Ruder Finn - Balkan Spin Doctors
Damian Martinovich
New York Spin Doctor Company (public relations), I think that even they have
been amazed by the amount of lies they have got away with in the last 9
years. I think their founding fathers would be shocked as to the lies that
they have shovelled to a the public.
I think that Tony Shea may even be a consultant for them.
Look at their list of clients:
American Society of Travel Agents
Atlas Travel of Dubrovnik
Croatian National Tourism Office
European Council of American Chambers of Commerce
Republic of Albania
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Croatia
Republic of Kosova
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Republic of Kosova? Isn't that false advertising?So Ruder Finn is paid by
the KLA or Nato or the US Government in this respect.
This company has been lying to the public about the Balkans for close to 10
years now.
How pathetic, using Spin Doctors. The more you think about it, the more this
Clinton administration makes one violently ill. The Clinton regime is based
on lies and it just becomes so more and more obvious.
...you know exactly what I mean...
DM
Ruder Finn "International Client List"
(http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/index.html)
Alan
"Damian Martinovich" <marti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ruder Finn.
>
> New York Spin Doctor Company (public relations), I think that even
they have
> been amazed by the amount of lies they have got away with in the last
9
> years. I think their founding fathers would be shocked as to the lies
that
> they have shovelled to a the public.
>
> I think that Tony Shea may even be a consultant for them.
>
> Look at their list of clients:
Thanks for the link. Here is another list:
American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA)
Association of Croatian Travel Agencies
ATLAS Travel Agency of Dubrovnik
Australian Tourist Commission
Barbados Tourism Authority
Canadian Airlines
Cathay Pacific Airways
City of Cannes and Convention Center
Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Public Library; Regional Transportation
Authority
Croatia National Tourist Board
Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau
Finnair
Hilton Hotels Corporation
Howard Johnson
Hyatt Hotel Corporation
New Orleans
Qantas Airways
South African Airways
St. James Club/Los Angeles
The Tudor Hotel (New York)
Toronto, Canada: Toronto International Festival; Toronto Transit
Commission
Universal Studios, Florida
Vail / Beaver Creek, Colorado
Westin Hotels
(http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/index.html)
And another one:
Boston University
Catholic University of America
Cedar Crest College
Columbia University
Cooper Union
Ecole Nationale Superieure des Arts et Metiers
Fashion Institute of Technology
Gallaudet University
Georgetown University
Hebrew Union College
Institute for Advanced Study
MIT
New York University
North Carolina State University
Pace University
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of, System of Higher Education
Rhode Island School of Design
Swarthmore College
Syracuse University
University of Hawaii
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School
University of the West Indies
Washington University
(http://www.ruderfinn.com/public/index.html)
And another one:
the governments of Israel, Greece, Mexico, Russia (!!!!), South Africa,
Switzerland, New Zealand and Japan. And, as advisors to the World Bank,
programs for Hungary, Turkey and Morocco.
And another one:
Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency
Aeroports des Paris
Denver International Airport
City of Dusseldorf, Messegelande Exhibition Center
Port of Le Havre
City of Johnstown, Pennsylvania
City of Lyon, France
Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
City of Parma, Italy (CIBUS international food fair)
City of New Rochelle, New York
City of Wichita, Kansas
City and Port of New Orleans
Northeastern Brazil
Region of Umbria, Italy
Croatia
Greece
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
South Africa
Sweden
Thailand
Zaire
U.S. Agency for International Development
The World Bank
New York Region Sustainable Development Initiative
Institute for International Health and Development
MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity
University of West Indies
Export Promotion
Japan External Trade Organization
City of Torre del Greco, Italy (cameo, coral)
South African Trade Organization (1st post-apartheid era trade mission
and industrial exhibition to the United States)
Argentine Trade Commission (confectionery, wines)
Brazilian Trade Commission (fashion, jewelry)
Austrian Trade Commission (food, wines, information technology)
Italian Trade Commission (27 products)
Spanish Commercial Office (olive oil)
Finnish Export Institute (with Finnair)
Portuguese Trade Commission (wines)
(http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/index.html)
Visibly all these clients must be CIA stooges and "spin doctor"
"caviar".
You might also read and comment David Finn's essay "How Ethical Can We
Be?" on http://www.ruderfinn.com/persp/how_ethical.html ....
Who is "Tony Shea", BTW ?
Alan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Hugo
others too):
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a370e19cc5354.htm
Heres a snippet:
=================== SAMPLE =====================
.....
Yet the shock of being duped soon wore off and gullibility returned.
In no time another American PR firm, Ruder Finn, working for the
Croatian and Bosnian separatists, publicly bragged that it had been
able to turn world opinion against the Serbs. In April 1993 on French
television, James Harff, the director of Ruder Finn, described his
proudest public relations effort as having "managed to put Jewish
opinion on our [Croatian and Bosnian] side." This was a "sensitive
matter," he added, as "the Croatian and Bosnian past [history] was
marked by real and cruel anti-semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews
perished in Croatian camps... Our challenge was to reverse this
attitude and we succeeded masterfully. At the beginning of July 1992,
New York Newsday came out with the article on Serb camps. We jumped at
the opportunity immediately. We outwitted three big Jewish
organizations.... That was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish
organizations entered the game on the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians we
could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind.
Nobody understood what was happening in Yugoslavia.... By a single
move, we were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys
which would hereafter play itself. We won by targeting the Jewish
audience. Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in
the press, with the use of words with high emotional content such as
ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc, which evoke images of Nazi
Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. "
=================== END ===========================================
It exposes the reality of how Ruder-Finn and others have fabricated
reports on Serb "atrocities" for almost a decade.
The long list of clients, doesnt not prove that the company has been
honest in respect of Balkan news reporting, and it does not absolve
the company or its directors from the guilt that arises from the
conseqiences of their actions.
Harff is on record as saying that the truth plays no part in
advertising, and played no part in the Balkan "news" campaign.
Western media "sources" in fact rely heavily on PR outlets like this,
they uncritically accept whatever they hear, with little regard for
the integrity of the information.
Right now ITN and Living Marxism are in a legal battle, as ITN wants
to censor what that magazine has exposed about Bosnian "camp"
fabrications.
Read it yourself if u like:
http://www.informinc.co.uk/ITN-vs-LM/story/LM97_Bosnia.html
Hugh
sp...@erols.com
Damian Martinovich wrote:
> Ruder Finn.
>
> New York Spin Doctor Company (public relations), I think that even they have
> been amazed by the amount of lies they have got away with in the last 9
> years. I think their founding fathers would be shocked as to the lies that
> they have shovelled to a the public.
>
> I think that Tony Shea may even be a consultant for them.
>
> Look at their list of clients:
>
> American Society of Travel Agents
> Atlas Travel of Dubrovnik
> Croatian National Tourism Office
> European Council of American Chambers of Commerce
> Republic of Albania
> Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
> Republic of Croatia
> Republic of Kosova
> Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
>
> Republic of Kosova? Isn't that false advertising?So Ruder Finn is paid by
> the KLA or Nato or the US Government in this respect.
>
> This company has been lying to the public about the Balkans for close to 10
> years now.
>
> How pathetic, using Spin Doctors. The more you think about it, the more this
> Clinton administration makes one violently ill. The Clinton regime is based
> on lies and it just becomes so more and more obvious.
>
> ...you know exactly what I mean...
>
> DM
You mean like Greece?:
Location Marketing
>
>
Damian Martinovich
You are at the inncorrect link, go to the International Relations Clients
Link.
