Turkish Forum English

Tag: Serbia

  • While you were watching Egypt, Balkans are like a bomb ready to explode

    While you were watching Egypt, Balkans are like a bomb ready to explode

    SHARP-EYED observers have noted that some of the protestors that brought down Egypt’s president used the clenched-fist logo of  Otpor, the well-organised, foreign-financed civic resistance movement that helped topple Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Parts of the Serbian press, notes Florian Bieber, an academic who works on Balkan affairs, have claimed that former Otpor activists helped train some of the opposition groups.

    balkans

    With the world’s attention on the Arab world, the political instability gripping much of the western Balkans has largely been ignored. Yet so serious is the unrest here—including mass demonstrations in Belgrade, Tirana and Skopje—that one diplomat told me his country’s foreign ministry had asked him if he thought that Egypt-style revolution might sweep northwards into the Balkans. (His answer was an emphatic “no”.) Here is a round-up of recent developments:

    Kosovo held an election on December 12th, but still has no government. Following allegations of “industrial-scale” fraud, re-runs had to be held. Until an apparent breakthrough yesterday, the country’s politicians had been unable to secure the basic outlines of a deal which would permit the formation of a government. Now, however, a faction within the Democratic Party of Kosovo of Hashim Thaci, the acting prime minister, has been forced to drop its insistence that its man, Jakup Krasniqi, the acting president, be given the job formally.

    Behgjet Pacolli, a tycoon, now looks set to become president. In exchange his party, the New Kosovo Alliance, will enter into coalition with Mr Thaci. Mr Pacolli is married to a Russian, which, given Moscow’s refusal to recognise Kosovo’s independence, leaves some Kosovars appalled.

    Two years after independence, Mr Thaci has never been so weak politically. He has been weakened by a row with Fatmir Limaj, the outgoing minister of transport, who enjoys much support in the party. Internationally, his standing has been shredded by a recent Council of Europe report making all sorts of lurid allegations against him. EULEX, the EU’s police mission in Kosovo, is now investigating. Partly as a consequence Kosovo’s European integration process has failed to get off the ground. Five of the EU’s 27 members do not recognise Kosovo.

    The situation in Macedonia is little better. Nikola Gruevski, the prime minister, has set off for Washington seeking support for his attempts to speed EU and NATO integration, but he may get his ear chewed off when he arrives. Solving the almost 20-year-old name dispute with Greece appears less of a priority in Skopje than ever. Construction of a giant  plinth that will support a statue of Alexander the Great is proceeding briskly, guaranteeing fresh outrage in Greece.

    The Social Democratic opposition has pulled out of parliament, and Macedonia is gripped by the saga of A1 Television, whose bank accounts have been frozen for a second time by the courts. Mr Gruevski’s opponents say that the government is trying to muzzle the last bastion of free speech in the country. Nonsense, claim government supporters. The courts are simply clamping down on tax evasion. In fact, the two arguments do not contradict each other. The smart money is on an early election in June.

    Meanwhile a small group of Albanians and Macedonians fought a pitched battle in Skopje castle on February 13th, where the government has begun building what it says is a museum, in the shape of a church. The problem is that the castle is in an Albanian, and hence Muslim, part of town. When the Albanians protested, saying that the structure was being built over an ancient Illyrian site,  Pasko Kuzman, the chief archaeologist, said construction would stop. But builders went in at night to continue their work, which led the Albanians to try and dismantle the structure. And so on, and so on.

    Over in Albania the prime minister, Sali Berisha, has accused the opposition of staging a coup, following a demonstration on January 21st that went horribly wrong when Republican Guards allegedly fired on opposition supporters, killing four. The demonstration sprang from charges by the opposition, led by Edi Rama, the Socialist mayor of Tirana, that Mr Berisha was returned to power in June 2009 by fraudulent elections. Unlike Macedonia, Albania is a member of NATO, but its EU integration path has effectively stalled.*

    The Serbian government has been holed and is taking on water—but has not sunk yet. Mladjan Dinkic, head of the G17 Plus party and Serbia’s deputy prime minister, had been openly criticising his governmental colleagues from President Boris Tadic’s Democratic Party. On February 14th Mirko Cvetkovic, the prime minister, moved to sack him. Mr Dinkic resigned today but stopped short of pulling his party out of the government.

