April 8, 1999

CRISIS IN KOSOVO: OVERVIEW OF EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN MEDIA

Following are overviews of trends in media coverage on Kosovo from Albania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Russia, Georgia and Ukraine.

ALBANIA: Media in Tirana strongly condemned Milosevic's policy in Kosovo, and coverage of NATO actions has been extremely positive. Mass-circulation, sensationalist Shekulli, for example, held on March 30: "NATO, the guarantor of peace and freedom, has taken the solution of our issue in its hands and has already begun to make it real." In later coverage, there were increasing calls for a major intervention by NATO ground forces in Kosovo. Many opinionmakers called upon all Albanians to remain united in these difficult moments for the nation. Not surprisingly, the press devoted extensive coverage to the situation of the refugees in different parts of the country. There appeared to be growing concern among media voices about reported food shortages in the northeast area of the country, where over 100,000 Albanian Kosovars are taking shelter. On state television, the government tried to reassure the public there will not be shortages in the nation as a whole, even though there may be temporary shortages in the northeast due to the refugee influx. The print media, however, preferred to sensationalize the story and focused entirely on the negative. All media voices agreed with the judgment that aid from other countries and relief foundations is urgently required because Albania cannot face these numbers alone for long and more new arrivals are anticipated.

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: From the start of NATO's Operation Allied Force, media in Macedonia have weighed in heavily on events that have had a major impact on the country, from the violent anti-NATO protests in front of the U.S. Embassy in Skopje and other NATO embassies on March 25, the day after the air strikes began, to the wave of Kosovar refugees that fled the Serbian province to Macedonia. With few exceptions, commentaries from Skopje have been very critical of the perceived attitudes of the international community and media regarding FYROM's handling of the refugee crisis in that country. Opinionmakers complained that the international media are portraying Macedonia in the worst possible light, focusing on the reported lack of hygiene, food and general organization for the refugees. Independent, centrist Dnevnik was typical in its lamentation that "in the perception of the international public, currently living in the 'world according to CNN,' Macedonia has every chance to enter the company of 'bad guy' states.... For a state, nothing worse than that perception is possible."

This survey is based on commentaries appearing in previous R/MR reports, March-April, 1999.

EDITORS: Diana McCaffrey, Kathleen Brahney, Katherine Starr

cont. ...

BULGARIA: Available comment from Sofia complained of "Western," i.e., U.S. "pressure" on Bulgaria to accept Kosovar refugees. While a left-leaning paper reasoned that "logic dictates that countries near and far" help relieve Macedonia of its refugee burden, a number of others insisted that Bulgaria should "adamantly defend" its position on the number of people it is willing to accept. Top-circulation Trud blamed "democratic Europe and the U.S." for having "caused the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo," and for wanting to the "isolate" the refugees "in economically weak Macedonia and Bulgaria, a.k.a., 'the backyard of Europe.'" Dailies also expressed resentment over the "war's" perceived negative impact on the Bulgarian economy--which they estimated to be in the millions of dollars. In addition, editorialists worried that, should NATO deploy ground forces against Yugoslavia, Bulgaria would become "NATO's strategic rear."

ROMANIA: Commentary in Bucharest offered sharply contrasting views. A majority of opposition dailies was quite critical of the NATO bombing campaign, contending that it was an "illegal" act taken against a sovereign state. These critics argued that "what Milosevic was unable to do, the bombardment has accomplished.... Kosovo is depopulated." Some asserted that America's "good Samaritan image risks being turned into the image of a ruthless policeman." Pro-government Romania Libera, on the other hand, in numerous articles proffered distinctly different assessments of the NATO mission, contending that the Alliance's action is justified, and to support it is squarely in the interests of Romania. "Our national interest is totally different from Moscow's interests...and under whose influence we would be condemned to return in case we are crazy enough to move away from NATO," one editorial stated. Other commentaries dwelled on Yugoslav President Milosevic and the major role he plays in the crisis. "When you kill thousands of your fellow citizens, then sovereignty is nothing but a clumsy screen to camouflage a torture chamber. In this sense Milosevic is no different from Ceausescu. If Romanians have a debt toward the Serbs, it should be to support the Serbian people in their efforts to escape from Milosevic's dictatorship," Romania Libera concluded. Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's recent one-day visit to Romania received extensive and positive media coverage. All April 7 major dailies carried news reports of his meetings with the foreign minister and the president. The coverage both in the print media and on television was, for Romania, refreshingly straightforward and covered most of the subjects raised during the visit.

