Ethnic Relations, the EU, and Geopolitical Implications: The Cases of Estonia and Croatia

Abstract

This study is a comparison between the patterns for managing ethnic relations in Croatia and Estonia within the context of the EU's eastward enlargement. It sets in context how internal and external actors impact upon the management of ethnic relations in both states. Systemic transformation has generated the circumstances towards the formulation of a consistent and extensive legislation on minority rights in Croatia. Meanwhile, in Estonia, the emphasis on national survival and safeguarding the ‘Estonian’ character of the republic has halted more substantial developments despite the state of social stability.

Notes

1. For more information on this issue, see: Presidency Conclusions, Copenhagen European Council (1993b, p. 7.A.iii), available online at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/ec/pdf/cop_en.pdf (accessed 20 March 2014). Also, see http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm (accessed 22 March 2014).

2. In this study, I refer to ‘ethnic Russians’ on the basis that Russia is the state that acts as the external homeland of Estonia's Russophones.

3. On this issue, see an English-language version of the Croatian Law on Citizenship at: http://www.coe.int (Council of Europe website, accessed 4 April 2014). Also, see: Minority Rights Group International (2003, p. 16).

4. The Law on Territorial Autonomy recognizes the German, Russian, Swedish, and Jewish national minorities (Section 2).

5. Out of a total of 335,000 ethnic Russians, 210,000 were either without Estonian citizenship or with Russian citizenship, by May 1997. For this figure, see: Mole (2012, p. 155).

6. On this issue, see the excerpt of a speech by the Estonian President, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, as cited in Mole (2012, p. 151). Also, see: Kaplinski (1994, p. 13). On the Croatian case, see the concept of nested orientalism as outlined by Ballinger (2004) and Lindstrom (2008).

7. In April 1999, the COE issued a resolution that called upon the Croatian government to: ‘adopt a constitutional law that would revise the suspended provisions of the 1991 constitutional law, taking into account the new realities, by October 1999 at the latest’ Vasilijević (2002, p. 257).

8. On this issue, see: Commission Opinion on Estonia's Application for Membership of the European Union, COM (97) 2006 final, pp. 13–15.

9. By the second half of the 1990s, a growing percentage of Estonians put higher importance on Estonia's membership of NATO rather than Estonia's accession to the EU. On this issue, see: Aalto (2003, pp. 145–146), Pettai (2005, pp. 44–48).

10. On this issue, see also the results of a countrywide survey carried out by the FOKUS agency in November 2003, in: http://www.riigikogu.ee/?rep_id=577301 (accessed 30 March 2014).

11. For a full-text version, see: ‘Ustavni Zakon o Pravima Nacionalnih Manjina’, in Narodne Novine (2000).

12. For a theoretical discussion of ‘multiculturalism versus interculturalism’ see the exposition of the monologic and dialogic ideas of culture in Taylor (1994, pp. 25–74).

13. Sociological micro-surveys have demonstrated that the majority of ethnic Serb refugees from Eastern Slavonia, who were accommodated in Vojvodina during the first half of the 1990s, had at least one Croatian relative. On this issue, see: Nikolić (1994, p. 192).

14. The Estonian law on citizenship (1995) literally defines stateless persons as foreigners who have to apply for residence and work permits. By contrast, the Latvian law on citizenship (1995) has granted stateless persons a ‘special’ status (i.e. neither citizens, nor foreigners). On this issue, see: Järve and Wellmann (1999, p. 25).