    How long the Serbian government can limp on like this is anyone’s guess. Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the opposition Serbian Progressive Party, has said that unless new elections are called before April 5th he will lead more protests in Belgrade. Watch this space.

    Last but not least, Bosnia and Hercegovina. Elections there were held on October 3rd, but there is still no government at state level. No surprise there. Progress on anything, let alone EU integration, has been stalled in Bosnia since 2006 in the wake of the failure of the so-called “April Package” of constitutional reforms. Al Jazeera recently announced plans for a Balkans channel, based in Sarajevo and broadcasting in what it delicately calls “the regional language”. Given the station’s role as the cheerleader of revolt in Tunisia and Egypt, one can understand diplomats’ concerns.

    Global Agenda

  • Yugoslav Media War Mongers Evade Justice

    Yugoslav Media War Mongers Evade Justice

    milosevic

    24 June 2009  Court cases have confirmed the key role of the media in spreading hatred in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, yet no journalist has been tried.

    By Nidzara Ahmetasevic

    Trials for war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia have been ongoing before local courts and the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, ICTY, for more than 15 years.

    But although many indictments, verdicts and expert witnesses’ statements mentioned the key role of media in the war, no journalist or editor has been indicted to date. 

    For the first time, however, an opportunity has now appeared to try journalists who served the Milosevic regime in Serbia. See: Milosevic Media Face War Crimes Spotlight

    Serbia’s war crimes prosecution recently said it intends to investigate whether grounds exist to open investigations into the role that certain media played during the war. 

    This idea has been prompted by statements of former soldiers and witnesses who appeared at trials in Belgrade for the crimes committed in Vukovar, eastern Croatia, and Zvornik, eastern Bosnia, a short time ago. Some of these volunteer soldiers said that they had decided to join up as a result of media coverage of the conflict. 

    One example of this media influence came in a piece of reportage broadcast by Serbian Radio and Television, RTS, in autumn 1991. This showed a young woman, dressed in uniform and carrying a rifle, among a party of volunteers.

    Asked what she was doing among the volunteers, she said she had decided to go to war after watching TV reports on events in Vukovar. She had left behind three children.

    Expert witnesses, who appeared at several trials conducted before the ICTY concluded that media propaganda prompted many people to fight. 

    Professor Renaud de La Brosse, from the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne in France, in a report presented at the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, said that some politicians had “deliberately made the media change its focus from the provision of information and entertainment to purely spreading propaganda, thus serving their goals”. 

    Disinformation, not information: 

    Court files contain abundant evidence of the important role some media played during the war.  In his report of August 1992, Tadeusz Mazoviecki, the Special UN Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote that the deliberate spreading of rumours and disinformation formed a “crucial element of the current situation, greatly contributing to ethnic animosity. 

    “With a few exceptions, the national media in the countries I have visited aim towards presenting the news on the conflict and human rights violations in an upsetting manner. Consequently, the general public does not have access to reliable, objective sources of information.”

    Mazowiecki compiled a special report on the media two years later, in December 1994. In it he wrote that the information published by the media in the former Yugoslavia primarily consisted of “nationalistic discourse and omnipresent insults and offences aimed at other peoples”.

    At the request by the Hague Prosecution, during the Milosevic trial, de La Brosse delivered a report entitled “Political Propaganda and the ‘All Serbs in one Country’ Project: Consequences of Using Media as an Instrument of Ultra-nationalistic Goals”.

    Among other things, the Professor determined that “the atmosphere of distrust and animosity towards other peoples, fed by various fears and extreme nationalism for ages, gradually started manifesting itself in all republics in the former Yugoslavia from the late Eighties”.
    While De La Brosse focused on Serbia in the Milosevic era, he suggested politicians used the media in the other republics in much the same way during the war. 

    “The authorities in each republic tried to control the media on their territories; particularly the television stations,” he said. “They turned the media into the instruments of their regime propaganda, whose aim was to ‘bring over’ the general public to their political ideas and actions.”

    British author Mark Thompson drew similar conclusions in his book “Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina”. He later appeared as a prosecution expert witness at the trial of Momcilo Krajisnik. His report and testimonies mainly focused on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

    Thomson wrote that in early 1992 the Serbian Democratic Party, SDS, “successfully gained control over the media on its territory, using it to scare the Serbian population… telling them that they would be exterminated and persuading them that the Croats and Bosniaks had genocidal intentions. 

