Why So Much Noise

One hundred years ago, in 1898, a scandalous court hearing was held in France for Ferdinand Esterhazy, an Officer in the French Army and a good-for-nothing who was married to a French aristocrat, but who it turned out had, in point of fact, written a memorandum to the German ambassador in Paris regarding some technical details which represented a military secret, and for which, in 1984, Alfred Dreyfus, a Captain in the French Army, was unjustly sentenced, publicly stripped of his rank and sent in a cramped metal cage to the Devil’s Island, near Guyana.

On the anniversary year of that event, the ruling coalition in Serbia (SPS, JUL, SRS) has made several moves on the domestic political scene which could be said to symbolically represent attempts at once again finding and sentencing a Dreyfus in one of the editorial offices, with the good-for-nothing Esterhazy being rehabilitated.
Ever since the constitution of Serbian Government (JUL, SPS, the Radicals, in the Spring of 1998), and the recent reconstitution (chairs for Misters Karic and Simic), this Government has made a series of moves which directly lead to restrictions on freedoms of thinking, of the press and against autonomy in cultural and scientific institutions in Serbia.  Each one of the moves was attended by claims that they adopted laws which Serbia will remember for sometime to come, and which do not stand comparison with the rest of the world in the degree of their liberalness.  They adopted the Law on the University and immediately began its implementation, with the Faculty of World Literature being the first to suffer its effects.

The application of this law has been marked by the biggest persecution of university professors since 1945, professors “who did not sign” at the electrical engineering faculty, and then at the law faculty and other ones which followed.  The result is a series of firings of university professors, while a group of university professors is already “on bread and water” without knowing what will happen with their status — whether they will be given notice and whether new generations of students will be deprived of the opportunity of hearing their lectures.

POLICE AND PARA-POLICE IN EDITORIAL OFFICES: Then, in October 1998, the Serbian Government, through its Ministries of Internal Affairs and of Information and on the basis of one constitutionally suspect Degree which is founded on the immanent threat of war, closed three newspapers (“Danas”, “Nasa borba”, and “Dnevni telegraf”).  In putting into effect this Decree, which is connected in a very sensitive way with constitutional decrees relating to rights guaranteed by the constitution, the Government hired a private security agency to help in protecting the offices of the banned newspapers.

It would be interesting to follow a court case which would review the behavior of this Government (of course, in a country where laws really are followed) — can a government entrust the protection of the constitution to private agencies, is there any conflict of interest in this, are those agencies owned and operated by anyone in that government, etc., etc.

So far this Government did not show any scruples in carrying out general directives, and the series of present moves appears like the carrying out of a directive on closing down the independent media.  Before the three newspapers were closed down, the operations of several radio and TV stations (Radio Index, Radio City in Nis, Radio Senta, Radio Kikinda, TV Pirot) were brought to a standstill.

SHOCKED AND SCANDALIZED: The Government’s closing down of several independent media houses resulted in a series of protests across the country and abroad.  Doris Pack, President of the EU Delegation for Eastern Europe, in her letter to Slobodan Milosevic (dated October 15) said: “Respected President, I am shocked and scandalized by the daily reports on unprecedented, brutal attack by the Minister of Information in Republic of Serbia on the free operating of media.”
“I am worried about the condition of the media in FRY,” stated Bronislav Geremek, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, at a press conference in the Media Center.  Also, he pointed out that he got the impression from the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Zivadin Jovanovic, that the exceptional situation is a temporary solution which will only last for as long as the exceptional conditions in FRY.  Etc., etc.,...

In other words, the authorities were forced to pull back the censorial order and decree on restrictions because they threatened the negotiating process and to postpone the removal of sanctions.  Then the Serbian Government, trying to get out of the heat, quickly called a session of Parliament in which, among other things, it tabled the Law on Public Information.  In the tabling of the proposal three things are emphasized: obligation for reporting on sources of financing, information on financial and other help received from abroad; ban on re-broadcasting foreign governments’ political-propaganda programs; protection of the freedoms of the individual in public information — please read again, protection of the freedoms of the individual in public information.  They thought up the last thing on the spur of the moment as indication that they speak unanimously, because they are being harshly criticized by the rest of the world for disrespecting human rights.  And why did this state lose its reputation for respecting human rights because of the widely accepted view in the rest of the world that this state is incapable of protecting human rights, and why do they refuse to admit it and are instead clamoring, making noise and making threats directed at the small bit of sovereignty over their territory.

AGE-OLD TRAUMA: Vice-President of the Government, Ph.D. Vojislav Seselj announced in Parliament on October 21 that the Serbian Government had prepared this law as far back as May, but that its turn only came up now (speedy tabling in parliament, MP familiarized with the law at the rushed session and in the atmosphere of adopting of the law, observed by not made official “threats of war”).