To make life even easier for yourself and others go to the direct page,
since the site uses simple frames.
http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/intl_cl02.html
I really don't have to teach you how to use a web browser, do I?
It lists its client as the Republic of Kosova. I think that is false
advertising and who is supplying Ruder Finn money for their Spin Doctoring?
The KLA? US Government?Generous outer suburban zombies?
A simple pattern is followed, get it?
Kindest regards,
DM
<sp...@erols.com> wrote in message news:388422D8...@erols.com...
Damian Martinovich
really putting all the pieces together in regards to the media bias.
- DM
Hugo <hu...@morantek.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38837638...@news.demon.co.uk...
Damian Martinovich
Deep breath now take it easy.
I understand that perhaps (although a highly doubt it) that you might be
confused as to how to navigate through Ruder Finn's simple Frames based Web
Site.
Try this link:
http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/intl_cl02.html
The point is look at the "Internation Relations" client list.
Follow the pattern.
Look at the strange country called "Republic of Kosova", hey? What country
is that? Thats false advertising. And the point is who from "Kosova" is
supplying Ruder Finn with money? The KLA? The US government? The UN?
Regards,
DM
Alan <alan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85v4hf$6e7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hugo
however through self censorship, the media have chosen to neglect it
as a news item.
With very few excpetions, the news has made no mention of the role
played by private corporations in assisting foreign governemnts in
their crimes.
Due to sanctions on Serbia, that governemnt could not possibly compete
with Croatia and others in this respect.
Ruder-Finn (and others) have played a very important role in creating
an image of the KLA, this image has been uncritically accepted by
western media as a fact of history.
Before the bombing (august 1998 an onwards) I had highly reliable
reports about KLA atrocities taking place in Kosovo, yet the press
ignored my criticisms, and repeatedly regurgitated a standard mantra.
It is a sad state of affairs, when a journalist is kidnapped by the
KLA in December 1998 (at the height of public attention) and not one
single paper ot tv news report mentioned the matter.
Willam Walker however got instant access to the TV news channels, just
by mentioning the word "grave".
The role of the PR firms, with their access to capital, their business
contacts and other resources, is poorly appreciated.
Hugh
Alan
"Damian Martinovich" <marti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alan.
>
> Deep breath now take it easy.
> I understand that perhaps (although a highly doubt it) that you might
be
> confused as to how to navigate through Ruder Finn's simple Frames
based Web
> Site.
>
> Try this link:
> http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/intl_cl02.html
>
> The point is look at the "Internation Relations" client list.
> Follow the pattern.
> Look at the strange country called "Republic of Kosova", hey? What
country
> is that? Thats false advertising. And the point is who from "Kosova"
is
> supplying Ruder Finn with money? The KLA? The US government? The UN?
Do not worry Damian, I had seen your list as well.
I also would like to know what is the "Republic of Kosova", though I
suspect that you will find an array of private Albanian and Kosovar
Albanian sponsors behind that concept.
I fail to see anything wrong in Ruder Finn's work. By "wrong", I mean
unlawful or ethically reprehensible. Promoting the interests of a
"Republic of Kosova" is a perfectly legitimate objective, from my point
of view.
All countries, organisations, companies and relevant groups who have to
deal with international institutions and foreign governments use
similar means to help promote their agenda. Serbia
Have you read http://www.ruderfinn.com/persp/ethic.html ?
Alan
>
> Alan <alan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:85v4hf$6e7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Alan
Well, it maybe does. Also it maybe does not. I have not seen that
interview on the French TV. Neither have you. We both rely on the
report by a third party (freerepublic.com), in fact an article by a
freelance journalist, Marjaleena Repo , who also happens to be a
declared activist. You choose to believe her recollections and
theories. I might choose not to be as "gullible".
> The long list of clients, doesnt not prove that the company has been
> honest in respect of Balkan news reporting, and it does not absolve
> the company or its directors from the guilt that arises from the
> conseqiences of their actions.
>
> Harff is on record as saying that the truth plays no part in
> advertising, and played no part in the Balkan "news" campaign.
Do you have the exact text of that interview from "French TV" archives?
Do you know the context of that interview? Do you know the questions
that were asked?
What makes you think, IF the statements have been correctly
transcribed, that that gentleman was not simply promoting his company,
and overplaying the role it played in the events?
You choose to believe in the godlike efficiency of that company. I
might not.
> Western media "sources" in fact rely heavily on PR outlets like this,
> they uncritically accept whatever they hear, with little regard for
> the integrity of the information.
It is perfectly true that, for numerous issues in a wide range of
fields, PR companies are paid to channel specific information through
the media to the public. It is your choice to decide that "Western
media sources (have) little regard for the integrity of the
information." I know from my personal experience in a certain number of
fields that your judgement is not correct. MOST serious (we can argue
on that qualifier) media and journalists work hard at short circuiting
PR flows and at getting a direct contact with the "subject".
There is a love/hate relationship between the PR agencies and the
press. The press appreciates getting data without too much effort, but
hates being seen as a passive channel of information. The PR agencies
walk a fine thread as well: providing falsified material will ruin
their credibility immediately.
> Right now ITN and Living Marxism are in a legal battle, as ITN wants
> to censor what that magazine has exposed about Bosnian "camp"
> fabrications.
>
> Read it yourself if u like:
>
> http://www.informinc.co.uk/ITN-vs-LM/story/LM97_Bosnia.html
This is another subject. I will read that story and maybe react when I
have a litlle more time.
Alan
Igor V Litvinyuk
Alan (alan...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: Well, it maybe does. Also it maybe does not. I have not
seen that
: interview on the French TV. Neither have you. We both
rely on the
: report by a third party (freerepublic.com), in fact an
article by a
: freelance journalist, Marjaleena Repo , who also happens
to be a
: declared activist. You choose to believe her
recollections and
: theories. I might choose not to be as "gullible".
It's too late for you to make this choice. It's a rather curious
use of words to call "gullible" those who hesistated to believe
the "news" cooked up by Rudder-Finn and the likes.
: Do you have the exact text of that interview from "French TV"
archives?
: Do you know the context of that interview? Do you know the
questions
: that were asked?
: What makes you think, IF the statements have been correctly
: transcribed, that that gentleman was not simply promoting
his company,
: and overplaying the role it played in the events?
: You choose to believe in the godlike efficiency of that
company. I
: might not.
Wow, if only the deraged NATO-lovers were so inquisitive when they
swallowed the reports of interviews with Kosovar "atrocities
victims" and other Rudder-Finn fabrications. But that would go
against their blood-thirsty homicidal inclinations.
I.
John Caruso
>Do you have the exact text of that interview from "French TV" archives?
>Do you know the context of that interview? Do you know the questions
>that were asked?
Enjoy:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An April 1993 interview by Jacques Merlino, associate director of
French TV 2, with James Harff, director of Ruder Finn Global Public
Affairs, a Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm, explains the
role of the corporate media in shaping a political issue.
Harff bragged of his services to his clients, the Republic of Croatia,
the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the parliamentary opposition in
Kosovo, an autonomous region of Serbia. Merlino described how Harff
uses a file of several hundred journalists, politicians,
representatives of humanitarian associations, and academics to create
public opinion. Harff explained: "Speed is vital ... it is the first
assertion that really counts. All denials are entirely ineffective."
In the interview, Merlino asked Harff what his proudest public
relations endeavor was. Harff responded:
"To have managed to put Jewish opinion on our side. This was a
sensitive matter, as the dossier was dangerous looked at from this
angle. President Tudjman was very careless in his book, 'Wastelands of
Historical Reality.' Reading his writings one could accuse him of
anti-Semitism. [Tudjman claimed the Holocaust never happened--S.F.] In
Bosnia the situation was no better: President Izetbegovic strongly
supported the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in his book,
'The Islamic Declaration.'
