If the Croatian Embassy in Australia, and indeed Croatia’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs more broadly, ceased presenting misleading information about the role of members appointed to the Council for Croats Outside the Republic of Croatia, much of the frustration and insults currently felt within our community could be avoided.

I would have had little reason to write this article were it not for the concerns repeatedly raised with me by many long-standing members of the Croatian community in Sydney—people who devoted decades of their lives to preserving Croatian identity abroad and who stood firmly behind Croatia during its struggle for independence in the 1990s.

Many of these individuals were present when support for Croatia carried personal and professional risks. They fundraised, lobbied governments, challenged hostile media narratives, and helped sustain Croatia through some of its darkest years. Their contribution to Croatia’s independence and international recognition is a matter of historical record.

In recent years, however, many have become increasingly concerned about how diaspora representation is portrayed by Croatian diplomatic institutions and the government.

On 14 November 2025, the Embassy of the Republic of Croatia in Australia announced the appointment of new members to the Government’s Council on Croats Outside the Republic of Croatia. The statement informed the public that several individuals had been appointed as representatives of the Croatian community in Australia.

Following the announcement, some of the newly appointed members publicly stated that they represented the Croatian community in Australia before the Croatian Government. Or, that they represent Australia!

This claim raises an important question.

Do they, in fact, represent the Croatian community or themselves as individuals?

The answer, both legally and practically, is far more complicated than the Embassy’s announcement suggested.

According to the Central State Office for Croats Abroad, members of the Council are selected from among respected individuals nominated by Croatian organisations, associations, and institutions operating outside Croatia. That communities choose their representatives. The legislation speaks of representatives, persons living in the diaspora, emerging from Croatian communities abroad and emphasises their role in preserving Croatian identity and strengthening ties with the homeland.

On paper, this appears democratic and representative.

In practice, however, the process is considerably different.

There are no direct community-wide elections through which Croatian communities abroad choose their representatives. The broader Croatian community in Australia is not asked to vote. Ordinary members of Croatian organisations are generally not consulted. Most nominations occur internally within individual organisations, frequently without participation from wider community members or other members of the organisation.

As a result, those appointed to the Committee cannot reasonably claim to represent the entire Croatian community in Australia, or Australia itself. At most, they represent themselves and, perhaps, the organisation that nominated them. If they represent their organisation, which nominated them, such representation, in a democracy, must arise from a vote at an assembly of all members.

This distinction is important.

Representation implies accountability to those represented. It implies a mandate derived from the community itself. Yet no such mandate exists under the current process.

The reality is that appointments are made through a nomination and selection process involving organisations, embassies, and ultimately Croatian government institutions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the individuals selected is beside the point.

The issue is accuracy.

To describe appointed Council members as representatives of the Croatian community at large is misleading.

They are appointed members of an advisory body. They are not elected representatives of the Croatian diaspora. They are, at the end of the day, elected as individuals living in the diaspora.

The difference is fundamental.

I know this not only from observing the process but also from personal experience.

When the Council was first established in 2013, I received a telephone call from officials in Croatia who were surprised that I had not submitted my candidacy.

I declined.

At the time, I believed the Council would have limited influence on government policy and would function largely as some sort of consultative body rather than a genuine mechanism through which diaspora communities could shape decisions that affect them.

Years later, as I became increasingly concerned by what I saw as the marginalisation of the diaspora’s historical contribution to Croatian statehood, I decided to test the process myself.

My candidacy was supported by highly respected members of the Croatian community in Sydney who had dedicated decades to Croatian causes.

As I predicted, I was not selected.

That outcome did not surprise me. Nor did it bother me personally. I did not want to be part of a once- or twice-a-year photo opportunity in Croatia with the Prime Minister and others, so they would appear to have a genuine and productive relationship with the diaspora.

What concerned me more was the growing perception that long-established community leaders and organisations were being increasingly sidelined by Croatian politics and authorities, while newer structures, often disconnected from the broader community’s historical experiences, received official recognition and support.

Whether that perception is correct or not, it exists, and it deserves serious consideration.

The Croatian diaspora contains thousands of highly educated, accomplished, and successful individuals whose commitment to Croatia spans generations. Such communities deserve transparency, honesty, and genuine representation.

Above all, they deserve accuracy.

Members appointed to the Council for Croats Outside the Republic of Croatia may be respected individuals in their own circles. They may perform valuable work. They may contribute to relations between Croatia and its diaspora.

But they do not represent the Croatian community at large unless that community itself has elected them to do so. Some cannot represent that community because they do not truly know it. Some do not seem to know what ails that community, nor what its vision for the Croatia they helped create through sacrifice and risk is.

That distinction matters.

And it should matter to Croatia as well.

Ina Vukic