    Describing how the SDS gained control over the media in Bosnia, Thompson said that this was done in stages. The first consisted of a drive to ethnically divide up Radio Television of Sarajevo, as well as attacks on the daily newspaper, Oslobodjenje. Taking control of the transmitters in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which began in August 1991, was another important step. 

    Speaking of the media and its uses as a propaganda instrument in the war, Thompson said many outlets acted as official “megaphones”,. The proper role of the media is to provide space for discussion and debate and “make relevant information available to the public, enabling it to make informed decisions on issues of concern,” he said. 

    “[But they were megaphones. They were just political tools used for conveying certain messages”, Thompson said. 

    Serbian propaganda the most extreme:

     The relations between the media and politics are mentioned in several ICTY indictments. One is the indictment against Milosevic, which alleges that he “controlled, manipulated and used Serbian media… with the aim of spreading excessive and false messages on ethnic conflicts initiated by Bosnian Muslims or Croats targeting Serbs, in an attempt to create an atmosphere of fear and animosity among the Serbs who lived in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    “This largely contributed to the deportation of the majority of the non-Serbian population, especially Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from their homes in parts of Bosnia”.

    De la Brosse cautioned against considering the role played by the media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia as equal.

    “If we compare Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian nationalistic propaganda, we can conclude that the first one exceeded the two others by its scale and content of media messages,” he said.

    The indictment against Krajisnik mentions the control of media in the section referring to a joint criminal enterprise.

    It alleged that the media “supported, instigated, enabled and participated in spreading information among Bosnian Serbs about the threat of being tyrannized by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, telling them that the territory on which Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats live actually belongs to Bosnian Serbs; spreading information with an aim of generating fear of, or animosity towards, Bosnian Muslims and Croats among Bosnian Serbs… and ensuring their support and participation in achieving the goals of the joint criminal enterprise”. 

    The allegation that the media were used as “megaphones”, as Thompson said, is supported by the fact that the SDS established a Committee for Mass Communications in October 1991. This information can be found in ICTY documents. This body was tasked with developing plans to establish a news agency, daily newspapers and choose journalists loyal to the SDS’s goals. 

    Dorothea Hanson, an expert who appeared at the Krajisnik trial, described how the various “crisis committees” established on Bosnian Serb territory controlled radio stations and other media outlets. 

    Use of the media for propaganda purposes was included in the indictment issued against the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. This alleges that he “substantively contributed to the goal of the permanent extermination of the Bosnian Muslims and Croats from the areas controlled by Serbs”, among other things, by “spreading, instigating and/or enabling propaganda distribution”. 

    The role of the media is mentioned also in the indictment issued against the Bosnian Croat Jadranko Prlic, and others. This alleges that, following the establishment of the Bosnian Croat statelet, Herceg-Bosna, in November 1991 and particularly beyond May 1992, the leadership “became involved in permanent and coordinated efforts aimed at establishing domination and ‘Croatising’ the municipalities that were allegedly parts of Herceg-Bosna,” and to that effect, “the authorities and forces of Herceg-Bosna gained control over the media, inflicting Croatian ideas and propaganda”. 

    Impacts on ordinary lives:

    Testimonies by victims who appeared at war crime trials reveal how ordinary citizens interpreted the propaganda broadcast over the media. 

    The media was frequently mentioned before the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, Redzep Zukic, a witness at the trial of Nikola Kovacevic, a former member of the Serbian armed forces from Sanski Most sentenced by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to 12 years’ imprisonment, recalled how “radio Sana broadcast offensive songs and called Muslims offensive names”. It also called on Muslims to “display white flags on their houses” in 1992, he said.

    Enes Kapetanovic, who appeared at the trial for crimes committed in Omarska detention camp, told a similar story.

    “In late April 1992, after the Serbs gained control over Prijedor, they informed us via the media every day that we had to wear white bands around our arms if we wanted to show we were loyal to the new authorities. All of us, adults and children alike, had those bands around our arms,” Kapetanovic said.
    Witnesses at the trial of Gojko Jankovic, sentenced to 34 years’ imprisonment for crimes in Foca, said the media in Montenegro also issued calls for volunteers to go to the battlefields in Bosnia during April 1992.

    The indictments against members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the other hand, rarely mention the role of media.

    According to Thompson, the propaganda dictated from Sarajevo was not of the same character as that which came from Belgrade or Zagreb.

