Zašto je sudac u zapisnik izjavio da Zvonka Bušića ne smatra ni teroristom ni zločincem?

Zvonko Bušić vjerovao je kako dobre stvari trebaju biti dostupne svima. Ono za što je živio, radio i vjerovao, za što je podnio žrtvu, objavljeno je u knjizi “Zdravo oko”, koja je dostupna na Amazonu. pod nazivom “All Visible Things”. Poglavlje po poglavlje, kap krvi po kap krvi i život dan po dan objavljujemo svaka dva tjedna u 33 dijela – samo s jednim ciljem! Trajat će!

DIJALOG

“Zle rijeći nisu samo po sebi zle nego svojim zlom truju ljudske duše”, Platon, Dijalozi, Phaedo.

“Dijalog nije moguće s nekim koji umjesto da traži istinu tvrdi da je već posjeduje”, Romain Rolland.

Kao što je već ranije spomenuo, Zvonko je najveći afinitet osjećao prema Platonovu viđenju uređenja naroda i društva. Međutim, trebalo je neko vrijeme prije no što je počeo zagovarati to viđenje, i to ne iz očitih filozofskih razloga, nego zbog običnog prijevoda: „Otprilike dvije godine prije mojega izlaska iz zatvora, naručio sam i primio Platonove Zakone, knjigu koju je sa starogrčkoga na engleski preveo Thomas Z. Pangle. Prije puno godina pročitao sam Zakone u nekom drugom prijevodu, ali tada ta knjiga nije na me ostavila naročit dojam. Tu sam knjigu s užitkom kuhao na ‘tihoj vatri’ punih četrdeset dana, i to svakodnevno po dva-tri sata, i zaključio sam da to nije samo najbolja Platonova knjiga, nego i jedan od najpoučnijih dijaloga u povijesti. Također sam zaključio da se današnjem svijetu crno piše ako se u potrazi za pravicama i istinom ne vratimo Sokratovim dijalozima”.

Važnost dijaloga kao puta do istinske mudrosti tema je koju je Zvonko stalno ponavljao. Samo kroz dijalog, rekao bi, moguće je predočiti vlastita mišljenja na analizu i istodobno čuti tuđa. Kasnije će prevladati ono s najjačim, najopravdanijim argumentima. Bez dijaloga nema prave razmjene ideja niti mogućnosti da se raskrinkaju vrdala i manipulatori činjenicama. Izostanak dijaloga u današnjoj Hrvatskoj, i svijetu u cjelini, bilo je stalni trn u Zvonkovu oku.

Međutim, njegova frustracija zbog izostanka dijaloga nije nastala kad se vratio kući, nego tijekom našeg sudskog procesa 1976. Duga zabilješka koju je napisao prije mnogo godina jasno objašnjava važnost koju je Zvonko pripisivao dijalogu kao moralnom, etičkom i filozofskom sredstvu. Počinje navodom iz jednog drevnog hinduističkog teksta, Bhagavad Gite, o kojem smo često raspravljali: „Nije važna priroda djela, nego mentalna namjera njegova počinitelja”.

Zvonko je bio gotovo ushićen otkrivši tu misao: „Dobro se sjećam kad sam prvi put pročitao tu prastaru mudrost. Bila je kasna jesen godine Gospodnje 1986. u zatvoru Otisville na brdovitoj tromeđi država New York, Pennsylvania i Delaware, dakle nakon prvih deset godina moje robije. Tih sam dana donio odluku da moram pobjeći iz zatvora. Toliko me ta mudrost oduševila i tako me se duboko dojmila da sam nad njom zastao i sebi bezbroj puta ponovio, to je to, to je formula za pravedno rješenje svih međuljudskih i međunarodnih odnosa, glavno moralno mjerilo zemaljskog i nebeskog svijeta po kojem Bog svima sudi! To je ujedno ključ koji otvara srce i dušu svakog pojedinog čovjeka, ne samo da bi drugi mogli u njih zaviriti i upoznati ga, nego, što je daleko važnije, da on konačno susretne samoga sebe, upozna se i shvati što se sve krije u dubinama njegova srca i duše. To je preduvjet da bi čovjek dobio najtežu bitku u životu, da bi osvojio najveću pobjedu, pobjedu nad samim sobom. Ovdje se postavlja pitanje jesu li ljudi, posebno oni koji su prekoračili crtu, jer takvi nas najviše zanimaju, spremni drugima otvoriti svoje srce i dušu i reći svoju ‘mentalnu namjeru’ i postoje li način i metoda dokazivanja i provjeravanja prave istine.

Svi mi smrtnici imamo svoje subjektivne istine i koliko god da su, kako u prošlosti tako i danas, oni najmoćniji, najspretniji, najsamopouzdaniji i najoholiji ostalima nametali svoje viđenje i svoj svjetonazor kao onaj pravi, svoju istinu kao pravu i objektivnu, ostaje činjenica da je prava i objektivna istina Božja domena koju mi smrtnici nikada nećemo niti možemo sasvim shvatiti i doznati.

Duboko sam uvjeren da je dijalog i to onaj platonovsko-sokratovski dijalog, jedan i jedini način na koji bismo se mi smrtnici mogli koliko toliko približiti Bogu i objektivnoj istini, a usput bismo jedni druge bolje shvaćali, lakše opraštali, manje griješili, pravednije kažnjavali te bolje i normalnije živjeli. Također sam uvjeren da je gubitak tradicije tih i takvih dijaloga ključni problem današnjega čovječanstva”.