"Besides, the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel
anti-Semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps,
so there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations
to be hostile toward the Croats and the Bosnians. Our challenge was to
reverse this attitude and we succeeded masterfully.
"At the beginning of July 1992, New York Newsday came out with the
article on Serb camps. We jumped at the opportunity immediately. We
outwitted three big Jewish organizations--the B'nai B'rith
Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee and the American
Jewish Congress. In August, we suggested that they publish an
advertisement in the New York Times and organize demonstrations
outside the United Nations.
"That was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish organizations entered the
game on the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians we could promptly equate the
Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind. Nobody understood what was
happening in Yugoslavia. The great majority of Americans were probably
asking themselves in which African country Bosnia was situated.
"By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of good guys
and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by targeting
the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear change of
language in the press, with use of words with high emotional content
such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which evoke
images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. No one could
go against it without being accused of revisionism. We really batted a
thousand in full."
Merlino: "But between 2 and 5 Aug. 1992 when you did this you had no
proof that what you said was true. All you had were two Newsday
articles."
Harff: "Our work is not to verify information. We are not equipped for
that. Our work is to accelerate the circulation of information
favorable to us, to aim at judiciously chosen targets. We did not
confirm the existence of death camps in Bosnia, we just made it widely
known that Newsday affirmed it. ... We are professionals. We had a job
to do and we did it. We are not paid to moralize."
[ http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That statement about "revisionism" should sound familiar, as I've seen
you pull it out quite often.
I'll expect the usual attacks on the source, ignoring the detail and
nature of the information and the fact that these are direct quotes
and do not involve surmise. However, since two sources have now been
cited, it's certainly incumbent upon YOU to prove that this interview
did not happen or that these transcripts are fabricated. See also the
corroborating information below.
Personally, I consider this one of the most sickeningly cynical uses
of suffering I could possibly imagine. Harff's pride in their ability
to "outwit" Jewish groups and use their Holocaust experience as a PR
tool should outrage any moral person. But maybe he spoke to David
Finn about that wonderful ethics essay you keep mentioning, and saw
the part about tempering one's morality by being "ruthless, reckless,
and remorseless." Or maybe he's just an asshole.
>You choose to believe in the godlike efficiency of that company. I
>might not.
You might rather choose to take the word of CIPRA ("Creativity in
Public Relations Awards"), an organization which recognizes and rewards
PR campaigns, and which cited Ruder Finn's Kosovo campaign in 1996.
Here's the URL:
http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
And here's an excerpt, noting Ruder Finn's primary strategy:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategy
With the international focus on Serbian aggression in Bosnia, Ruder
Finn devised a strategy of linkage through which a final peaceful end
to the war in former Yugoslavia was coupled to resolving the dispute
in Kosova. Additionally, strategic consideration was given to keeping
the spotlight on Kosova for targeted audiences including Members of
the U.S. House and Senate, Clinton Administration officials at the
State Department and National Security Council, diplomats at the
United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, and the
extensive and vocal Albanian-American diaspora.
An intensive direct communications approach and media relations plan
were devised. In addition to a continuous "drum beat" of information
flowing to the targets, Ruder Finn increased the volume and velocity
of the message at critical times, such as during the Bosnia peace
talks in Dayton, Ohio, and during the U.N. General Assembly. A theme
was created and used in every public statement: "There can be no peace
in the Balkans until there is peace in Kosova." It became the battle
cry for the public relations campaign in America.
Tactics for executing the strategy included periodic, usually twice
weekly, Kosova Infofaxes a series of one-page concise summary
paragraphs about the current situation in Kosova actions by the
Congress, supportive newspaper columns, statistics on repression in
Kosova and other convincing information from the Kosova perspective.
More than 300 Members of Congress, U.N. Security Council members,
foreign policy leaders and organizations, human rights officials,
columnists and commentators, and foreign affairs journalists received
the Kosova Infofaxes simultaneously through Ruder Finn's private fax
wire service.
Two Congressional Delegation visits to Kosova were organized by Ruder
Finn in 1995, with six Members of the House traveling to the region on
an itinerary organized and escorted by Ruder Finn. The President and
Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosova visited the U.S. four times
in 1995 for the purpose of meeting with targets, speaking to foreign
policy organizations, and participating in interviews with journalists
including The Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Time,
Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, Associated Press Television,
Reuters Television, CNN on numerous occasions, WTN BBC and C-[SPAN?]
Op-ed articles by the Kosova Prime Minister and supportive Members of
Congress were drafted and published in The Christian Science Monitor
and Washington Times. Ruder Finn worked with the congressional
Albanian Issues Caucus to draft, introduce and pass resolutions of
support for Kosova and amendments to appropriations bill providing $8
million in humanitarian assistance for Kosova in the 104th Congress.
Congressional hearings were conducted on the subject of Kosova by the
International Relations Committee and Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe with Ruder Finn's assistance; statements were
drafted for Kosova officials who testified, and media interviews were
arranged around the hearings.
Through the Albanian Issues Caucus, a core group of 20 Members of the
House, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and other key members of
the Senate, Kosova with Ruder Finn's counsel built a solid coalition
of congressional support.
On three occasions, Secretary of State Christopher met with the
President and Prime Minister; Ruder Finn also arranged meetings with
National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Madeleine Albright numerous Assistant Secretaries of State and Defense
Department officials, and Vice President Al Gore. On two of these
occasions, the Administration publicly pledged unilateral military
defense of Kosova if the Serbs decided to overtly attack the republic.
The Albanian-American diaspora concentrated in New York, Chicago and
the Upper Midwest was mobilized to help with the public relations
campaign by applying pressure on their elected congressional
representatives to support Kosova legislation, rallying in New York at
the U.N. and in Washington at the U.S. Capitol, maintaining a vigil at
the Bosnia peace talks in Dayton during the month of November, and
making public statements in support of their Albanian brethren in
Kosova.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Targets"--you've gotta love that terminology. I'd say Ruder Finn has
good reason to take credit, wouldn't you? And I'd also point out that
this article independently verifies a number of the points in the Harff
interview.
This information should be startling to anyone whose mind is even
remotely open on these issues. And this is precisely why it's so
important to read media accounts with a highly suspect and critical
eye, since the systemic bias which has been fostered so consciously
by Ruder Finn (and other PR firms?) is invisible to us.
- John
John Caruso
>Ruder Finn.
(I'll repaste an article I wrote a month or so ago on this topic.
It repeats some information from another response I've made, but
it's worth seeing twice.)
The main PR firm I've heard of which operates in the former Yugoslavia
is Ruder Finn. Among their international clients, they list the
Republic of Kosova [sic], as well as Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
and Albania. You can see this for yourself on their "International
Relations Clients" page, at:
http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/intl_cl02.html
And you can read a thoroughly repellant interview with a former Ruder Finn
executive, regarding their activities in the previous Balkan wars (and
their conscious and active manipulation of Jewish groups in particular--
surely one of the lowest tactics I've ever heard of). This is definitely
required reading:
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
If you ever wondered how the Holocaust came to be associated with
Yugoslavia, now you've got your answer.
