Should Serbian NGOs "Bomb" (or "Ban") RFE/RL?

AIM Athens, 31.05.1999

In the early hours of 23 April 1999, arrogant NATO strategists introduced a new standard of "legitimate target:" they bombed the high-rise building of the Serbian radio and television RTS in Belgrade, killing or injuring more than a score of journalists in the process. In so doing, they had also broken the promise given a week earlier to international freedom of expression groups that they would not undertake such action. A month later, on 26 May, Eutelsat member states, with a sweeping majority, suspended satellite rebroadcasts of Serbian television.

As Reporters Sans Frontieres pointed out on 27 May, "RTS presents actual goings-on in a biased, deformed, even false manner. Representing the main news source for Serbs, this television station systematically broadcasts doctored reports on Kosovo, while NATO and the international community are called 'fascists' and 'degenerate criminals.' On several occasions, RTS has been purged of its critical journalists: as an example, in January 1993, 1,500 of its employees were dismissed for having expressed their disagreement with the station's editorial stance."

Reporters Sans Frontieres further "recalled that according to precedents of the European Human Rights Court, freedom of expression and information, which are guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is valid not only for information or ideas which are favorably welcomed or are considered inoffensive or of little interest, but also for information which collides with, shocks or worries the State or certain segments of the population."

Should, though, one stick to the brutal principles of NATO, and given that one expects much higher standards of journalism from media in democratic countries than from their counterparts in near-totalitarian regimes, an argument can be raised as to the legitimate right of Serbian NGOs to "bomb" or at least "ban" American state-supported Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). For it has resorted to a biased coverage leading to a blatant distortion of their position towards the NATO strikes, in a way characteristic of the sophisticated manipulation of information that one may find in democratic countries.

On 6 April, some 17 Serbian NGOs issued a public appeal for peace and resumption of negotiations, and against NATO strikes, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and the bias of Serbian media. They also noted that the situation had endangered the very survival of the civil sector in Serbia. In the following five weeks, the same NGOs, joined by a few others, made further appeals, while more than a score of well-known intellectuals from the civil society joined in another personal appeal.

RFE/RL's Watchlist, defined as "A Weekly Checklist Of Events Affecting Civil Societies In Eastern Europe And The Post-Soviet States" opted not to report any of the dozen such statements coming from the Serbian civil society. In itself, this omission left readers wonder about the way this news organization perceived "civil society." Especially as they had also never reported that the independent journalists of ANEM and its spokesperson Veran Matic too had spoken out against the strikes. For RFE/RL, which had reported only the closing down of the latter's Radio B-92, it was evident that Serbian civil society was newsworthy only when it criticized Milosevic or was victimized by him. When the NGOs were voicing their criticism of NATO, RFE/RL's Watchlist considered them "a captive source unable to express their views freely" as they told us.

Even worse, this news service's staff were apparently only waiting for an opportunity to help discredit these Serb independent intellectuals and activists who dared not align themselves with NATO's strategists. So, when the Executive Committee of the International Helsinki Federation, overstepping its authority, decided to send an equally arrogant answer to the Serbian NGOs, RFE/RL acted. Asked to justify its choice, the agency answered that "we used the two statements, one by the Serbian NGOs and the other by IHF; together they made a story and explained a clash of views which would not be clear just by reading one or the other statement."

Had that been the case, one might have accepted it. But as one can see in the actual news item, the Serbian NGO statement was not used, but merely abused.

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC RFE/RL WATCHLIST Vol. 1, No. 19, 20 May 1999

SERBIAN NGO MORAL EQUIVALENCE STANCE CRITICIZED. Since early April, Serbian NGOs have issued appeals to both NATO and Yugoslavia calling for a resumption of the peace process. Most recently, on May 10, 24 of them urged the Yugoslav, Serbian, and Montenegrin governments to move toward a solution of the Kosova problem and accept compromises. The signatories of this appeal included the Trade Union Confederation (Nezavisnost), the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and several women's groups. But on May 18, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights described themselves "deeply disturbed" by one aspect of the Serbian appeals. The Western rights groups said their staffers had interviewed Kosovar Albanians and found that they suffered "ethnic cleansing on a horrific scale" and that they were driven from their homes not by NATO but by Serbs - a reality they pointed out that the Serbian NGOs had ignored. While expressing respect for the Serbian NGOs and their "lonely and courageous struggle for democratization," the Western rights groups stressed that it is "intellectually and morally unsound to equate" NATO's campaign and Serbia's "grave crimes of war and crimes against humanity in Kosovo."