Kao većina smrtnika, i Zvonko je osjećao potrebu da bude shvaćen, najprije da sam sebe shvati a onda da ga i drugi shvate, a za to je bio potreban dijalog.

„Teško mi je i nekako mi se čini neprimjereno govoriti i pisati o sebi, ali imam potrebu biti shvaćen i želju podučiti druge da iz mojih priča i mojega otvaranja srca nauče nešto o sebi, da bi se lakše mogli nositi sa životom i njegovim problemima”.

Kada se kasnije prisjećao našeg suđenja, bilo mu je bolno jasno da nije postojao nikakav dijalog i da mu je bilo nemoguće biti „shvaćen”. U svojim je bilješkama zapisao: „Ako počinitelj nekog čina želi kazati i pojasniti što ga je motiviralo ili natjeralo da učini to što je učinio, samo oni smrtnici koji ga saslušaju i shvate stječu moralno pravo kazniti ga, oprostiti mu ili ga nagraditi. Bio sam vrlo iznenađen, zapravo šokiran, kada sam spoznao da mi na sudu nije dopušteno iznijeti razloge i motive za otmicu. Pa zaboga, zar nema nikakve razlike jesam li to učinio iz obijesti, za novac, ili iz nekih plemenitih razloga? Zar nema razlike ako čovjeka vode pobude da spasi nečiji život ili svoj narod ili – kakav je to svijet, kakav sud?”

Na primjer, zašto nije bio dopušten iskaz svjedoka obrane, Bernarda L. Diamonda, psihologa s Berkeleya? Diamond je bio stručni svjedok koji bi opširno govorio o dugoročnim društveno-psihološkim čimbenicima koji su odigrali ključnu ulogu u Zvonkovu razmišljanju i ponašanju, i time bi dao uvid u Zvonka kao osobu. Diamondovo mišljenje bilo je da „život pod pritiskom i stalnim prijetnjama smrću, kao i svaki abnormalan uvjet koji umanjuje mentalne ili emocionalne procese, pojedinca mogu lišiti slobode izbora koju mi držimo preduvjetom krivične odgovornosti. To smanjenje može biti izazvano fiziološkim, emotivnim, društvenim ili kulturnim razlozima, porota bi tad trebala odlučiti u kojoj je mjeri ono utjecalo na počinjenje nezakonitog djela, odnosno bi li bilo nepravedno smatrati optuženika krivično odgovornim”.

Zvonkov strah da će ga ubiti, stalna napetost u kojoj je živio, prijetnje smrću? To su nedvojbeno bili abnormalni uvjeti! Ali na Zvonkov šok i očaj, Diamondov iskaz proglašen je „irelevantnim”. Zrakoplov je otet, ali nije važno zašto! Zar nikoga nije briga? Dijaloga uopće nije bilo. Tu je bila i tvrdnja tužitelja da je eksplozija bombe bila dio plana. Novine su tu tvrdnju poslušno prenijele kao činjenicu, bez obzira na njezin idiotizam. Da je postojao dijalog, kako bi pobili sljedeće – ako je Zvonko doista „planirao” da bomba eksplodira, zašto ju je ostavio u ormariću s letkom za koji je želio da bude objavljen u svim većim medijima? Na kraju krajeva, objavljivanje letka s pojedinostima ubojstava, zatočenja i zlostavljanja Hrvata i drugih pod jugoslavenskom diktaturom bio je jedini cilj otmice.

Da je Zvonko želio da bomba eksplodira, letak koji se nalazio u ormariću s bombom bio bi uništen i otmica zrakoplova bila bi posve besmislena. Međutim, nitko iz medija nije istaknuo ovu očitu proturječnost u tvrdnji tužitelja jer dijalog nije bio dopušten. Čak se pojavila apsurdna priča s naslovnice, objavljena tijekom suđenja koja je tvrdila da je Zvonko odgovoran za još jedan neriješen slučaj u zračnoj luci La Guardia nekoliko godina prije, u kojem je poginulo mnogo ljudi. Sudac se rasrdio i bojao se da će ta priča negativno utjecati na našu porotu i dovesti do poništenja suđenja. Zahtijevao je objašnjenje, navodeći da ne postoji nikakav dokaz za tu tvrdnju. Kako su mediji mogli tako nešto objaviti, znajući da nema dokaza kojima bi to potkrijepili? Da ih je bilo, Zvonko bi sigurno bio optužen za taj zločin.

Pitanja je bilo mnogo, ali nije bilo nijednoga odgovora i ni najmanje dijaloga, odnosno nikad nismo doznali tko je dopustio da ta tvrdnja bude objavljena, koji su dokazi predočeni, tko je iznio sporne navode, zašto naši odvjetnici nisu bili kontaktirani kako bi reagirali, zašto nikad nije objavljena isprika i tako dalje. Zato što je današnji svijet takav, rekao bi Zvonko.

Svima je sve dopušteno i nitko ni za što nije odgovoran. Naravno da mediji, barem oni mainstream, nisu imali pravu slobodu pisanja, čak i da su ju željeli. U Americi jednako kao i u Hrvatskoj postoji „službeno mišljenje” koja ne dopušta dijalog o određenim pitanjima, a naše je bilo jedno od tih pitanja. Jugoslavija je bila važan saveznik Sjedinjenih Američkih Država! Da je u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama bio dopušten dijalog, o pitanju hrvatske neovisnosti bilo bi moguće otvoreno raspravljati u svim većim medijima i na drugim javnim forumima. Kako su stvari stajale, jedini način da se taj dijalog nametne u zemlji „slobode govora” bila je otmica zrakoplova. Kako ironično.

