Višnja Starešina: Sveti Rok and the Pelješac Bridge Between Vision and Political Pragmatism

Passing through the Sveti Rok tunnel towards the mainland, I listened to the news about the connection of the two sides of the Pelješac Bridge along with the accompanying political squabble: who is more deserving, who was the visionary, and who was blind to the obvious when it comes to the Pelješac Bridge? These two projects – the tunnel under Velebit that connected mainland Croatia with Dalmatia and the bridge from Komarna to Pelješac that will connect the southern part of Croatia with the rest of the country – are almost model examples for distinguishing vision and strategic planning from opportunistic political pragmatism. The journey from idea and cornerstone to project realization in both cases is extremely instructive.

It is hard to find a more bizarre moment for laying the cornerstone for the Sveti Rok tunnel than the one chosen by then-president Franjo Tuđman – August 16, 1993. At that moment, Croatia was in the most difficult international position since gaining state recognition in 1992: Serbian occupation of a quarter of the territory was turning into a permanent state, Croatia was facing sanctions from the UN Security Council due to the Bosnian-Croatian war, new Yugoslav integration was almost at the door, the northern entrance to today’s tunnel was under occupation, and the southern entrance was on the front line. The cornerstone was laid in a ‘fake’ position because the real one was inaccessible.

Disputes Between Komarna and Brijesta

I admit, I also wondered at that time: ‘What does he need this for now?’ Today I know that it was a stone of vision and determined intent. When drilling began in Velebit in 1996, the stance towards the tunnel became a matter of political alignment: the then-opposition mocked its construction, considering it Tuđman’s fiction, predicting that mushrooms would be grown in it. Today, the Zagreb – Split highway and the development of Dalmatia are unimaginable without the Sveti Rok tunnel.

There are still disputes today about the conceptual originator of the Pelješac Bridge: SDP members attribute it to their Ivan Šprlja, the former prefect of Dubrovnik-Neretva; while HDZ members attribute it to Luka Bebić, their former high party and state official residing in Komarna. The chronology favors Bebić, who spoke about the need for the construction of the Pelješac Bridge in the Parliament in 1998, three years before Šprlja became prefect. However, much more important than establishing who was first seems to me that the Pelješac Bridge did not politically divide, but rather connected Bebić and Šprlja – both ardently advocated for it, demonstrating political maturity when national interest is at stake. Quite a different behavior was shown a few years later by the SDP of Zoran Milanović and the HNS of Vesna Pusić, who built their political platform on opposing the construction of the Pelješac Bridge, portraying it as Sanader’s bridge, a misguided and financially unsustainable project conceived solely due to corruption.

Shallow Politicization with the Pelješac Bridge Project Reached Its Peak in the Kukuriku Coalition’s Election Campaign in 2011, in which it explicitly opposed the construction of the Pelješac Bridge, announcing alternative solutions for connecting Dubrovnik and its hinterland with the rest of Croatia. The then-mayor of Dubrovnik, Andro Vlahušić, particularly stood out by stating that the Pelješac Bridge is ‘a story for little children or fools, to be direct.’ Because, of course, when the party leader Vesna Pusić firmly states that ‘there will be no Pelješac Bridge,’ then the local sheriff must say it even more strongly.

Tuđman Did Not Need EC Instructions

And now let’s resolve the main political dispute these days: who is more deserving for the construction of the Pelješac Bridge? Plenković, Milanović, perhaps Pusić? My answer is: the European Commission. And I will explain why. While it was not as advanced as it is today, the continuity of territory was inscribed in the priorities of the European Union. And in the spring of 2012, a delegation from the EC visited the still fresh Minister of Transport Siniša Hajdaš-Dončić to hear what solutions he proposed for connecting now no longer Croatian territory, but EU territory. Siniša presented them ideas about tunnels, corridors behind Neum, pontoons, wonders… The delegation concluded that the solution is – a bridge. And then Siniša opened his eyes, Pusić recognized the bridge as the only real solution, Vlahušić as ‘the most important strategic project’, Milanović as a priority, Plenković continued the HDZ and European story and brought the project to completion – to the Pelješac Bridge financed with European money. Its importance is now recognized by all. But I wonder if they recognize the connection between the Pelješac Bridge and that ‘fake’ cornerstone for the Sveti Rok tunnel? Can today’s political successors understand why Tuđman, even in the terminal phase of his illness, in mid-October 1999, decided to travel only through the recently breached tunnel on his last journey through Croatia? Without the guidance of the European Commission.

{embed_digitalno_izdanje}{/embed_digitalno_izdanje}