    Nevertheless, propaganda existed, considering that the then editors of public broadcast services in Sarajevo, like their colleagues in Belgrade in Zagreb, were appointed on the basis of their political affiliation and not as a result of professional standards.

    Although the role of media was often mentioned before the ICTY and is now often brought up in trials before local courts, no indictments have been filed, as has been stated. Asked why no indictments have been filed, Hague officials answer that there is not sufficient evidence on the role of media to proceed.

    Nidžara Ahmetašević is BIRN – Justice Report editor. nidzara@birn.eu.com. Justice Report is BIRN online weekly publication.

    BIRN

  • South Stream Gets a Boost

    South Stream Gets a Boost

    Business Week
    May 18, 2009
    Gas Pipelines: South Stream Gets a Boost
    Key countries sign on to Russia’s South Stream project, giving it an edge over the rival Nabucco pipeline proposal in a race with geopolitical repercussions
    By Jason Bush

    On May 15, Russia signed deals with Italy, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece, bringing the South Stream project, a major new gas pipeline to Europe, one step closer to reality.

    At a meeting in Sochi, attended by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Russia’s Gazprom (GAZP.RTS) and Italy’s ENI (ENI.MI) agreed to double the planned pipeline’s capacity to 63 billion cubic meters. In addition to ENI, Gazprom signed memoranda of understanding with Greek natural gas transmission company DESFA, Serbia’s Srbijagas, and Bulgarian Energy Holding.

    The participating countries also signed documents needed to start work on the 2,000km (1,243-mile) pipeline. With completion planned by 2015, South Stream eventually will pump natural gas from southern Russia under the Black Sea, bringing it via Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, and Greece to terminals in western Austria and southern Italy.

    The agreement represents a significant diplomatic coup for Russia in a great geopolitical race that will help determine the source of Europe’s energy supplies for decades to come. That race has been visibly gaining pace over recent weeks. Backers of a rival pipeline to southern Europe are now vying to put together the necessary political support. “It’s very much down to the wire now,” says Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib (USBN.RTS), a Moscow bank. “There’s definitely a race on to get all the signatures in place.”

    Concerns About a Stranglehold

    It’s no coincidence that the agreements on South Stream come just days after a key summit in Prague designed to give political impetus to Nabucco, a proposed rival pipeline through Turkey that is backed by the European Commission and the U.S. In the eyes of the EU and the U.S., the key advantage of Nabucco is that it would bypass Russia, diminishing Europe’s already heavy dependence on Russian gas. Imports from Russia presently account for around 40% of gas imports and 25% of gas consumption in Europe. Concerns about Russia’s stranglehold on Europe’s energy have only intensified recently, following this January’s damaging price spat between Russia and Ukraine, which briefly saw Russia’s gas supplies to Europe suspended.

    Those fears help explain the recent burst of activity surrounding Nabucco, a project that has been under discussion since 2002. In addition to the Prague summit, the EU has also been busy courting Turkey, a key transit country, which is expected to sign an agreement in June paving the way for Turkey to host the pipeline. Previously, there had been concerns that Turkey would try to use the pipeline as a bargaining chip in EU accession negotiations.

    But despite the recent progress on Nabucco, it all still looks to many analysts like a case of too little, too late. “I believe Nabucco still looks very problematic,” says Jonathan Stern, director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “It might work, or it might not, but I don’t think it’s going to work quickly.” He argues that the pipeline probably won’t be viable until around 2020­much later than the 2014 starting date currently being advanced.

    It doesn’t help that Russia, eager to safeguard its dominant position as Europe’s energy supplier, is already one step ahead of the game. The agreements reached in Sochi underscore Russia’s success in winning over key customers and transit countries for South Stream­a project that contradicts the EU’s stated policy of diversifying Europe’s energy supplies.

    Where to Get the Gas

    Even without the competition from South Stream, major question marks continue to hang over the whole economic viability of the Nabucco project. One key problem is financing: So far the EU has only committed a small fraction of the €7.9 billion ($10.6 billion) needed to build the pipeline. An even more basic question is where the gas for Nabucco (ultimately targeted at 31 billion cubic meters per annum) will come from.

    The original idea behind the pipeline was to ship gas from the Caspian region and Central Asia, with gas-rich countries such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan supplying the fuel. The snag is that of these four countries, only Azerbaijan signed up to the Prague agreement backing the project.