Premda nam to nije bila posebna utjeha, uvijek smo iznova voljeli čitati Glupijadu, The Dunciad, sjajnu satiru Alexandera Popea, jednu od naših najdražih, u kojoj se obračunava sa svojim glavnim baukom – tiskom: Ni božanski trak ne osta, ni iskra od ljudi! Gle, Kaose, strašno ti se carstvo vrnulo; Prije neplodne ti riječi svjetlo se trnulo. Ruka ti, silni Anarhu, zastor spušta sama; I sve pokopa posvemašnja tama. Kako istinito! Dovoljno je otvoriti većinu novina ili časopisa, ili uključiti televizor, i eto – kaos, tama, manjak kreativnosti i čovječnosti, anarhija, zlo – „Svjetlo umire pred tvojom nestvaralačkom riječi”.

Kada se Zvonko najzad vratio iz zatvora, brzo je postao svjestan manjka dijaloga u današnjoj Hrvatskoj. Izjave Vlade, na primjer, prihvaćale su se bez ikakve rasprave ili mogućnosti iznošenja suprotnih gledišta. Jedan od primjera bio je ulazak u Europsku uniju. Je li to bilo u interesu Hrvatske ili nije? Prema tvrdnjama Vlade i većine medija, za Hrvatsku je to bilo dobro. Doista? Gdje su bili javni forumi na tu temu, okrugli stolovi, iznošenja suprotnih argumenata? Zašto uvozimo hranu koju sami možemo uzgojiti u plodnoj slavonskoj žitnici? Češnjak iz Kine, voće iz Grčke!? I što je s pomoći Međunarodnog monetarnog fonda? Je li to nešto što je Hrvatskoj od koristi ili nije? Ponovno, ni o tome nije bilo dijaloga, iako je o podmuklim makinacijama MMF-a i njegovih podružnica diljem svijeta napisano mnoštvo knjiga i studija.

Primjerice, Doktrina šoka autorice Naomi Klein?, Globalizacija i dvojbe koje izaziva nobelovca Josepha Stiglitza, Ispovijesti ekonomskog ubojice Johna Perkinsa, i sve su doživjele hrvatsko izdanje. Na osobnijoj razini, Zvonka je često uzrujavalo što postoji malo ili nimalo dijaloga o tome što je „terorizam”. U većini zemalja postoji novinarski etički kodeks koji brani korištenje subjektivnih izraza kao što je „terorist”. Na kraju krajeva, to je subjektivno, a ne stvarno, činjenicama potvrđeno određenje. Jer je „jednima terorist, drugima borac za slobodu”.

Osim toga, kako se mijenja politička klima, terorist najednom može postati borac za slobodu u očima cijeloga svijeta, ponekad u roku jednog ili dva dana, za što je Mandela savršen primjer. Bio je osuđen za više od 200 terorističkih djela, na primjer za sabotažu u predgrađu Rivonia, i javno je zagovarao nasilje u promicanju svojih političkih ciljeva, čemu se Zvonko protivio, ali nakon što je pušten iz zatvora, veličan je kao svetac i mučenik. Čak je 1993. godine dobio Nobelovu nagradu za mir!

Kada je Zvonko predložio raspravu o tom pitanju s nekima od onih koji su ga ocrnjivali u medijima, odnosno, jesu li teroristi Mandela, Tito, Menachem Begin, pripadnici Crvene brigade, svi su ga odbili navodeći da ih ne zanima debata s „teroristom”. Možda ih je još manje zanimalo da javnosti budu raskrinkani kao licemjeri i intelektualci „lake kategorije” (iako se mora reći da je jedan od njih bio neumjereno pretio).

Kada je riječ o terorizmu, često smo razgovarali o jednom drugom fenomenu koji je po Zvonkovu mišljenju također predstavljao teroristički čin. Ako je terorizam čin koji u ljudima budi osjećaj straha i prepasti, rekao bi Zvonko, i ostavlja trajne tragove na njihovoj psihi, što rezultira emocionalnim i mentalnim stresom i drugim nepoželjnim posljedicama, tad bi se postupci banaka i lihvara svakako trebali smatrati terorizmom! Njihovi postupci redovito izazivaju strah u srcima svih poštenih obitelji kojima prijeti opasnost da u ime zarade i pohlepe izgube sve što imaju! Sjetite se samo nedavnog užasa sa švicarskim frankom.

A što je s novinarima, „stručnjacima” riječi bez imalo odgovornosti prema istini? Oni koji riječi upotrebljavaju bezobzirno i bez savjesti zapravo su „kao tirani, ubijaju i opljačkaju i izgnaju svakoga koga im se prohtije”, kako je rekao Sokrat u Gorgiji. Jesu li i oni teroristi?, pitao bi Zvonko. I s pravom je to pitao. Zvonka je posebno mučilo što se u većini medijskih priloga o našem slučaju slučajna smrt policajca predočavala kao glavni element akcije, a zapravo je bila posve neočekivana i neplanirana, i očito ni na koji način dio otmice zrakoplova. Što je bila glavna svrha otmice, njezin cilj? To je nedostajalo u razgovoru, na sramotu “novinara”, pa čak ponekad i onih koji su suosjećali s našim ciljem.