As for Kosovo, Ruder Finn actually received an award for their
campaign on behalf of Kosovo from CIPRA, a PR industry forum, if you
can believe that. Here's a snip from the CIPRA citation for Ruder
Finn's campaign:
Strategy
[...] Additionally, strategic consideration was given to keeping
the spotlight on Kosova for targeted audiences including Members of
the U.S. House and Senate, Clinton Administration officials at the
State Department and National Security Council, diplomats at the
United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, and the
extensive and vocal Albanian-American diaspora.
An intensive direct communications approach and media relations plan
were devised. In addition to a continuous "drum beat" of information
flowing to the targets, Ruder Finn increased the volume and velocity
of the message at critical times, such as during the Bosnia peace
talks in Dayton, Ohio, and during the U.N. General Assembly.
Two Congressional Delegation visits to Kosova were organized by Ruder
Finn in 1995, with six Members of the House traveling to the region on
an itinerary organized and escorted by Ruder Finn. The President and
Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosova visited the U.S. four times
in 1995 for the purpose of meeting with targets, speaking to foreign
policy organizations, and participating in interviews with journalists
including The Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Time,
Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, Associated Press
Television, Reuters Television, CNN on numerous occasions, WTN BBC and
C-[SPAN?]
[ http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm ]
My favorite terminology in this paragraph: government officials and
the world press referred to as "targets" of Ruder Finn. If this little
selection doesn't shake up your beliefs, you're just not paying attention.
And here are some more random Ruder Finn URLs:
http://call.army.mil/call/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/bosnia2.htm
http://web.idirect.com/~ccaft/mr_serbs.html
Ruder Finn was also one of the PR firms responsible for the apocryphal
Iraqi "incubator babies" story before the Gulf War--a piece of propaganda
so successful that Bush actually cited this story in his speeches. By
the time the story was proven to have been a hoax, the damage had
already been done (or in Ruder Finn's view, success had already been
achieved).
Yet despite this record, when people are faced with this information
there's often an interesting dynamic. Someone who's been exposed to
years of propganda (unwittingly, of course, and both directly and
indirectly, as noted above) hears about the campaign to demonize the
Serbs, but since they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated they dismiss
this new information--after all, the Serbs are demons, so what's wrong
with portraying them that way?
- John
John Caruso
>Do not worry Damian, I had seen your list as well.
Then why the attempt to obfuscate it by citing "travel and tourism"
and "economic development" clients, and throwing around insulting
insinuations that Damian feels all of the people on the lists you
cited are clearly "CIA stooges"? Why do you insist on using these
types of tactics?
This is the relevant list, as you know:
International Relations Clients
American Society of Travel Agents
Atlas Travel of Dubrovnik
Axa-Medi Assurances
Croatian National Tourism Office
European Council of American Chambers of Commerce
Fyffes Bananas
Plastico Limited
Republic of Albania
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Croatia
Republic of El Salvador
Republic of Estonia
Republic of Kosova
The Rebuild Dubrovnik Fund
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
World Alpine Ski Championships
[ http://www.ruderfinn.com/intl/intl_cl02.html ]
The presence or absence on such a list is not in itself an indictment,
but it DOES establish a fact: PR firms were working on the behalf of
the Republics or Kosova, Bosnia, and Croatia (sic as necessary),
actively attempting to shape public, government, and press opinion.
And successfully, as I've noted elsewhere.
And BTW, the CIA apparently does often use tourist operations as
fronts for international operations, according to their declassified
records. Your smirking reference, with its implication that you find
the idea of CIA misbehavior quaintly conspiratorial, says more about
you than it does about Damian.
>I fail to see anything wrong in Ruder Finn's work. By "wrong", I mean
>unlawful or ethically reprehensible. Promoting the interests of a
>"Republic of Kosova" is a perfectly legitimate objective, from my point
>of view.
Unlawful, maybe not (we're not in a position to assess). Unethical?
Absolutely. If you've read the selections I've cited elsewhere in
this thread, you should clearly see why that's so.
A good case could be made that the NATO attack on Kosovo would not
have happened without Ruder Finn's active intervention. So assessing
the morality of their actions goes far beyond considerations of direct
violations of the law.
>> > You might also read and comment David Finn's essay "How Ethical Can
>> > We Be?" on http://www.ruderfinn.com/persp/how_ethical.html ....
I read it a long time ago when I discovered their site, though I
almost gagged on the title. Did you just miss, or did you ignore,
the parts where Finn says that "ruthless, reckless, and remorseless"
became his watchwords? Or his startingly apt selection of Nietzche
quotes? Putting aside his self-serving spin (ha ha) on these points,
it does say a lot about his company's actions. Or do you choose to
accept the word of a PR firm owner's assessment of the ethics of
his firm's activities?
If so--if you're willing to accept the word of invidual actors in the
Balkans--you're going to have a complete change of heart when you read
this quote from Slobodan Milosevic's 1998 interview with Newsweek (just
one of several examples I could cite):
[...] when we were talking among us generally, we always had in mind
that those problems can be only solved on the basis of [the] principle
of equality of all citizens living in Kosovo, and equality of all
national communities living in Kosovo. So whatever any national
community being Albanian, Turkish or Muslim want to have as
self-governance, that is practically [without] limit. It is
completely okay, but if they have any limits in that freedom, that is
only the same right of the other national communities living in
Kosovo. So no one national community living in Kosovo among those I
have mentioned can become master of the others. All national
communities have to be equal and have to have equal rights.
[...]
Albanians are good people--and one of equal national minorities in Serbia.
[ http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/issue/25_98b/tnw/today/ex/ex01fr_1.htm ]
Personally, I feel the interview should be read skeptically (though it
should be read), as should the comments of any interested party.
I'm tempted to pull out the example of _Mein Kampf_ as well, but I'll
let it rest. You get the point. Ruder Finn must be judged by its
actions, not by the self-serving words of one of its executives.
- John
Alan
car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
> In article <861qor$4v0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alan wrote:
>...SNIP...(a pity iac did not also give the date, reference and
circumstances of the show, but this seems like a pretty serious
transcript)
"Bragging" is the word here.
> >You choose to believe in the godlike efficiency of that company. I
> >might not.
>
> You might rather choose to take the word of CIPRA ("Creativity in
> Public Relations Awards"), an organization which recognizes and
rewards
> PR campaigns, and which cited Ruder Finn's Kosovo campaign in 1996.
> Here's the URL:
>
> http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
...SNIP...
> "Targets"--you've gotta love that terminology. I'd say Ruder Finn has
> good reason to take credit, wouldn't you? And I'd also point out that
> this article independently verifies a number of the points in the
Harff
> interview.
CIPRA is an award designed by Inside PR, a magazine centered on the PR
market, published by EMMI. It is a media, nothing more, nothing less,
catering for the PR companies and their customers. Their role is to
portray PR as extremely powerful. They will of course not downplay the
influence of their clients...
If that report is not itself biased (for whatever reasons), I must
admit it does give Ruder Finn a "good reason to take credit". Thank you
for the link anyway.
> This information should be startling to anyone whose mind is even
> remotely open on these issues. And this is precisely why it's so
> important to read media accounts with a highly suspect and critical
> eye, since the systemic bias which has been fostered so consciously
> by Ruder Finn (and other PR firms?) is invisible to us.
Yes: and other PR firms. All countries, organisations, companies and
activist groups use PR to push their agenda forward. Many (most ?)
outsource that work to specialised companies. Some have an internal
full time PR team. In the Komintern golden age PR was called "agitprop"
and was already in the hands of full time professionals. That is
nothing new. The PR Central site illustrates this ubiquitous nature of
PR (check the whole http://www.prcentral.com/bodyindex.htm ). Some PR
companies seem to work better and more efficiently than others. Ruder
Finn looks like a very good firm. Our posts here are providing them
with plenty of free publicity ;-/
Hugo
Lets be honest shall we, the Press sell audiences to advertisers,
thats their business model, and it is a business.
