|
Impartiality
and responsibility
Comments
[send
a comment]
Dear 'Loncar',
Allow me to disagree with you to a large extent.
"Let's say Milosevic is a
counterpart of Hiter." What about Tudjman? What
about Izetbegovic? Whether
or not these guys were right or wrong, good or evil,
in what they did, makes
very little difference to the status of Milosevic
in terms of whether he is
a war criminal, whether he is responsible for genocide,
and whether or not
he was, in the long term, a positive influence on
Serbia. Because that's
what this is about, Serbia as an independent nation,
its internal politics,
and what would be the most positive and constructive
government for Serbia
at this time. Unfortunately, in your letter you deal
very little with who
Milosevic was and what he may or may not have done,
preferring only to
compare him with similarly evil men in the same region
in the vain hope that
he will come out of the comparison in a positive light.
But this isn't about
Croatia and Bosnia any more, and it isn't about America
or the European
Union, it's about Serbia.
I'm very wary as a Westerner of making any comment
on the specifics of
Serbian politics, aware as I am that any hint of Western
interference in
your internal affairs is invariably inflammatory to
Serbs who are naturally
sensitive to external meddling in your internal affairs.
This is why it has
saddened me to see Javier Solana come out so openly
on behalf of the EU on
the side of the pro-reform, pro-Europe agenda as opposed
to respecting the
democratically expressed wish of the Serbian people.
It is probably true to
say, in fact, that the perception of outside intervention
and the perceived
weakness of the last government in the face of this,
played a large part in
the result of the recent parliamentary elections.
B92, on the other hand, has every right, as an independent
media
organisation, to have an opinion on domestic political
affairs, being as it
is a Serbian news organisation. They have a duty to
objectivity, and to
report facts as they see them, but they also, I am
sure, feel a strong
responsibility to their country. If they see their
country on a slippery
slope, it is their responsibility to stand up and
say so. It is a highly
irresponsible media which simply goes with the flow
even when they know it
is wrong, in order to remain in favour with the current
political leaders.
One last point regarding American behaviour - I don't
know exactly what
position B92 holds with regard to the bombing campaign
of 1999, but I can
hardly believe that they were entirely in favour of
it - I have never met a
Serb who was. But, again, just because the Americans
were wrong, doesn't
make Milosevic right - any more than it makes Saddam
right, in this most
recent example of American cack-handedness. And regarding
Serbian victims of
war crimes - what do you expect B92 to do? These victims
exist, everybody
knows that, and the state should doubtless do more
to help those who came to
Serbia as refugees in the 1990s. But Serbia's responsibility
now is to face
up to the fact that it, too, committed war crimes,
to send those indicted to
the Hague, and to hope that Croatia and Bosnia follow
Serbia's, up to now,
good example. I can think of at least one speech in
Croatia where the
President or Prime Minister (I forget which) used
Serbia's example to try
and shame his own people into consenting to cooperate
with the tribunal. One
can only hope that it happens - it will only be through
the uncovering of
the truth about the last 13 years that the former
Yugoslavia as a whole will
be able to move on properly.
Yours,
Tom Bowker, 6.11.2004.
................................................
Dear Veran,
Allow me to disagree with you to the large extent:
You said that comparison of Serbia with the German
post wars history comes to mind. Says who? Comparing
the times from 80/60 years ago in a totally different
setting is mixing apples and oranges. Of course, there
is similarities in everything we all do, but to equate
Hitler with Serb politician is a mind boggling exercise.
Let say Miloshevic is a counterpart of Hitler? What
about Tudjman? Is he a counterpart of Stalin, or maybe
he could be considered a father of modern Croatian
nation??? And what about Izet? Is he a Goebels/Gering,
or is he another father of another proud (Bosnian)
nation? When we are making comparisons that 'come
to mind', how about Thachi? Is he a liberator of his
people or a terrorist leader, as the US ambassador
Golbreight (sp?) characterized him just about one
year before the bombing of Serbia? How about Clinton
and Albraight? Are they humanitarian bombers-peace
makers? They cut the electricity and water to 2 million
people Belgrade in the name of "liberating"
Kosovo? Remember the Clinton's speech before the bombing,
that the war is not against Serbian people? Look at
Kosovo these days. Is that what you call - a "multiethnic"
democratic country, that Clinton promised four years
ago? There is no more Miloshevic, what is the problem
now? Kosovo got this enormous military base in the
middle ... prostitution, drugs, the rest is monoethnic
with 2/3 of pre war Serb population "ethnically
cleansed"?
I happened to be the one who had experienced Miloshevic
solitary confinement prison. That does not make me
become blind for the truth. And the truth is not as
white and black as you and your B92 see it. The good
and evil are deeply intertwined in the last Balkans'
wars. If I were defending Miloshevic, I would open
the defense with the phone call that Clinton had placed
to S.M. in Karadjordjevo (as recorded by the Croatian
secret services), where Bil starts as follows: "It's
so nice to speak with you again...". This was
occurring only about a year before the bombing. Imagine
the prize of the US is talking in such a chatty manner
with the Hitler-Butcher of Balkans and what else the
PR machine was calling him in the pre-bombing hype!
Of course, the official American line is that everything
that we Americans do is white-good, and everything
that our opponents do is bad-black. What is funny,
the black and white people are not fixed in time,
they could easily switch sides. Sadam was a good guy,
when he was fighting Iranians, who are really bad
ones. Then he became another Hitler too. S.M. was
our peace maker, then he also became Hitler #2. Arafat
did the double switch - from a terrorist to a Nobel
prize for Peace winner, White House frequent visitor,
to back to terrorist again.
All the above leads to the same conclusion - I am
convinced that B92 editorial policies under your leadership
are dead - wrong. They too much reflect the official
Western foreign policy lines, as far as the Hague
goes. The bombing of Serbia, was dead wrong act. It
was a stupid way of dealing with the Balkans' bloodshed.
The west will admit that one day. In the meanwhile,
they cannot admit it and be liable for the 60 billion
dollars destruction of the country. You do not help
the cause of democracy, by avoiding to mention this
NATO's blunder and dealing only with Serbian war crimes,
as if it occurred in vacuum, where NATO, Muslims,
Albanians, Croats ... did not have any roles except
- the victims.
As long as you and the West keep pushing that same
one-sided approach, an average Serb will rebel any
way they know how. You may think that the Serbs are
too stupid to fall for the ultra nationalist lines,
and do not buy prolonged justifying of the Clinton-Albright
"humanitarian" bombing of Serbia, but I
do not think so.
Loncar, 28.12.2003.
................................................
[send
a comment]
|