This speedy tabling in parliament in a mater which deeply concerns freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is too transparent and suspect, but hardly surprising.  This Government invoked the Law on Information whenever it got into hot water.  The last time that a similarly spirited law was tabled was by Radmila Milentijevic in 1996 (election fraud, civil protests across Serbia); before her, Bozovic’s Government in 1992 (threats of intervention, DEPOS, demands for S. Milosevic’s resignation, the Panic-Cosic Affair, elections).

On the other hand, the habit of listening to Radio London was renewed during the 1996-97 winter protest, the reader will remember quite easily, because hundreds of thousand of citizens marched the streets on a daily basis, while state news reports reported that at issue were mere isolated pockets of discontents.  At that time the authorities renewed the rhetoric of weeding out foreign agents “carrying foreign flags”?!  As the Government was forced to acknowledge the election rigging (Gonzales), the newly founded Government let loose a certain number of local radio and TV stations from underneath the heavy paw of the ruling party, which in turn began transmitting foreign radio and TV programs so that the people would see how steeped in falsehood the state media are.  This time around, the Radical and JUL are in the forefront, with strong SPS backing in the offensive of constricting media freedoms at a time when they cannot be constricted.  Their objective is to get local government in the cities and towns of Serbia, or maybe some of their MP’s are stocking up on whistles and satellite antennas, intending to make good on their resale value once they become useful.

Closest to the heart of the matter is the so-called protection of the freedoms of the individual in public information which was verbally promoted last week by the Serbian Ministry of Information.  But the Ministry is finding itself at a loss in this new game.  The parliamentary session itself was replete with open infractions against this principle in the speeches given by MP’s and government officials, both in particular instances and in total: hate speech, defimation of journalists and editorial offices, libel and insult — some honorable individuals were called by some MP’s foreign spies, sycophants, traitors, but this journalists will not report on these parliamentary statements because, as he had already had occasion to observe in his previous parliamentary session analysis, that would represent participation in carrying out a criminal act, with immunity inevitably being subject to time limits.  Ruling party MP’s are practically openly announcing that the law will not apply to state media, or to media close to the Government.  Gorica Gajevic listed positive characteristics of several government media, one MP (Z. Djordjevic) self-contentedly stated that the independents — in his vocabulary, “the so-called independents” — should feel the joys of such “democratic legislation”!  And why should that law apply only to the one, and not to the other — to the bootlicking media?  It would be quite interesting if the articles of this Law were to be applied in this segment of our public life.

The new Law on Public Information proclaims protection against monopolies on the basis of Article 46 of the Serbian Constitution.  In a normal state that would have to affect Radio Television Serbia, Radio Belgrade and owners of the big distribution chains.  Well, let’s just see how it will be applied.

THE HUNTER HUNTED: The legislators state that they are particularly interested in protecting the freedoms of the individual because, as is cited in the legislators’ elaboration, there have been many unbecoming attacks on the dignity and honor of citizens in the absence of certain restriction in the existing law.  For instance, how will that affect Vice-President of Government, Ph.D. Vojislav Seselj: he slandered, insulted, without any evidence he proclaimed public personalities, journalists, academics, including the Patriarch himself as national traitors, also doing this in the parliamentary discussion on the new Law?

In the elaboration there is special emphasis on protecting the right to correction, which was not reported on by state media ever since the paradigmatic pre-election case involving Vuk Draskovic.

Article 4 states that public media are obligated to inform the public in a truthful, timely and thorough fashion, which the state media did not do even when the earthquakes occurred: they waited for an official statement, reporting on the epicenter hours after the fact, and on the strength of the earthquake only after fifteen days, once the head of state went there.  What did they report about the intensity of the rebellion in Kosovo, on the actual NATO threat, on the social condition, on the increase in social pathology, and were they ever caught lying?

Does the restriction on the release of information also include the illegal manner in which RTS transmits interrogations of arrested individuals in front cameras?  After the last such case, after the crime committed by Albanian terrorists in Klecka, they directly damaged state interest with such reporting by compromising the correctness of the court procedure and in the eyes of the international community brought into question the importance of existing evidence.  Did they do this accidentally or out of criminal negligence?  Were they paid to do it?

According to this law, state officials are obligated to make available all relevant information, while they at the same time they are not allowing the public any insight into the progress of the investigation, for instance, of the murder of the chief of police, nor into the investigations of frauds committed during hyperinflation, one of the three biggest frauds committed in the twentieth century.

This Government and the media which they control have deluded the public with many announcements regarding key issues — on the break out of violence and looting of state warehouses in Albania they kept persuading citizens that the border is closed and that measures have been taken to prevent the spreading of unrest onto the territory of FRY.  They claimed that peace and order are in Kosovo and that highways are open to traffic at a time when the biggest part of the territory was under KLA control, while they demonized independent reports about the same matter as enemy propaganda which is directed at displacing Serbs from Kosovo.

