On June 6, Slovenian voters will once again head to the polls in the latest of Slovenia’s frequent referenda. This time, however, the subject is far from trivial.

Slovenian voters may open a new chapter in the country’s protracted border dispute with Croatia. Befitting such a major political decision, the pre-referendum campaign is become more energized by the day.

At the referendum, voters will be asked whether to support a border arbitration treaty that would define the border between Slovenia and Croatia. At issue is the maritime border, which was never defined in Yugoslav times, as well as a few disputed stretches of the border on land. The treaty would establish an arbitration panel which would rule on the border, and its decision would be binding for both countries.

Never the Twain Shall Meet

As is frequently the case in Slovenia, the main parties’ positions reveal an almost perfect left-right political split. The daily Delo describes the campaign as “a battle for interpretation fought along ideological lines.”

The centre-right opposition is loudly opposed to the arbitration deal. To them, the deal jeopardises Slovenia’s vital interests. It could, they argue, result in Slovenia losing its access to international waters.

The proponents of the arbitration deal, including the centre-left government parties, argue that, whatever happens, Slovenia is guaranteed access to international waters at the point where Italian and former Yugoslav maritime territories converge. They point to the language of the agreement, which includes a specific mention of a “junction” of Slovenian and international waters, as a cast-iron guarantee that Slovenia will get its way. According to Prime Minister Borut Pahor, “We know what the consequences - these are mostly predictable consequences - will be.”

Gambling Away?

Or maybe not. The opponents are concerned that the “junction” could end up simply being a joint Slovenian-Croatian strip of land between truncated Slovenian territorial waters and the high seas – a mere condominium and a far cry from actual territorial access so vital for Slovenia. They are particularly bothered by the mention of international law in the agreement document. If the decision were made strictly on the basis of international law, not taking the concept of fairness and historic circumstances into account, the arbitration panel would likely follow precedent and split the Bay of Piran right down the middle – a position unacceptable to Slovenia, regardless of any condominiums or rights-of-way. For the sceptics, the status quo is preferable to such a risky gamble. The sentiment expressed by opposition MP Zvonko Černač — that “Slovenia is gambling with an important part of its sovereignty” — is a common argument.

To others, the status quo is no solution. They point out that it is inherently favourable to Croatia, which has exercised de facto control over one-half of the Bay of Piran as well as a number of disputed settlements since independence. The arbitration agreement provides an opportunity for Slovenia to change the status quo before it becomes permanently entrenched. Besides, say the proponents of the deal, there is simply no available alternative that could take place of the current arbitration settlement, no matter how imperfect it may be.

Down to the Wire

The latest polls show the vote in favour of the agreement a few percentage points ahead of the no vote. However, about a third of the prospective voters remain undecided. They will get to determine the outcome, and both sides are busy wooing them. So far, the opponents have appeared to have been more successful. First a group of prominent intellectuals spoke up against the agreement, arguing that it jeopardises Slovenia’s national interest. Then, the Catholic Church seemed to join the “no” chorus, with Ivan Kukar of the Justice and Peace Commission at the Slovenian Bishops’ Conference stating that the Church is not sure that the agreement would result in a just solution for the border dispute. The commission later issued a statement pointing out that Kukar was speaking only for himself, and that the Catholic Church in Slovenia would remain neutral, but it remains to be seen if these expressed reservations will push some Catholic voters into the “no” camp (despite Pope Benedict XVI earlier praise of the treaty).

Finally, the opposition revealed a Croatian document showing that Slovenia had jointly informed the international community about an addendum to the agreement; the note became one of the primary subjects at an emergency session of parliament called by the opposition. The addendum, drafted by Croatia, states that Croatia does not consent to Slovenia’s territorial contact with international waters. If true, Slovenia’s implied acceptance of Croatia’s addendum – a »hidden proviso« in the words of opposition leader Janez Janša — would have been very damaging to the government and would have drastically reduced the possibility of a “yes” vote. However, both Sweden and the US, who had received the addendum, quickly issued statements that Croatia’s addendum was in fact a unilateral addition and did not imply any Slovenian consent. The proponents of the arbitrage agreement breathed a sigh of relief, but the sense of uncertainty generated by this episode could not have helped their argument.

As the date of the referendum approaches, the result is still very much uncertain. The political parties haven’t spent much money on this campaign; after all, referenda are commonplace in Slovenia. Yet, this time is different; the result will affect everything from Slovenia’s external border to its long-term foreign policy. This time, the stakes could hardly be higher.

Direct link to the article