an offer to another village).
>Newsweek claimed that it was a reaction to the new legislation
>in Croatia to forbid sale of property and other big items to
>"foreigners".  If this type of limiting legislation is indeed
>in effect, should I expect a correction of your statement on
>your part ?
>
>Rad

First of all: which issue/page of Newsweek are you talking about?
I haven't seen anything like this recently.

Second: I do not see what your point is.  Foreign ownership of
property and equality of all citizens are unrelated issues.

Third: You are talking about citizens of two different countries
trying to exchange citizenship, so that the need to swap property 
follows.  

Real estate exchanges were a standard practice in former
Yugoslavia because (1) 22.4% sales tax favors exchanges,
(2) mortgages are unavailable so people have to pay cash and
virtually nobody has that much money.  So, "exchange" vs. "sale"
distinction is not due to laws, but to economic conditions.

I am not aware of any new legislation in Croatia regarding real estate
transfers, but if there is any, it is probably based on existing laws.
In addition, you'd have to consider the laws in Serbia which are
equally important in this kind of transaction.

Former Yugoslavia had laws in effect limiting foreign ownership of
property.  Foreign companies were limited to 49% or less of each venture;
the controlling share had to be domestic.  Foreign ownership of
real estate in former Yugoslavia was not allowed.  If anything, 
Croatia has an interest in relaxing these restrictions, to bring in
foreign investment and to allow expatriates to own property.

What has this got to do with protecting equality and rights of all 
Croatian citizens?  They are not restricted in any way by such laws.
What I wanted to say is that the supreme law of the land guarantees
equality to all citizens.  If you'd like, I can dig up a file
containing the Croatian Constitution.  I'm not a lawyer, but the EC
commission of experts has studied the issue of minority protection,
and Croatia has adopted clarifications they had suggested.  

All of this could have been negotiated without bloodshed.  Croatia
has sensibly attempted to reassure its Serbian minority, and suitable
arrangements could have been reached without war.  The war happened
not because Serbia wanted this minority protected, but because Serbs
in general wanted to continue dominating Croatia.

Josip