The only information the reader was offered on the content of the Serbian NGO appeals was that in the most recent one that was totally unrelated with the answer of the IHF. The reason is obvious: the 10 May Serbian NGO appeal was addressed to the Yugoslav authorities rather than criticizing NATO, so it was "useful" for the editorial line of RFE/RL. On the contrary, the way the IHF statement was presented by RFE/RL gave the impression that the Serbian NGOs had claimed that refugees were driven from their homes by NATO and not by Serbs; and that they had equated NATO's campaign and Serbia's crimes of war and crimes against humanity in Kosovo.

But the only related excerpt of the 6 April Serbian appeal was: "in fear of the bombing campaign and military actions by the regime and KLA, hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, in an unprecedented exodus, forced to leave their devastated homes and look for salvation in the tragedy and uncertainty of fleeing." Nowhere did they state that refugees were driven out by NATO only. Moreover, the statement did not rank either the various causes of the exodus, but just listed them. Ceratinly, it would have been better if the Serbian NGOs had more clearly stressed that the exodus was the result mainly of Serb action. Such weakness in their statement, though, in view of the fact that elsewhere the NGOs condemned ethnic cleansing (a fact which RFE/RL conveniently silenced), did not call for such distortion by RFE/RL.

Nor for such reaction by the IHF which, besides the criticism of that point, went as far as to argue that "when you say that 'NATO military intervention has undermined all results we have achieved,' one must ask if these results were of such a scope and significance to bring hope that the plight of Kosovo could be relieved by peaceful means." In other words, Serbian NGOs are to share the blame for the plight of the Kosovars and thus the destruction of their "insignificant" efforts does not matter. This most unfortunate aspect of the IHF letter was not mentioned by RFE/RL either, perhaps because it might have weakened in the eyes of its readers its effort to discredit the Serbian NGOs.

The latter was confirmed a week later, after the NGOs had sent their answer to the IHF. "Strained and convoluted" was the meaningful choice of adjectives by RFE/RL to characterize that letter:

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC RFE/RL WATCHLIST Vol. 1, No. 20, 27 May 1999

SERBIAN NGOS CONDEMN BOTH MILOSEVIC AND NATO. In a strained and convoluted letter to the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, 23 Serbian NGOs reiterated that they have been "equally opposed" to ethnic cleansing in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosova, as well as to the current NATO intervention. The Helsinki Federation had urged the Serbian NGOs to abandon their stance of moral equivalence and voice moral condemnation of the Belgrade regime (see "RFE/RL Watchlist," Vol. 19, 20 May 1999). The Serbian response, dated May 23, stressed that NGOs "should be supportive of peace" rather than of the "war option of their governments."

Once again, the criticism of European policies towards Yugoslavia in the Serbian NGO letter was apparently deemed embarrassing to be reported:

"Finally, let us remind you: the brutal disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, and the related nationalist conflicts which culminated in the ethnic catastrophe in Kosovo, took place 'in collusion' with European policies and international diplomacy. It has been precisely these unexpected shocks that have dangerously threatened the ideals and norms of international democracy, which is still the successor to the liberal and social heritage of defence of autonomy of the individual, groups and peoples."

Regretfully, therefore, the way RFE/RL opted to cover the opposition to NATO strikes by the traditional independent forces in Yugoslavia (NGOs and independent media) could only strengthen the impression that the aim was not to provide accurate information but to help discredit their position. Thus, it could only contribute to the Western propaganda that all Serbs are more or less aligned to the Milosevic line and share his profound anti-Albanian and anti-Western prejudices. Panayote Dimitras (AIM)