Jedina svrha otmice bila je javno obznaniti ubojstva, zatočenja i ugnjetavanje Hrvata i drugih naroda unutar jugoslavenske diktature, što nije bilo moguće ostvariti bez počinjenja nezakonitog djela. Očito pitanje koje je ostalo nepostavljeno glasilo je – Zašto je bilo potrebno počiniti nezakonito djelo kako bi „slobodni i neovisni zapadni mediji” objavili istinu? Jesu li „slobodni i neovisni zapadni mediji” uopće bili slobodni? Zašto u medijima, a posebno u hrvatskim medijima, nije bilo razgovora o tome? Zašto je težište bilo na policajčevoj smrti, a nikad na razlozima iz kojih je uopće došlo do otmice zrakoplova, razlozima iz kojih je petero mladih ljudi u najboljim godinama života bilo spremno otići u zatvor zbog svojih ideala?

Što je, na primjer, pisalo u Deklaraciji koju su bacili iz zrakoplova? Je li se vodila rasprava ili razgovor o njezinu sadržaju? Zašto je sudac u zapisnik izjavio da Zvonka ne smatra ni teroristom ni zločincem? Koji su bili njegovi razlozi? O tome nitko nije pisao. Zašto? Zato što bi pravi dijalog raskrinkao medije ne kao sluge istine ili javnosti, nego kao sluge drugih nečasnih gospodara, sluge njihovih podlih pobuda ili kao neprofesionalne, jednostavno lijene ili nezainteresirane.

Kada bi u medijima bila objavljena još jedna manipulacija ili izostavljene osnovne činjenice, Zvonko bi bio strašno frustriran, ponajviše ga je mučilo što je većina Hrvatske još uvijek mislila da je eksploziv eksplodirao istoga trena kada je policija otvorila ormarić, što nije istina. Eksploziv je eksplodirao četiri i pol sata kasnije, dok se nalazio u rukama „stručnjaka” na službenoj lokaciji za detonaciju izvan grada. Međutim, kako je vrijeme prolazilo, počeo je prihvaćati drugi stav, za njegovo mentalno stanje manje škodljiv, stav koji je zagovarao sveti Augustin, a prema kojemu čovjek „ne treba težiti da bude shvaćen, nego da shvati”.

Zato se Zvonko nastojao staviti u kožu svojih klevetnika, pokazati empatiju koju je smatrao važnom osobinom koja čovjeka razlikuje od životinje. Zvonko je vjerovao da nitko namjerno ne čini zlo, nego postupa prema onome što drži ispravnim, i da takve ljude ne treba psovati, nego im pomoći. Svatko ima svoju tugu i svoju istinu, govorio je. Moram priznati da sam ja teže praštala. Zvonko je uvijek imao više empatije od mene. Zar se ne mogu potruditi da me barem malo shvate? – pitao bi.

Ja se NJIH silno trudim shvatiti, a ne osuditi! Bio je povrijeđen, duboko povrijeđen i razočaran jer mu je, bez obzira na razlog iz kojega je proveo trideset i dvije godine u zatvoru i podupire li čovjek njegove postupke ili ih kritizira, toliko često bilo uskraćeno obično ljudsko suosjećanje i razumijevanje zbog onoga što je pretrpio. Kada bismo raspravljali o medijima općenito i tome kako su iznevjerili javnost, Zvonko bi naglasio da to ni u kom slučaju nije nešto novo.

Prije više od sto godina, John Swinton, glavni i odgovorni urednik New York Timesa tijekom Američkog građanskog rata, i kasnije novinar-križar u pokretu za društvenu i radnu reformu, o „slobodi tiska” imao je reći sljedeće: „U ovoj fazi svjetske povijesti u Americi ne postoji nešto što bismo nazvali neovisan tisak. To znamo i vi i ja. Među vama ne postoji nitko tko se usuđuje napisati svoje iskreno mišljenje, a da to i učinite, unaprijed znate da se nikad ne bi pojavilo u tisku. Primam tjednu plaću da svoja iskrena mišljenja ne objavim u novinama za koje radim. I vi dobivate sličnu plaću za slične stvari, i svatko od vas tko bi bio dovoljno budalast da napiše iskreno mišljenje našao bi se na ulici u potrazi za drugim poslom. Da dopustim da se moja iskrena mišljenja pojave u samo jednom izdanju mojih novina, u roku od 24 sata ostao bih bez posla. Zadaća novinara jest uništiti istinu, bezočno lagati, izopačiti, klevetati, puzati pred nogama Mamona i prodavati svoju domovinu i svoj narod za kruh svagdašnji. To dobro znate i vi i ja, i kakva je glupost ovo nazdravljanje neovisnom tisku? Mi smo obične lutke, oni povlače konce, a mi plešemo. Naši talenti, naše mogućnosti i naši životi svi su vlasništvo drugih ljudi. Mi smo intelektualne prostitutke”.

“Ništa se nije promijenilo”, znao mi je reći Zvonko, dapače, danas je još gore jer su globalisti mnogo jači, nego u Swintonovo vrijeme. Veća je i ljubav korumpiranih novinara prema novcu i manjak integriteta, dodala bih ja. No kad je riječ o dijalogu, Zvonko je vjerovao da bi čovjek morao voditi trajni dijalog i sa samim sobom. Kada god nešto učinimo, rekao bi, moramo preispitati ima li taj naš postupak smisla, je li razuman ili je samo obmana koja bi nas trebala uvjeriti da činimo nešto vrijedno.

S ljudima je o tome često razgovarao, s nekima se i prepirao. Jedna od stvari koje su ga uzrujavale bio je broj raznih komemoracija. Je li to dobro ili loše? Donose li konkretne rezultate, doprinose li boljoj budućnosti Hrvatske, mijenjaju li katastrofalan smjer kojim je država krenula? Postoji li dijalog o njihovoj učinkovitosti? Činilo se je da svaki drugi dan dobiva obavijest ili poziv na neku komemoraciju na nekom groblju, u Slavoniji ili Dalmaciji, Zagorju, Sloveniji ili negdje drugdje.