If you choose to attach some moral or ethical responsibility to the
press, then you are being gullible.
One need look no further than US writer Noam Chomsky in his book
manufacturing consent, to see the evidence for this.
Chomsky takes a simple scientific approach, "lets look as the
newspaper archives and see how stories are actually reported".
The record shows that murders of catholic bishops in El Salvador
receives some 20th of the space that similar murders receive in
Poland.
This is repeated time and again, the common factor is evident, stories
that might expose or embarrass the US (due to its support for death
squads and right wing govts in south america) receive meagre coverage.
While stories that help demonize traditional US enemies, like the USSR
dominate the papers.
Why or how the press operate this way, is a seperate issue, the fact
is that they do.
Read the book, its a genuine scientific work.
Finally I must take issue with your strict criticisms of my sources:
>Do you have the exact text of that interview from "French TV" archives?
>Do you know the context of that interview? Do you know the questions
>that were asked?
>
>What makes you think, IF the statements have been correctly
>transcribed, that that gentleman was not simply promoting his company,
>and overplaying the role it played in the events?
>
I respond to this by asking you, do you really, in all honesty apply
the same strict rules to the western news, media and press ? I doubt
that you do.
Your comments are valid, but as is always the case, the strict
rationality you demand from others, is all to conveniently swept aside
when forming your own opinions.
Hugh
Hugo
You may also wish to read the interview that UPI did with Milosevic
during the NATO bombing, it raises many issues which were never
allowed in the tv news or media coverage generally, his references to
Vietnam should give NATO supporters some pause for contemplation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3729ec463114.htm
Hugh
On 18 Jan 2000 13:07:50 -0800, car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso)
wrote:
>In article <861p7g$3p7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alan wrote:
>>Do not worry Damian, I had seen your list as well.
>
>Then why the attempt to obfuscate it by citing "travel and tourism"
>and "economic development" clients, and throwing around insulting
>insinuations that Damian feels all of the people on the lists you
>cited are clearly "CIA stooges"? Why do you insist on using these
>types of tactics?
>
>This is the relevant list, as you know:
>
> International Relations Clients
>
> American Society of Travel Agents
>>I fail to see anything wrong in Ruder Finn's work. By "wrong", I mean
>>unlawful or ethically reprehensible. Promoting the interests of a
>>"Republic of Kosova" is a perfectly legitimate objective, from my point
>>of view.
>
>Unlawful, maybe not (we're not in a position to assess). Unethical?
>Absolutely. If you've read the selections I've cited elsewhere in
>this thread, you should clearly see why that's so.
>
>A good case could be made that the NATO attack on Kosovo would not
>have happened without Ruder Finn's active intervention. So assessing
>the morality of their actions goes far beyond considerations of direct
>violations of the law.
>
>>> > You might also read and comment David Finn's essay "How Ethical Can
>>> > We Be?" on http://www.ruderfinn.com/persp/how_ethical.html ....
>
Alan
hu...@morantek.demon.co.uk (Hugo) wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Lets be honest shall we, the Press sell audiences to advertisers,
> thats their business model, and it is a business.
>
> If you choose to attach some moral or ethical responsibility to the
> press, then you are being gullible.
I do not question your honesty. But I do question your point of view.
"The Press sells audiences to advertisers" is a caricature of what the
Press really is. The business models of the press are almost as varied
as there are medias. A few examples:
- The Belgian TV and radio RTBF is legally a public service, submitted
to a strict mission requirement. Many other European radios and
televisions have that statute.
- Many European dailies and magazines are financed by a wide array of
non-profit organisations (trade unions, mutualist organisations, church
organisations, political parties, etc
- All the Belgian dailies are subsidised by taxpayer money following
criteria controlled by Parliament
Just 3 examples that show non-profit press in the region I live in.
But even the capitalist US mainstream press cannot systematically be
reduced to the "business model" you put forward.
To use your analogy, a car maker's business model is to make a profit
by selling cars to drivers. Some manufacture good cars loaded with
safety features, some manufacture crap. Some use slave labour in third
world countries, some use the highest paid workers of the world. Some
produce cars that will induce high levels of environmental damage,
others will use recycled material and propose recycling schemes on top
of clean low consumption motors. The same for the press. Some produce
low cost crap. Others produce very respectable media that strive to
honour the public's request for a free press. Journalists, BTW, are not
the robots you and others imply.
> One need look no further than US writer Noam Chomsky in his book
> manufacturing consent, to see the evidence for this.
>
> Chomsky takes a simple scientific approach, "lets look as the
> newspaper archives and see how stories are actually reported".
You should apply to Mr Chomsky's own positions the same (interesting
and valuable) grids of analysis he uses when analysing the media. He is
not above criticism in his methodology.
>...SNIP...
> Finally I must take issue with your strict criticisms of my sources:
>
> >Do you have the exact text of that interview from "French TV"
archives?
> >Do you know the context of that interview? Do you know the questions
> >that were asked?
> >
> >What makes you think, IF the statements have been correctly
> >transcribed, that that gentleman was not simply promoting his
company,
> >and overplaying the role it played in the events?
> >
>
> I respond to this by asking you, do you really, in all honesty apply
> the same strict rules to the western news, media and press ? I doubt
> that you do.
No I do not, but I should. Question of time and means. I get out of
this knot by multiplying sources and using alternative media, such as
Usenet newsgroups and web sites to complete and diversify my
information.
> Your comments are valid, but as is always the case, the strict
> rationality you demand from others, is all to conveniently swept aside
> when forming your own opinions.
It goes both ways, and that is human. Nevertheless, I respect those of
my contradictors who strive at providing reliable sources questionning
my views. But I have just as low a level of respect for activist media
struggling to impose their political agenda as you have for "western
media" (whatever you imply by that concept).
Hugo
>In article <3885c0ea...@news.colt.net>,
> hu...@morantek.demon.co.uk (Hugo) wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> Lets be honest shall we, the Press sell audiences to advertisers,
>> thats their business model, and it is a business.
>>
>> If you choose to attach some moral or ethical responsibility to the
>> press, then you are being gullible.
>
>I do not question your honesty. But I do question your point of view.
>"The Press sells audiences to advertisers" is a caricature of what the
>Press really is. The business models of the press are almost as varied
>as there are medias. A few examples:
>
>- The Belgian TV and radio RTBF is legally a public service, submitted
>to a strict mission requirement. Many other European radios and
>televisions have that statute.
Well one would need to review the contents of the "strict" mission
requirement, as well as examine who are the beneficiaries? who
formulated it and who is responsible for policing it.
If a newspaper is losing money and goes into debt, then its out of
business, morality and ethicality are no asset.
Are you saying that western media corporations are NOT concerned about
profit ?
>
>- Many European dailies and magazines are financed by a wide array of
>non-profit organisations (trade unions, mutualist organisations, church
>organisations, political parties, etc
>
>- All the Belgian dailies are subsidised by taxpayer money following
>criteria controlled by Parliament
>
>Just 3 examples that show non-profit press in the region I live in.
>
>But even the capitalist US mainstream press cannot systematically be
>reduced to the "business model" you put forward.
I cannot comment on the Belgian press, but I can comment on the UK and
US businesses. I use the term business model, because these newspapers
are a means to an end. That end is in fact profit, which is simply
another way of stating that it is the investors and stockholders who
are the beneficiaries.