CROATIA: Analysts weighed in with rather mixed views of the NATO mission, with a majority of commentators judging that ground troops will be necessary if the Alliance is to succeed. Most editorialists, however, focused more sharply on how unfolding events in Kosovo will affect Croatia's relations with the West--read the U.S. superpower--and specifically, whether it will be accepted into the Partnership for Peace sooner rather than later. Independent, Rijeka-based Novi List, for example, observed: "Washington has shortened its list of Croatian goals to enter the Partnership for Peace in order to get what it needs immediately, and has requested only what is possible in the foreseeable future." Coverage of Foreign Minister Granic's recent meetings with Secretary Albright and Ambassador Gelbard focused almost exclusively on the Partnership for Peace question, and the March 30 signing of the agreement between Enron and the Croatian electric power company only added to the speculation.

SLOVENIA: Editorial comment from Slovenia--the majority from Ljubljana's left-of-center Delo--reflected both a deep-seated contempt of Mr. Milosevic, "the Balkan butcher," and concern about Serbian nationalism, which one paper equated with "Nazism." While pundits generally welcomed the fact that "the West demonstrated its decisiveness after months of hesitation," some questioned whether NATO "will go to the end or not," which, it was argued, would entail ground troops. While maintaining that there was "no alternative" to NATO action, a few expressed concern about the precedent being set in Kovoso, whereby "the strongest country in the world acts illegally and without UN consent."

RUSSIA: From the outset, the vast majority of Russian media has been harshly critical of NATO's military intervention. Papers of all stripes--official, neo-communist, centrist and reformist--excoriated NATO's bombing campaign on the grounds that it was it was "an aggression against a sovereign state" without the blessing of the UN, and hence a violation of international law. A typical sentiment held that the aim of the U.S., "with NATO as its instrument," was to establish a "Pax Americana" in Europe and beyond. Some agreed that "the Balkan war has put an end to detente" with the U.S., while others fretted that it would encourage "anti-Americanism" in their country. Denunciations of NATO's action have continued apace--with papers still maintaining that "NATO is the chief culprit," and that "the Americans are...responsible for turning an internal civil conflict into a major European war." A very few voices, however, have emerged over the last week that have directed their criticism not at NATO, but at Moscow's reaction to the Kosovo crisis. Reformist Izvestiya noted on April 8, for example, "As Russia consistently connives with Milosevic and ignores ethnic cleansing in central Europe, it cannot claim to be 'morally right.'" A couple of dailies agreed with reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti, which attributed the "mass-scale hysteria in Russia over NATO action" to "slanted" news reports: "The Western media's focus [on genocide and deportation] is completely absent in Russian TV reports, as if there is no such thing as a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. This makes the NATO air raids look like a senseless and absurd aggression."

GEORGIA: From the beginning of the NATO operation, Georgian media have stuck to strict reporting on the events in Kosovo. Reporters mostly cite international media stories and produce very little original material. Georgian print and electronic media have left it to the public to make a judgment by printing and broadcasting news and analysis by both Western sources, such as Reuters, and Russian media.

UKRAINE: Ukrainian electronic and print media offered contrasting views of the Kosovo crisis. In their most recent coverage, Ukrainian TV stations have taken fairly balanced and moderate positions on the situation, focusing on the humanitarian plight of the refugees and the Ukrainian government's efforts to assist the refugees in Macedonia. Print media remained critical of the NATO operation against Yugoslavia, but have moderated their views somewhat in the wake of increased reporting of Serbian ethnic cleansing and the forced expulsions of Kosovo Albanians. Centrist Den held that NATO is incapable of achieving its objectives by the use of air strikes alone, and has inadvertently "contributed" to the Serbian campaign of ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. Opposition weekly Polityka, while not absolving Mr. Milosevic of "Serbian crimes in Kosovo," nonetheless deemed the NATO air strikes "cruel and rash steps" against Yugoslavia and the world community, and a "violation of international law."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

4/8/99

# # #