Mala skupina ljudi, uvijek istih, otputovala bi do groblja, položila vijenac, odslušala nekoliko govora i otišla kući. Zašto ne postoji jedan veliki, godišnji, simboličan skup u spomen na takve događaje iz prošlosti, upitao bi, komemoracija koja bi privukla tisuće, zainteresirala medije, pokrenula raspravu? Znam da je važno odati počast i da je ljudima to potrebno, ali ne svakih nekoliko dana. Što se time postiže za Hrvatsku danas, za budućnost? Zašto se ta energija, to vrijeme, taj trud i uložen novac ne udruže kako bi se stvorilo nešto novo, kako bi se stvari promijenile nabolje, kako bi se lobiralo za promjenu vlade, ili možda financiralo obrazovanje nekog siromašnog studenta?

Zvonko je tvrdio da će sve te peticije, komemoracije i demonstracije na kraju biti beskorisne ako se vlada ne promijeni, a vladu možemo promijeniti samo ujedinjenjem snaga! Zvonka je zabrinjavala i hiperprodukcija knjiga koje nitko ne čita. Najednom je svatko bio pisac, kao da je pisati jednostavno kao uvesti konac u iglu, i svatko je imao reći nešto važno, ali često bez spisateljskog dara da to pretoči u riječi. Zbog toga gomila knjiga ostaje neprodana i, što je još važnije, nepročitana, a autori su na kraju primorani podijeliti ih kako bi skupljale prašinu na nečijoj polici ili završile u kanti za smeće. Njegovi argumenti ponekad su bili prihvaćeni, ponekad ne. Ponekad bi ga čak kritizirali i napadali zbog njegovih mišljenja, ali barem se bacio u bitku, bez obzira na ishod.

Kritika ga nije smetala jer kritika vodi u dijalog. U svojim je bilješkama zapisao riječi bivšega predsjednika Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, Teddyja Roosevelta, koje su mu se svidjele: „Nije važan kritičar, nije važan čovjek koji ističe kako je snažan čovjek pogriješio, ili gdje je mogao postupiti bolje. Zasluge pripadaju onome tko je doista u borilištu, onome čije je lice zamrljano prašinom, znojem i krvlju, onome tko se junački bori, tko griješi i uvijek iznova podbaci; tko na kraju upozna trijumf velikog postignuća, i tko u najgorem slučaju, ako ne uspije, barem propadne s velikom smionošću, tako da njegovo mjesto nikad neće biti među onim hladnim i plahim dušama koje nisu upoznale ni pobjedu ni poraz”.

Davne 1987., na sličan način odgovorio je i jednom hrvatskom intelektualcu koji živi u Americi, a koji mu je napisao da je žalostan zbog Zvonkove „teške sudbine”, ali da istodobno smatra da je otmica zrakoplova otežala promicanje hrvatskih interesa u svijetu, da je „naštetila” hrvatskoj stvari.

Zvonko mu je, naravno, odgovorio i otvorio dijalog o toj temi: „Mnogo je toga u ljudskom životu i u duši čovjeka što ne možemo riječima izreći ni očima vidjeti, niti kome pokazati, a to ipak počesto određuje smjer i sudbinu pojedinaca i naroda. Međutim, ako to ne vide oči, vidi srce, a drukčija srca drukčije vide. Vidi se da su Vaše nade moje želje i tu se možda krije tajna Vaše pasivnosti i moje aktivnosti. Nada je bliže intelektu, dok je želja proizvod srca. Intelekt (um) je u službi srca, ili bi trebao biti, jer u srcu je život i ono zna cilj dok mu um služi kao oči da ne posrne. Ako pak um ne služi srcu, onda je isčupan iz svojega korijena i može služiti svemu i svačemu, i najčešče se podaje za slavom i prodaje za veće novce i tako postaje intelektualna prostitutka, čovjek koji mrzi vlastito porijeklo i prezire svoj vlastiti narod… Ako bih se ja s Vama i suglasio da ste Vi i Vama slični intelektualci i kulturnjaci u našem hrvatskom narodnom vrtu sve slatko voće i mirisno cvijeće, a ja i meni slični ekstremisti samo drača i trnovina, onda Vas moram podsjetiti da bi sve to hrvatsko voće i cvijeće već davno pobrstile tuđe krave i koze, da se nisu našle hrvatske trnove oštrice koje su im zabadale zazubice. Ne, nisam ja protiv kulture i inteligencije, dapače, ja Vas razumijem i razumjeti znači i oprostiti, ali mi je čudno da Vi kao Hrvat i intelektualac niste mene mogli bolje razumjeti. Pa nije vrag da naš Matoš nije visoko cijenio kulturu i pamet, ali ipak je uskliknuo ‘dok je srca, bit će i Kroacije’“.

Sljedeće pismo tog intelektualca bilo je u posve drukčijem tonu, čak i pomalo apologetsko. Zvonko i on na kraju su se sporazumjeli i otad nadalje ostali u pristojnim odnosima. Naravno, nije uvijek bilo tako. I nadalje je postojao manjak zanimanja za dijalog u krugovima kojima je dijalog najviše trebao. Dijalog bi, nažalost, mnoge od onih koji su težili za moći izložio kao prevarante i manipulatore. Tako je i danas.