If the goal of being genuinely free, uncensored and candid ever
conflicts with the goal of keeping customers (the advertisers) happy,
then Im sure you can deduce which goal will receive the support of
management.
Newspapers (in the UK, US and many other places) receive their revenue
not from sales of papers, but from advertising accounts, this is
readily verified if you want to, and Chomsky makes a point of studying
the business model of newspaper companies early on in his book.
There is a story of the UK newspaper the "Daily Herald" which had
almost the largest circulation of any UK daily and was a daring paper
that regularly reported openly. It gradually lost the support of
advertising companies and went out of business.
Heres a snippet from an interview between Chomsky and a UK juornalist,
the latter being sceptical and insisting that the media are "free",
free indeed (as chomsky points out) but free within very rigid bounds,
step outside the bounds and whammo!
=============== SNIPPET =================
This also has had the effect of placing working class and radical
papers at a serious disadvantage. Without access to advertising
revenue, even the most popular paper will fold or price itself out of
the market. Chomsky and Herman cite the UK pro-labour and pro-union
Daily Herald as an example of this process. The Daily Herald had
almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and The
Guardian combined, but even with 8.1% of the national circulation it
got 3.5% of net advertising revenue and so could not survive on the
"free market".
============= END OF ======================
Full article: http://203.57.122.1/afaq/secD3.html (Worth a serious
read)
>
>To use your analogy, a car maker's business model is to make a profit
>by selling cars to drivers. Some manufacture good cars loaded with
>safety features, some manufacture crap. Some use slave labour in third
>world countries, some use the highest paid workers of the world. Some
>produce cars that will induce high levels of environmental damage,
>others will use recycled material and propose recycling schemes on top
>of clean low consumption motors. The same for the press. Some produce
>low cost crap. Others produce very respectable media that strive to
>honour the public's request for a free press. Journalists, BTW, are not
>the robots you and others imply.
Well are we comparing a material product with information ?
While were here, lets not forget Ford and how they doctored the
advertisment and got rid of the black faces !!
>
>> One need look no further than US writer Noam Chomsky in his book
>> manufacturing consent, to see the evidence for this.
>>
>> Chomsky takes a simple scientific approach, "lets look as the
>> newspaper archives and see how stories are actually reported".
>
>You should apply to Mr Chomsky's own positions the same (interesting
>and valuable) grids of analysis he uses when analysing the media. He is
>not above criticism in his methodology.
>
>>...SNIP...
>
>> Finally I must take issue with your strict criticisms of my sources:
>>
>> >Do you have the exact text of that interview from "French TV"
>archives?
>> >Do you know the context of that interview? Do you know the questions
>> >that were asked?
>> >
>> >What makes you think, IF the statements have been correctly
>> >transcribed, that that gentleman was not simply promoting his
>company,
>> >and overplaying the role it played in the events?
>> >
>>
>> I respond to this by asking you, do you really, in all honesty apply
>> the same strict rules to the western news, media and press ? I doubt
>> that you do.
>
>No I do not, but I should. Question of time and means. I get out of
>this knot by multiplying sources and using alternative media, such as
>Usenet newsgroups and web sites to complete and diversify my
>information.
Well said, and as Im sure we'd agree, at the end of the day each of us
has to make a judgement on an issue given the sum-total of the
information available to us, as well as our own precenceptions and
prejudices.
This is well understood by the media, and advertising and PR firms,
there are volumes written on how to control the mind of the reader,
and it works. We live in a world literally run by comapnies and
capital, consumerism rules the press, TV and radio.
We are not (in the west at least) informed by the press, rather we are
instructed in what to think, the nature of the reporting is like a
subtle brainwashing excercise.
The former USSR must have admired the west, in that instead of needing
tanks and guns to control the population, they use TV, and newspapers.
How often do you read in a major newspaper, the same scathing
condemnation of US terrorism, as you do of say Iraqi or Libya ?
How often does the "free" press point out to the reader, that the UN
has never defined any "no fly zones" over Iraq, ONLY the UK and US
completely without any security council basis?
rarely, but you will here the subliminal repetition of the "no fly
zone" without qualification, in order to not arouse any suspicion in
the reader.
Robert the 'erbert
(Hugo) wrote:
> This is a very good posting, well argued and well structured.
>
> You may also wish to read the interview that UPI did with Milosevic
> during the NATO bombing, it raises many issues which were never
> allowed in the tv news or media coverage generally, his references to
> Vietnam should give NATO supporters some pause for contemplation:
Not really.
_______________________________________________________________
"As he was crucified and tormented so we have been crucified and
tormented all these years. They couldn't do anything to him.
They can't do anything to us."
/Zorica Taic-Rabrenovic, of the Milosevic-backed Socialist/
/People's Party, comparing Serbs to Jesus Christ/.
Milan Budimirovic
more balanced than the media in Northa America and the UK. Here in
Canada it is plain awful. The problem is not so much that the media
lies, it is that there is no diversity in point of view. All media
everywhere is biased to some degree, because it is part of the human
condition to interpret the facts in a way that conforms to your world
view. I therefore don't expect the media to tell me "The Truth", but I
do expect some sort of balance, which is precisely what is missing. All
of Canada's dailies run virtually identical national and international
news stories, and their editorial content is generally similar as well.
It is the same story in the electronic media, where we have the CBC,
plus two privately-owned networks. Essentially all of their
international stories are recycled CNN and BBC clips with one of their
correspondents own doing the talking.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe that the Western
media are servants to special interest groups, which include arms
manufacturers and oil and tobacco companies, rather than the general
public. They have achieved the ultimate form of thought control by
creating the illusion of a free and independent press. The Internet and
the Usenet provide welcome alternative points of view, but there is
cause for alarm there too. AOL is now part of the Time-Warner
conglomerate (which also owns CNN) and Microsoft's ties to NBC are
already well-known. I expect it's only going to be a matter of time
before they introduce software that limits what content you can view
while online.
I also disagree with you about journalists. Journalism is very much a
club rather than a profession. I've met many jouranlists in my life and
they are all decent folk, but quite frankly I could not do their job.
They are trained to look at the trees rather than the forest and that is
how they get to where they are in their careers. That doesn't make them
robots, but they do tend to lose sight of the big picture.
Alan
Milan Budimirovic <milan.bu...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I don't know too much about the media in Belgium, which may well be
much
> more balanced than the media in Northa America and the UK.
Successful UK and US newspapers such as The Independent, The Guardian,
the Washington Post, the NY Times, the LA Times, and many others are
far from producing crap. UK broadcast media such as the BBC and Channel
4 are far from producing uniform crap. There is a very high level of
editorial added value in those media, that cannot be summarised as the
work of "servants to special interest groups". I know nothing of
Canadian media, so I'll keep my trap shut on this one.
Regarding the diversity of thought, well, yes, I guess those large
traditional media do reflect somehow the ideology that is dominant
among the population. There is interaction between the public and the
media: they reflect on each other.
What you, and others, seem to be missing are the radical clearcut
ideological debates that excited citizens and media alike in the first
two thirds of the 20th century. The implosion of the
marxist/progressist pole has visibly left a void that is currently
being disputed by nationalist and religious reactionaries. Whom I
profoundly dislike.
>...SNIP...
> I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe that the
Western
> media are servants to special interest groups, which include arms
> manufacturers and oil and tobacco companies, rather than the general
> public.
The capitalist structure of a company determines the composition of the
board of directors. The link between that ownership and the thinking
and writing patterns of the editorial staff is far less immediate than
what your statement suggests. Having a tobacco giant amongst the
shareholders of a publishing group will not necessarily mean that each
editor of each magazine/newspaper published by the group will promote
smoking or silence the actions of anti-smoking lobbies.