In other words, the situation created by the new “law on truth” is embodied by the joke Adele Stevenson (1900-1965), the American Democrat, told in his 1952 election campaign: “I’ll make a deal with the Republicans: if they stop telling lies about the Democrats, I’ll stop telling the truth about them.”

The fact that the ruling authorities are adopting a law on the press which they explain is intended to protect the state, merely shows that they wish to hide something from their citizens.

Let us guess what?

As far as the interests of the state and its citizens are concerned, the censorial campaign is a sign of confusion, provincialism and shortsightedness and merely creates a new ugly picture about the entire state.  Only, the question is whether this Government is concerned for the interests of the state or are they preoccupied by other worries.  It seems that the issue concerns the fact that according to already known details of the agreement between Milosevic and Holbrooke, the autonomy of Kosovo could quite soon become reality.  This means that the government will have to call republican elections (and the BETA agency is concluding from certain foreign sources that something of the sort can be expected) so that according to the temporary agreement Albanians would be included in Serbian state institutions, in parliament, in government and in the courts.

QUESTIONS: In those elections the ruling coalition will have to offer answers — be it in leftist or rightist language, whichever they choose — to several simple questions.  The first one is: “Why are U-2's flying over Gracanica?”  Others follow from the first one: “Have they, as far as the status of Kosovo is concerned, promised voters and the public something different from what they delivered?”  What is the relation between refusing foreign intervention and actual loss of a part of sovereignty in the part of the territory over which foreign reconnaissance plains are flying, and the territory is being occupied by foreign unarmed controllers who, as Gremek is announcing, will sign an agreement with NATO on guaranteeing personnel security.  They will need be explain whether they realistically represented the character of the insurgence in Kosovo to the domestic and the international public, which was very important for the overall outcome.  For instance, by presenting the operation as antiterrorist, and not, let us say, anti-guerilla, did they ahead of time make a contradiction between word and action?  Did they undertake preventive political and security measures in a timely fashion in order for the escalation in the insurgence not to happen?  Did they do everything they needed to in order for the operations of the government forces not to be compromised?  Did they coordinate their activities on the international level with the armed operations on ground?  Why did they not fight for the right to snuff the insurgence the way Turkey did?  Why did they bring the country to the brink of a conflict with the strongest military formation in the world?  Why do they no longer have any allies?   Why did they make it difficult for potential allies to defend diplomatically this country?  Did they contribute through their incompetence to renewing the negative image of Serbia in international public opinion and to renewing prejudices against it and its citizens?  The Democratic Party announces a list of similar questions in the pamphlet it deals out to citizens, with the observation: “Instead of telling people the truth, he (Slobodan Milosevic) is banning the independent media.”

COUP BY THE CENSORS: As these are questions which require extended and relatively lengthy and thorough argumentation, it is quite clear why they introduced a clause that newspapers must appear before the circuit court judge within 24 hours, probably in line with prostitutes and pickpockets, in order to prove that they published factual information, and if this is not carried out, government officials have the right to confiscate the chief editor’s property and to appropriate his apartment and personal possessions, as the Radicals did to Barbalic family in Zemun a while back.  Now, how is a circuit court judge, like some judge sitting in the final judgement, able to protect basic political freedoms, to decide on appropriation of property, all of which can threaten the affected chief editor for life — and all without him ever appearing in court.  According to this Law, it is sufficient if the order is affixed to his door.

The Government is evidently making a comedy out of the constitution because of daily political demands.  Vuk Draskovic, whose Serbian Renewal Movement refused to vote on the Law on Information in Parliament, announced that this Law is conspiratorial and that it was secretly drafted.  Vojislav Seselj, after the departure of SPO from Parliament, observed self-contentedly: “We chased the rabbit, but we ended up chasing away the Wolf!” (Vuk means Wolf in Serbian.)  He calls SPO a party of deserters.  He is happy he remained with “the company”.

A big technical problem for SPS and JUL might appear in the fact that they will no longer have at their disposal 20-45 MP’s which they always got in electoral districts in Kosovo.  It appears that they still haven’t found the territory in which they are guaranteed the same results.  In the event of the elections, according to the present disposition of parliamentary forces, the one who will head the Government will be Ph.D. Vojislav Seselj.  They have decided to continue to embrace him.

In others words, the entire affair points to the fact that in the ruling red-black coalition there is a lobby which, in order to remain in power, is playing the card of keeping this country in isolation, closed and at least verbally at war with the rest of the world.  That is probably why they chose the campaign against the media — in order to continue the verbal war with the rest of the world.  That lobby, as it seems from the moves which they are making, is consciously giving arguments to those outside of this country who wish to keep it isolated, and all because of narrow interests and guarding of personal privileges.  For this Government feeds on isolation and paranoia.  It is simply like that.