Julienne Bušić

EN

Zvonko believed that good things should be shared with everyone. What he lived, worked for and believed in, what he sacrificed for, is presented in his book “All Visible Things”, which is available on Amazon. Chapter by chapter, drop of blood by drop of blood, and life day by day in 33 parts – with only one goal! He will live on…

Dialogue

As Zvonko has mentioned before, Plato’s vision for the organization of people and society was the one for which he felt the greatest affinity. It took awhile, though, before he became an advocate of this vision, and not for the obvious reasons. “About two years before my release from prison, I ordered the book Plato’s Laws, which had been translated from the classical Greek into English by Thomas Z. Pangle. I had read this book many years ago, in a different translation, but it hadn’t left any particular impression on me back then. I let this new version cook “on low heat” for a full 40 days, reading from it daily for about 2-3 hours, and concluded that it was not only Plato’s best book but one of the most instructive dialogues in history. I also concluded that it doesn’t bode well for today’s world unless we return, in our search for truth and justice, to Socrates’ dialogues.”

Zvonko always returned to the importance of dialogue as the path to gaining true wisdom. Only by engaging in dialogue is it possible to argue an issue, present one’s views for analysis and judge another’s at the same time.

Without dialogue, there is no just exchange of ideas, nor is there an opportunity to expose prevaricators or manipulators of the facts. The absence of dialogue in today’s Croatia, and in the world as a whole, was a constant thorn in Zvonko’s side. His frustration over the lack of dialogue did not begin when he returned home, however, but during our court process in 1976.

A long note he made many years ago discusses this issue. It begins with a quote from the ancient Hindu text, Bhagavad Gita, one that we often discussed. “It is not the nature of the act, but the mental attitude of its performer that is of importance.” Zvonko was almost ecstatic to have discovered this thought, and here is what he has to say about its implications: “I remember well the first time I read this piece of ancient wisdom. It was late autumn in 1986 in Otisville Penitentiary, in the hills where New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware meet, after the first ten years of my imprisonment. During those days, I had decided to escape from prison.

This wisdom impressed me so much, made such a deep impression on me, that I just froze and repeated it over and over again, saying, “This is it, this is the formula for justly resolving all interpersonal and international relations, the supreme moral measure of the earthly and heavenly worlds by which all of us are judged. It is at the same time the key that opens the heart and soul of every individual, not only so that others can peer inside and know him, but what is more important, that he himself can finally know himself and comprehend what is buried in the deepest recesses of his being. It is the pre-condition for man to win his hardest struggle in life, to gain the greatest victory: the victory over oneself.

So the question is, are these people, and especially the ones who have crossed the line (since we are most interested in such people) prepared to open their hearts and souls to others and explain their “mental attitude”, and is there a way and method to illustrate and confirm the “truth”? We mortals all have our subjective truth, and even though the most powerful, confident, capable, and arrogant impose their worldview as the only true and objective one, the fact remains that true and objective Truth is in God’s domain, and that we mortals will never get that close to God or to this truth. I am firmly convinced that dialogue in the Platonic-Socratic sense is the one and only way we mortals can approach God or the objective Truth. In this way, we are able to understand each other better, forgive more easily, make fewer mistakes, punish more justly, and live better and more normally. I am also certain that the loss of this tradition of dialogue is mankind’s main problem today.”

Zvonko had a great need to be understood, first by himself, of course, and then by others. For this to happen, a dialogue had to take place. “It’s difficult for me and seems somehow inappropriate to talk and write about myself, but I have the need to be understood and comprehended, and the desire to enable others, through my stories and by opening my heart, to learn something about themselves so that they can cope better with life and their problems.”

But when he later thought back to events in his life, and especially to our trial process, it was painfully clear that there had been no dialogue whatsoever, and that it had been impossible for him to have been “understood.”

From his notes: “If a perpetrator wishes to explain what motivated or drove him to do what he did, only those who listen to and understand him have the moral right to punish, forgive, or reward him… I was very surprised, in fact, shocked, when I learned that in court I would not be allowed to present my reasons or motives for the hijacking. For God’s sake, doesn’t it matter whether it was just a wanton act, or if I did it for money, or for noble reasons? If it was done to save someone’s life, or that of one’s people, or… What kind of world is that, what kind of court?”
For example, why had the testimony of Berkeley psychologist Bernard L. Diamond been disallowed? Diamond was an expert witness who would have spoken in length about the long-term social-psychological factors that had played a crucial role in Zvonko’s thinking and behavior, thus providing an insight into him as a person and enabling a dialogue between him and the jury and judge. His position was that “any abnormal condition that impairs mental or emotional processes and behavior controls may deprive an individual of the freedom of choice that we regard as a prerequisite to imposing criminal responsibility. The source of that impairment might be physiological, emotional, social, or cultural…The jury should then decide…And whether that impairment was sufficiently relevant to the unlawful act so that it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally responsible.” His fear of assassination, the constant stress under which he lived, the death threats? But Diamond’s testimony was deemed “irrelevant” to the facts. A plane had been hijacked, and it did not matter why! There was a total lack of dialogue.

Then there was the statement by the prosecution that Zvonko had actually intended for the bomb to explode. The newspapers dutifully reported his statement as fact, regardless of the idiocy of the prosecutor’s contention.

If Zvonko had “intended” for the bomb to explode, then why had he left in the locker the leaflet he wanted published in all major media? This was the sole goal of the hijacking: publication of the leaflet detailing the assassinations, imprisonments, and abuses against Croatians and other dissidents under the Yugoslav dictatorship. If he had intended for the bomb to explode, the leaflet next to it would have been destroyed and the hijacking would have been totally pointless. Yet the media failed to react to this obvious flaw in the prosecutor’s statement. Again, no dialogue, no questions, just blind acceptance of a nonsensical statement.

