Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo ima neke važne povijesne veze sa Srbijom i Crnom Gorom. U Drugom svjetskom ratu bili smo saveznici, odnosno, kako me na to upozorio ministar vanjskih poslova, bili smo saveznici i u Prvom svjetskom ratu. Cilj nam je da odnosi Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva sa Srbijom i Crnom Gorom opet postanu tradicionalno bliski te da Srbija i Crna Gora opet postanu predvodnice u toj regiji.”
Rekao je to početkom 2005. tadašnji šef britanske diplomacije Jack Straw na susretu s predsjednikom Srbije i Crne Gore Svetozarom Marovićem. Crna Gora kasnije je postala samostalna država, ali britanski je stav prema Srbiji, dakako, isti. Stoga nije bilo teško zaključiti na koju zemlju misli zastupnica njemačkog CDU u Europskom parlamentu Doris Pack kad je ovih dana posve nediplomatski, oštro i izravno upozorila: “Mislim da se u Europskom vijeću nalazi jedna zemlja koja se odnosi jako neprijateljski prema Hrvatskoj i njezinu pristupanju Europskoj uniji i koja želi približiti Hrvatsku zajedničkom ulasku u Uniju sa Srbijom, što je nemoguće, jer Srbija nije ni počela pregovore o članstvu.” Dakako da je riječ o Velikoj Britaniji.
Navedena Strawova izjava samo je jedna u nizu koja dokazuje poseban britanski odnos prema Srbiji, a onda i prema Hrvatskoj. Velika Britanija previše je sredstava i energije uložila u neprestane planove za nekakve zapadnobalkanske asocijacije, planove, za neke jugosfere, pa je teško očekivati da će samo tako od svega odustati. Štoviše, do danas nije provedena službena istraga o britanskoj ulozi u događajima u BiH od 1992. do 1995. godine. Ne da nijedna britanska glava nije pala, nego su tadašnji britanski igrači dobili plemićke titule te su zauzeli važne položaje u politici, znanosti i gospodarstvu.
U otvaranju pregovora s Hrvatskom u lipnju 2004. te rješavanju statusa Kosova prepoznata je opasnost za regionalnu dominaciju Srbije. Stoga je već potkraj 2004., primjerice, direktorica odsjeka za istočni Jadran u britanskome ministarstvu vanjskih poslova Karen Pierce naglasila: “Mi bismo, kao britanska vlada, bili spremni pokušati prečacem progurati Srbiju kroz neke mehanizme Europske zajednice i NATO-a.” Britanske stavove još je izravnije tumačio bivši BBC-ov novinar i pisac Misha Glenny koji tendenciozno i pogrešno raspad Jugoslavije pripisuje sukobu hrvatske i srpske elite. Glenny drži da “jedino demokratska i gospodarska obnova i Srbije i Hrvatske može jamčiti... nov stabilan politički poredak u toj regiji” te u pogledu sigurnosti Srbiju smatra važnijom od Hrvatske.
Ne treba uopće spominjati koliko se i kako britanska politika prema Srbiji ogleda i na Haaškom sudu. Najbolje se to pokazalo u sudskom procesu protiv Miloševića koji je bio obično ruglo od suđenja. Primjerice, britanski sudac prvi je odobrio Miloševiću da vodi svoju obranu, a i dvojica tzv. prijatelja suda bili su Britanci. A da se ne govori koliko je neopravdano stavljanje na istu razinu Karadžića, Mladića i Gotovine. Britanski dvostruki kriteriji postaju jasni kad se ocjenjuju odnosi Srbije i Hrvatske s Haaškim sudom. Primjerice, britansko ministarstvo vanjskih poslova Srbiju hvali zbog poduzimanja koraka koji vode suradnji s Haagom, dok se Hrvatskoj govori što mora učiniti. U pisanju “profila” Srbije o odnosima s Haagom ocjene su uglavnom opisne, a neki važni podaci jednostavno ispušteni, dok se u pogledu Hrvatske iznose oštre ocjene i sudovi.