    The other three Central Asian countries, under diplomatic pressure from Russia, pointedly declined to do so. In any case, no one has figured out how Central Asian gas could be linked up with Nabucco. A pipeline under the Caspian is impossible until all the bordering states resolve a long-running dispute over the sea’s legal status, giving Russia an effective veto.

    Analysts therefore believe the only way Nabucco can be viable is if Iran can now be talked into supplying gas for the project­a scenario that the U.S. previously fought. And despite recent overtures from U.S. President Barack Obama to improve relations with Iran, it’s still far too soon to talk of any diplomatic thaw.

    Meanwhile, the Russians are making progress with South Stream, which currently appears to be the more economically viable of the two. In sharp contrast to Nabucco, the Russians have no shortage of gas that could potentially be transported to Europe via the pipe, and the Russians also seem committed to financing the project. “It’s expensive, controversial, and hard to implement,” says Valery Nesterov, oil and gas analyst at Russian investment bank Troika Dialog. “But at least it has investment guarantees, and a resource base, to be secured by Gazprom. Though not without problems, the financial guarantees and resource base are still more realistic than those secured by Nabucco.”

    Snail vs. Tortoise

    It’s far too early, though, to declare victory for the Russians. The South Stream project also faces many daunting obstacles. Indeed, the great pipeline race might be said to resemble a marathon contest between a snail and a tortoise. “At this stage, it’s not clear where the gas is going to come from for either route,” says UralSib’s Weafer.

    Although Russia has huge gas reserves that could potentially be shipped Europe’s way, most of those reserves are still sitting deep under the Arctic tundra, in the remote Yamal region of Northern Siberia. The cost of bringing them to market is gargantuan­around $250 billion, according to estimates by Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA). The current global recession has only increased the uncertainty about future gas demand, making Gazprom even more reluctant to invest. Russia and the EU have so far failed to hammer out legal agreements that would regulate joint ventures between Gazprom and Western partners. “It’s a real mess,” says Weafer.

    Then there’s the tremendous cost of the South Stream pipeline itself. Officially estimated at between €19 billion and €24 billion ($25.6 billion to $32.4 billion), it’s around three times as expensive as the alternative Nabucco route. Those costs could now be especially problematic, at a time when the global financial crisis is depressing gas prices and Gazprom’s profits. “Gazprom is facing financial difficulties in the years to come,” says Nesterov, “and the cost of the project is tremendous.”

    So despite South Stream’s diplomatic head start, the outcome of the great pipeline race is still far from certain. And neither pipeline is likely to provide any quick solution to Europe’s mounting long-term energy needs.

    Bush is BusinessWeek’s Moscow bureau chief.

  • SERBIA SEES TURKEY A KEY COUNTRY FOR PEACE AND STABILITY

    SERBIA SEES TURKEY A KEY COUNTRY FOR PEACE AND STABILITY

    ANKARA (A.A) – 20.03.2009 – The Serbian foreign minister said on Friday that his country saw Turkey a key country for peace and stability.

    Serbia’s Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said that Serbia thought Turkey had key importance in the Balkans.

    “Despite difference of opinion about Kosovo, it is important for us to boost our bilateral relations,” Jeremic told a joint press conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan.

    Jeremic is actually paying a formal visit to Turkey, and is the first Serbian foreign minister visiting Turkey.

    The Serbian minister said that his country’s policy regarding Kosovo would not change, and talks continued with the international community to find a solution acceptable by all sides.

    Jeremic said that Serbia was willing to solve the issue through peaceful and political means, and handled the issue within the scope of international law.

    The minister said that the legal process began in the International Court of Justice, and the issue would become clear after the court made a decision.

    However, there were some bilateral steps that could be taken since then, he said.

    On the same issue, Babacan said that Serbia and Turkey had different positions on Kosovo, but this should not prevent the two countries from enhancing their cooperation.

    The Serbian minister said that two countries could do more to boost their economic relations, and could simplify visa procedures in coming days.

    Jeremic said that Turkey and Serbia had similar goals about the European Union (EU), and integration to the EU was a prior issue for both countries.

    On the title deeds of the Palestinians in the Ottoman archives, Babacan said that Turkey was opening all its registers when demanded.

    Babacan also said that the court and/or any one who would examine the registers would make its/his/her own decision.

    The Turkish minister also said that Turkey’s policy was to be totally frank, and underlined importance of prevailing of justice. (BRC-CE)

    haber.turk.net