Furthermore, there appeared an absurd headline during our trial claiming that Zvonko was responsible for another unsolved case at La Guardia airport a year earlier, in which many people died. The judge was irate, fearing that the story would adversely affect the jury and cause a mistrial. He demanded an explanation, citing the lack of any evidence for such a claim. How could the media print such a devastating claim, knowing that there was no evidence to support it? If there had been, Zvonko would obviously have been charged with the crime. There were a lot of questions, but no answers and even less dialogue. We never learned who allowed these claims to be published, what “evidence” there was, who made these false accusations, why our attorneys had not been contacted for their reactions, why an apology was not issued in the media and so forth. This is the state of the world today, Zvonko would say. Everyone is allowed to do and say everything and nobody is held responsible for anything.

Of course the media weren’t really free to write (at least the mainstream media) even if they had wanted to. There is an “official line” in America, just as there is in Croatia, that permits no dialogue over certain issues, and ours was one of them. If a dialogue had been permitted, it would have been possible to debate the issue of Croatian independence in the major media. As things stood, the only way to do that in the land of “free speech” had been to hijack a plane. How ironic.

Whenever we were victim to yet another media diatribe, we would turn to the genius of “The Dunciad”, by Alexander Pope, in which he ridicules the media. This was one of our favorite verses:
Nor human Spark is left, nor Glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread Empire, Chaos! is restor’d;
Light dies before thy uncreating word: 152 
Thy hand, great Anarch! 153  lets the curtain fall; [655]
And Universal Darkness buries All.

How true it was! All one has to do today is open a newspaper or magazine (at least the majority), turn on the television, and there you have it: chaos, darkness, lack of creativity and humanity, anarchy, evil….

When Zvonko finally returned from prison, he quickly became aware of the lack of dialogue in today’s Croatia as well. Government statements, for example, were accepted without any kind of debate or opportunity for opposing views to be presented. Entry into the European Union was one example. Was it in Croatia’s interests or not? According to the government and the majority of the media, it was a good thing. Was it? Where were the public forums on the issue, the round tables, the presentation of diverse arguments? And how about assistance from the International Monetary Fund? Was it something that benefited Croatia or not? Again, there was no dialogue on the subject, although there are scores of books and studies on the insidious machinations of the IMF and its subsidiaries throughout the world. For instance, Naomi Wolf’s The Shock Syndrome, Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz’sGlobalization and Its Discontents, John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, all of which are translated into Croatian.

On a more personal level, he was upset there was no dialogue on whether he should be defined as a “terrorist”. In the United States, at least, there is a journalistic code of ethics that forbids the use of terms such as “terrorist” to describe people in the news. After all, that is a subjective, not a factual, determination. Here the old adage applies that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” Besides, as the political climate changes, a terrorist can suddenly become a freedom fighter in the eyes of the world in the space of a day or two; Mandela is a perfect example.Convicted of over 200 terrorist acts, for example for sabotage in Rivonia, and openly advocating violence in furtherance of his political goals (which Zvonko opposed), he was celebrated after his release from prison as a saint and martyr and even received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993! When Zvonko proposed a debate on this issue with those who had defamed him in the media; that is, were Mandela, Begin, Tito, or the Red Brigade all terrorists, all of them refused, saying they were not interested in “debating with terrorists”. Perhaps they were even less interested in being exposed as hypocrites and intellectual lightweights to the public. On the subject of terrorism, we often talked about another phenomenon that in Zvonko’s view was also tantamount to an act of terrorism. If terrorism, he said, was an act that strikes fear and terror in one’s heart, and leaves lasting scars on one’s psyche resulting in emotional and mental stress and other undesirable repercussions, then one could call the actions of bankers and lenders terroristic as well! Their actions cause constant terror and fear in the hearts of all honest families who are faced with the danger of losing everything, all in the name of bankers’ and lenders’ greed and dishonesty. And don’t journalists and “experts” have a responsibility to promote the truth? Those who use words carelessly and in bad conscience can be best described, as Socrates put it, as “tyrants who kill and steal and oppress at will”. Are these media people also terrorists? Zvonko would ask. He had a good point.

Zvonko was especially upset that in the majority of media articles about our case, the accidental death of the police officer was presented as the main element of the action, although it was a totally unexpected and unplanned occurrence and in no way an “element” of the hijacking. What was the sole purpose, its goal? This was missing in the overall picture, to the shame of the “journalists”, even those who sympathized with this goal. For the record, the single goal was to force the world media to publicize the murders, imprisonments, and oppression practiced against the Croatian people and other dissidents within the Yugoslav dictatorship, which was not possible without the use of illegal means. The obvious question which remained unasked was why was it necessary to commit an illegal act so that the truth would be publicized in the free and independent Western media? Were they really free and independent? Why, especially in the Croatian media, was there no debate about this?Why was the focus always on the death of the policeman to the exclusion of everything else, even the reasons leading to the hijacking, after which five young people in the prime of life were prepared to go to prison for their ideals? What for example was written in the Declaration dropped from the plane? Was there any discussion or conversation about its contents? Why did the trial judge state in open court that he did not consider Zvonko a terrorist or criminal? Why did he say that? Nobody addressed these issues. Why? Because a true dialogue would expose the media not as servants of the truth, but of other immoral masters, as servants of their low desires, as unprofessional, lazy, or uninterested.