Niz je argumenata u korist izjave Doris Pack. Dio specijalnog rata protiv Hrvatske jest i izvješće Amnesty Internationala o suđenjima za ratne zločine u Hrvatskoj te nova političko-pravosudna agresija Srbije na Hrvatsku i BiH. Britanski i srbijanski interesi jasni su, ali koji su naši? Držanje glava u pijesku? Ili neki odobravaju Britancima? Zapravo, domaći politički kaos najveći je hrvatski neprijatelj!
Nasi aktivni Hrvati sa Visit Croatia (www.visit-croatia.co.uk) preveli kolumnu na engleski, pa ju mozete koristiti ako zelite: Britain is an enemy? The United Kingdom has some important historical ties with Serbia and Montenegro. In WWII we were allies, or, as the [UK] Minister of Foreign Affairs informed me, we were allies also during the First World War. Our goal is the relationship between the United Kingdom and Serbia and Montenegro once again becomes traditionally close and that Serbia and Montenegro again become leaders in the region. \" The then head of British diplomacy, Jack Straw, said this in early 2005, at a meeting with the President of Serbia and Montenegro, Svetozar Marovic. Montenegro later became an independent state, but the British attitude towards Serbia, of course, remained the same. Therefore, it was not difficult to conclude which country the German MEP in the European Parliament, Doris Pack, meant recently quite in undiplomatic, sharp and language directly warned: \"I think that in the Council of Europe is a country that is very hostile towards Croatia and its accession to the EU, and that country wants that Croatia and Serbia have entry into the Union at the same time, which is impossible, because Serbia has not yet started accession negotiations.\" Of course it is about the UK. Straw\'s statement is only one of many examples that proves the British special relationship with Serbia, and also its relationship with Croatia. United Kingdom has invested too many resources and too much energy in perpetual plans for some Western Balkan association, some kind of Yugosphere, so it is unlikely to expect that they would give this up. Moreover, even up to today, an official investigation into Britain\'s role in the events in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 has not conducted. That not one British head fell, but that the main British players [of that time] got titles and achieved important positions in politics, science and economy. The opening of negotiations with Croatia in June 2004 and the solution of the Kosovo issue is recognized as a threat to the regional dominance of Serbia. Therefore, already in late 2004, for example, the department manager for the Eastern Adriatic in the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Karen Pierce, stressed: \"We, as the British government, are willing to try to provide some shortcuts for Serbia through some mechanism of the European Union and NATO.\" British attitudes were even more directly interpreted through former BBC reporter and writer Misha Glenny who intentionally and erroneously attributed to the disintegration of the Yugoslavia to the Croatian and Serbian elite. Glenny argues that \"only democratic and economic reconstruction both in Serbia and Croatia can guarantee ... new stable political order in the region\" and the security of Serbia is considered more important than of Croatia. We don\'t even have to mention how British politics towards Serbia is reflected at the Hague Tribunal. This is best demonstrated in the trial of Milosevic, which was usually a mockery of the trial. For example, a British judge was the first to approve that Milosevic could conduct his own defense, and two so-called friends of the court were British. And not to mention how unjust it is to put on the same level the prosecution of Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina. British double standards become clear when evaluating relations between Serbia and Croatia at the Hague Tribunal. For example, the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs of praises Serbia for taking the steps to cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, while Croatia was told what to do. In writing a \"profile\" of Serbia\'s relations with The Hague marks are mainly vague, and some important data is simply missng, while at the same time in respect to Croatia, there were harsh assessments and judgments. A series of arguments to confirm Doris Pack\'s statement. Part of a special war against Croatia is also the Amnesty International report on the war crimes trials in Croatia, and the new political-judicial pressure by Serbia against Croatia and Bosnia. British and Serb interests are clear, but what are ours? Digging one\'s head in the sand? Or that some people approve the British viewpoint? Indeed, the domestic political chaos is Croatia\'s greatest enemy!