> They have achieved the ultimate form of thought control by
> creating the illusion of a free and independent press. The Internet
and
> the Usenet provide welcome alternative points of view, but there is
> cause for alarm there too. AOL is now part of the Time-Warner
> conglomerate (which also owns CNN) and Microsoft's ties to NBC are
> already well-known. I expect it's only going to be a matter of time
> before they introduce software that limits what content you can view
> while online.
I expect that would be very difficult to implement. Nevertheless, I
completely support the efforts of those who want to guarantee complete
freedom of thought and expression on the Internet.
> I also disagree with you about journalists. Journalism is very much a
> club rather than a profession. I've met many jouranlists in my life
and
> they are all decent folk, but quite frankly I could not do their job.
> They are trained to look at the trees rather than the forest and that
is
> how they get to where they are in their careers. That doesn't make
them
> robots, but they do tend to lose sight of the big picture.
There are good and bad journalists, lazy and hard working journalists,
progressive and conservative journalists, fearless and coward
journalists. The profession as a whole should not be branded as
"servants to special interest groups". I think we agree on that.
Milan Budimirovic
here in North America there is a lot of direct physical evidence that
the major TV networks have been leaning on their news divisions to
suppress stories that were embarassing to their parent comanies or major
sponsors. There have been two separate incidents where networks refused
to run stories about tobacco companies and their practice of adding
nicotine to their cigarettes. One NBC newsmagazine wanted to run a story
on goods that were subject to consumer boycott's for conscientious
reasons. Unfortunatelty, number one on the list was the world's largest
manufacturer of nuclear weapons: General Electric, which is also NBC's
parent company. They ended up doing a story about lobsters. Disney,
which owns ABC, has suppressed stories about child abuse at Disney
World.
The Chinese Embassy bombing, and the likelihood that it was intentional,
which has been big news in Europe, has received NO media coverage here
in North America. You would think that something this big would warrant
some investigation, but it hasn't. Their government may have
deliberately committed a flagrant and illegal act of war against a
nuclear power and they are not interested in the story?
My main point was that we are being subjected to news that exclusively
reflects a certain view of the world and there is very little to
counterbalance that. Do you not find that disturbing in any way? About
the only good news is that people are becoming increasingly sceptical
about what they see on TV or read in the mainstream newspapers. The Net
has also made it extremely difficult to keep anything a secret. Perhaps
one of the biggest turning points in media history occurred in 1993 when
a mathematician discovered the famous Pentium floating-point bug, which
Intel had worked very hard to keep secret. It was all over the Net
within days, and I knew that the world was about to change. But neither
I nor anyone else knows what the future holds for the Net, so it is
important to take the mainstream media to task for its one-sided
coverage of major stories and its tendancy to cater sponsors, PR
agencies and parent companies.
R.V. Gronoff
"Alan" <alan...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news:
861qor$4v0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a journalist of
France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves ne sont pas
bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
Alan
"R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a
journalist of
> France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves ne
sont pas
> bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
Thank you. Do you have the book? If yes, could you take the time to post
the original French text of that paragraph? I'm curious, for example, of
the original word that has been translated into "unwitted". I am also
curious of the original raw text in English: James Harf sounds like an
anglo-saxon name, which leads to believe that the interview was
originally staged in English, then translated into French, and then
retranslated into English. Not that I question the reality of this text
any further, I'm simply surprised by the fact that a PR executive would
bragg about such sensitive subjects in front of a news reporter. That is
slightly contradictory with the habits of PR execs...
I am also surprised that a book published in 1992 would contain an
interview that has, following the text posted here, taken place in A
Alan
interview that has, following the text posted here, taken place in April
1993...
........................................................................
........................................................................
.......................................
Alan
hu...@morantek.demon.co.uk (Hugo) wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:56:16 GMT, Alan <alan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3885c0ea...@news.colt.net>,
> > hu...@morantek.demon.co.uk (Hugo) wrote:
> >> Thanks for your comments.
> >>
> >> Lets be honest shall we, the Press sell audiences to advertisers,
> >> thats their business model, and it is a business.
> >>
> >> If you choose to attach some moral or ethical responsibility to the
> >> press, then you are being gullible.
> >
> >I do not question your honesty. But I do question your point of view.
> >"The Press sells audiences to advertisers" is a caricature of what
the
> >Press really is. The business models of the press are almost as
varied
> >as there are medias. A few examples:
> >
> >- The Belgian TV and radio RTBF is legally a public service,
submitted
> >to a strict mission requirement. Many other European radios and
> >televisions have that statute.
>
> Well one would need to review the contents of the "strict" mission
> requirement, as well as examine who are the beneficiaries? who
> formulated it and who is responsible for policing it.
beneficiaries: the Belgian French speaking public
formulated by: the Belgian Parliament and the Parliament of the French
speaking Community of Belgium
responsible: the board of directors of the RTBF, composed according to
the proportional representation of opinions in Parliament (itself
elected through proportional vote)
> If a newspaper is losing money and goes into debt, then its out of
> business, morality and ethicality are no asset.
If a newspaper is loosing money and goes into debt, it may require
supplementary financing from the publishing house and the publisher's
shareholders. Depending on their priorities they may or may not keep on
financing the project. The set of priorities put forward by a trade
union, a party or a church (for example) and similar organisations is
not the same set of priorities as investors in Internet shares(for
example). Publishing newspapers is far from the easiest and safest way
to make fortunes. Publishing is a profession, not only a financial bet.
Morality and ethicality may or may not be assets depending on the media
project. There are plenty of media out there, including wealthy ones,
who base their whole project on their understanding of morality and
ethicality. That is how they win an audience. Which in turn pays
subscriptions and attracts advertisers.
> Are you saying that western media corporations are NOT concerned about
> profit ?
Some yes, some no. Among the "non-profit" ones, there are some who are
used as propaganda outlets by their publishers (for example the party
dailies). Among the "profitable" ones, there are plenty that base their
success on the relation between quality of content and readership.
Some low readership media are financially successful. Some high
readership media are financially disastrous. All too often,
"alternative" media are poorly managed and are not capable of setting
up an efficient commercial strategy. Their failure is usually not to
blame on the "system", but on their own managerial failures. Publishing
is expensive.
> If the goal of being genuinely free, uncensored and candid ever
> conflicts with the goal of keeping customers (the advertisers) happy,
> then Im sure you can deduce which goal will receive the support of
> management.
No you cannot. Sometimes management will support the pressure group
(advertiser, party, union, etc), sometimes it will stand by the
reputation of its media. When management does give in to pressure, the
editorial team will sometimes resist and impose its independence and
sometimes capitulate and follow instructions. There is no general rule
here either.
> Newspapers (in the UK, US and many other places) receive their revenue
> not from sales of papers, but from advertising accounts, this is
> readily verified if you want to, and Chomsky makes a point of studying
> the business model of newspaper companies early on in his book.
>
> There is a story of the UK newspaper the "Daily Herald" which had
> almost the largest circulation of any UK daily and was a daring paper
> that regularly reported openly. It gradually lost the support of
> advertising companies and went out of business.
I do not know the back office organisation of the Daily Herald but I
have seen spectacular cases (for example De Morgen in Flanders) where a
change of ownership and a change of management has saved a combative,
creative and daring daily and turned it into a profit making venture,
addressing the same segment of population and maintaining its
"alternative" and independent stance.