When yet another fabrication or piece of misinformation would appear, Zvonko would be terribly frustrated, but most of all by the constantly repeated allegation believed by most of Croatia to this day that the explosive left in the locker in New York City exploded when the locker was opened by the police, which is a lie. It exploded four and a half hours later at the official Bronx detonation site while in the hands of the “experts”.

However, as time went on, he began to adopt a different position, less damaging to his mental state, a view promoted by St. Augustine: “One should not strive to be understood but to understand.” So Zvonko tried to put himself in the shoes of his detractors, show the empathy that differentiates human beings from animals. He believed that nobody purposely commits evil acts unless he believes them proper (unless he is a sociopath or psychopath, of course). Such people need to be helped, not cursed, he would tell me. Everyone has his sorrow and his truth!

I must admit it was more difficult for me to forgive. Zvonko always had more empathy than I. Can’t they just try a little harder to understand me? He would ask. I make a great effort to understand them, not to judge them! He was deeply hurt, disappointed, and insulted that regardless of the reason he had spent 32 years in prison, which some supported and some did not, there was so often a total lack of simple human empathy and understanding for what he had suffered.

When we would have a general discussion about the media and how it had failed its readers, Zvonko would always point out that this was not a recent development, by any means. More than a century ago, John Swinton, the managing editor of the New York Times during the U.S. Civil War, and later a crusading journalist in the movement for social and labor reform, had this to say about the “freedom of the press”:

“There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

 Nothing has changed, Zvonko would tell me, and it is even worse today, since the globalists are so much stronger than in Swinton’s time. Greater also are the corrupt journalists’ love of money and lack of integrity, I would add.

These are a just a few of the larger issues, he would say, but even in everyday life, it is important to have a dialogue with ourselves as well.

Whenever we do something, we need to examine whether it makes sense or is simply an illusion intended to convince us we are actually doing something of value. He had numerous discussions with people on this subject. One thing he objected to was the number of commemorations that took place. Was this a good thing or not? Did it bring concrete results, contribute to a better future for Croatia, change the disastrous course upon which the country had embarked? Was there a dialogue about its effectiveness? Every other day, it seemed, there would be a commemoration of a mass gravesite, in Slavonia, or Dalmatia, or Zagorje or somewhere else. A small group of people, usually the same ones, would make the trip to the site, lay a wreath, listen to a few speeches, and go home. Why couldn’t there be one big, annual symbolic commemoration for such events from the past, he would ask, one that would attract thousands, interest the media, open up discussion? I know it is important to pay tribute, and people need that, but not every few days. What does that accomplish for today’s Croatia, for the future? Why is that energy not brought together to create something new, to change things for the future? He would argue that all the petitions, commemorations, and demonstrations would be useless in the end unless we took power, and only by uniting forces can that happen.

Another concern he had was the hyper-production of books that nobody read. Suddenly everyone was a writer, as though it were as simple as threading a needle, and everyone had something important to say, but often without the writing talent to say it. As a result, scores of books ended up unsold and, more importantly, unread, the authors ultimately being forced to give them away while they gathered dust on someone’s bookshelf or ended up in the garbage can.

Sometimes his arguments would be heard, and sometimes not. Sometime she would even be criticized and attacked for his views, but he consoled himself with a quote from the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of the deed could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again; who knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory or defeat.”

Way back in 1987, he had responded in a similar way to a Croatian intellectual who had written to him that he felt sorrow over Zvonko’s “cruel Fate”, but at the same time, also felt that the hijacking had made it more difficult to further Croatian interests in the world, that it had been “harmful” to the Croatian cause. Zvonko, of course, opened up a dialogue on the issue. He wrote back:

“There is a lot in human life and in the human soul that cannot be expressed in words, seen by the naked eye, or shown to others, but it often determines the direction and Fate of individuals as well as nations. Meanwhile, if the eyes do not see it, the heart does, and different hearts see different things. A heart can see that your hopes are my desires, and perhaps in this lies the secret of your passivity and my activity. Hope is more closely connected to intellect, while desire is a product of the heart. The intellect (mind) is in service to the heart, or should be, because in the heart there is Life and it knows the destination, whereas the mind serves as his eyes to keep him on the right path. If the mind does not serve the heart, then it has been yanked from its roots and is able to serve everyone and everything, and most frequently succumbs to fame or accumulation of money, thereby becoming an intellectual prostitute, a person who hates his own origins and people… If I were to agree with you that you and other similar intellectuals represent the sweet fruit and aromatic flowers in our Croatian national garden, and that extremists like me are the brambles and the thorns, then I must remind you that all that sweet fruit and all those flowers would long ago have been consumed by foreign cows and goats if they hadn’t come up against these Croatian thorns that pierced their greedy mouths. No, I am not opposed to culture and intellectuals; on the contrary, I understand you, and understanding means forgiveness, but it is strange to me that you, as a Croatian and intellectual, are not able to understand me better. Our famous Poet A. G. Matos valued greatly culture and intellect, but still cried out that “as long as there is heart, there will be Croatia!”

The intellectual’s next letter was entirely different, even apologetic. He and Zvonko eventually reached an agreement and remained on good terms thereafter. Of course, this was not always the case. There was often a lack of interest for dialogue in the circles that needed it most. Dialogue, unfortunately, would have exposed many of those who aspired to power as frauds and manipulators. And this is where we are today.

Julienne Bušić

Ključne riječi #Julienne Bušić #Zdravo oko #Zvonko Bušić