I have also seen leftwing dailies be killed by their owners because of
internal political conflicts in the related party.
And I have directly witnessed the fact that "alternative" media, linked
to activist groups, are often the ones that are the most submitted to
direct ideological control and to constant pressure or threats by their
publishers. I have seen friends who were very good journalists fired
from a daily because they did not parrot the party line. They are now
successful in independent profitable media belonging to private
investors. They have not had to change their ideological choices.
>...SNIP....
> >> I respond to this by asking you, do you really, in all honesty
apply
> >> the same strict rules to the western news, media and press ? I
doubt
> >> that you do.
> >
> >No I do not, but I should. Question of time and means. I get out of
> >this knot by multiplying sources and using alternative media, such as
> >Usenet newsgroups and web sites to complete and diversify my
> >information.
>
> Well said, and as Im sure we'd agree, at the end of the day each of us
> has to make a judgement on an issue given the sum-total of the
> information available to us, as well as our own precenceptions and
> prejudices.
Yes, I agree with that ;-)
> This is well understood by the media, and advertising and PR firms,
> there are volumes written on how to control the mind of the reader,
> and it works. We live in a world literally run by comapnies and
> capital, consumerism rules the press, TV and radio.
Well, I clearly do not paint the picture in the same monochrome way.
The "mind of the reader" has more resilience than you think, and PR
gurus will of course try to overplay their influence (that is their
job). But it is true that attempts at manipulation happen all the time
and are getting very sophisticated.
This brings distrust: many readers react to the situation by rejecting
the information provided by all media. Which results into adopting even
less reliable information sources (such as the "loony" hearsay that
gets published in Usenet forums and on all too many web sites) and
being tempted by all sorts of conspirationnist theories.
> We are not (in the west at least) informed by the press, rather we are
> instructed in what to think, the nature of the reporting is like a
> subtle brainwashing excercise.
I understand your position, but I do not agree at all, for reasons
explained hereabove and in previous posts.
> The former USSR must have admired the west, in that instead of needing
> tanks and guns to control the population, they use TV, and newspapers.
>
> How often do you read in a major newspaper, the same scathing
> condemnation of US terrorism, as you do of say Iraqi or Libya ?
Quite often I read, see and hear allegations of "US terrorism" in the
mainstream media I have access to. I take them often with a pinch of
salt. But I have my prejudice, and you have yours ;-)
....SNIP.... (this is getting too long)
Hugo
theme, which was all about how Ruder-Finn and other private companies
contributed ot the Yugoslav break-up.
We clearly disagree in our view of the media and press and the degree
to which they reflect the agenda of the powerful.
There is much documentary evidence available, and this by and large
has shaped my opinion in these subjects.
I dont have the time to write what would be merely a repetition of
Chomsky and Pilger who have performed extensive research into the
matter, so I shall refrain from doing so.
However I cant resist responding to your last remark:
>Quite often I read, see and hear allegations of "US terrorism" in the
>mainstream media I have access to. I take them often with a pinch of
>salt. But I have my prejudice, and you have yours ;-)
>
My question is why are your prepared to take allegattions of US
terrorism "with a pinch of salt", and surely prejudices should only
play a part when there is no other basis for forming an opinion?
The manner in which the press report crimes committed by western
governments is distinctly different to that used to report crimes of
those nations labelled as "rogue" who play the role of the traditional
enemy or "threat".
As I have pointed out before, terrorism has a definition, the one that
I find most satisfying is that which emerges from the UN charter.
A military assault on foreign soil, that is not an act of self defence
and does not have endorsement as a UN Security Council resolution is
one very good definition of terrorism, especially as the UN charter is
currently the fundamental document defining international law.
As the charter makes clear, no member is permitted to act in such a
manner (as did Iraq in 1990 for example when it invaded Kuwait).
Washington regularly reports such acts by "enemy" states as terrorism,
yet when the US does the same, its reported using different language,
like "intervention" or "protection".
When the US launched a heavy cruise missile attack against a drugs
factory in Sudan, this was clearly an act of international terrorsim,
there was no basis under Article 51, and certainly no UNSC resolution.
Yet the Washington Post, the New York Times and other middle class
newspapers, did not report it as terrorism.
One must ask why would these sources fail to report terrorism as
simply that, terrorism?
The US regularly bombs Iraq, the "reason" (if one may stoop to such a
word) is given as "enforcing the no fly zone". Again these major
newspapers fail totally to be honest, because if they were, they would
make it totally clear that there is NO legal basis for these attacks,
no "no fly zone" exists except as a joint agreement between the US and
UK (The French pulled out of this gang a while back).
The fact that the worlds most powerful military nation, can invent
reasons completely outside the framework of international law, and
then proceed to bomb another country whose aircraft are legally flying
in its own air space, is a sad testament to the world we live in.
The fact that the worlds premier newspapers, accomodate US interests
by representing this as a justifiable act, is a testament to the real
role and motives of the press.
Here are some xamples of how the "free and open" media actually report
illegal attacks on a foreign country, which should be receiving
protection under the UN charter:
BBC:
United States warplanes regularly fly from Kuwait to patrol a no-fly
zone in southern Iraq, which was established after the Gulf War in
1991.
BBC:
The no-fly zones were set up by several Western powers after the 1991
Gulf War to protect opponents of President Saddam.
BBC:
A statement said a radar facility was attacked after planes on routine
patrol of the Western-enforced no-fly zone came under Iraqi attack.
BBC:
Iraq does not recognise the no-fly zones in the north and south of the
country set up after the Gulf War to protect opponents of President
Saddam Hussein and has regularly attacked aircraft patrolling them.
[Note the languge "regularly attacked" instead of "vigorously defended
itself"]
Observer:
Allied warplanes have patrolled so-called no-fly zones in northern and
southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf war. The country is under UN
sanctions for invading Kuwait.
[Note: the emotive term "allied" when its simply the US and UK]
[Also: If it were under sanctions for invading Kuwait, then since it
left Kuwait ten years ago, why the sanctions? again the paper is
misreporting, the current sanctions have nothing to do with Kuwait]
Guardian:
The no-fly zones were established after the 1991 Gulf war, ostensibly
to protect the Kurdish and Shi'ite minorities of northern and southern
Iraq. This year, they have become symbolic of the West's determination
to impose its will on the Baghdad regime, and Saddam's equal and
opposite determination to resist.
[No mention of the fact that when Iraq gassed these same Kurds in
1988, the US responded by INCREASING arms sales to Hussein, why is
this omitted?]
Guardian:
Western air strikes have been taking place since Baghdad decided to
challenge US and British jets patrolling the northern and southern
no-fly zones set up to protect Kurds and Shi'ites after the 1991 Gulf
war. But although incursions by Iraqi aircraft are now rare, the
latest incident comes at a time of continuing defiance by President
Saddam and deadlock in efforts to find a diplomatic way out of the
impasse.
["Incursion" into ones own air-space ???]
This was just a sample.
The fact that Iraq has every right to defend its air space from
foreign invaders, as enshrined in the UN charter, is missing. The fact
that the US and UK are acting as highly organised and heavily armed
terrorists is also carefully avoided.
Such terms as Ive already explained cannot be applied to the west,
that would be impolite and is of course unthinkable, the wests motives
in attacking Iraq lie far outside any UNSC resolutions, and are just
one example of how a servile media allow criminal governments to get
away with murder.
The reporting over Yugoslavia is far worse than any other
international issue, nothing, not even Iraq comes close. The degree to
which news has been manufactured, public opinion manipulated and
crimes endorsed by the media, is truly stunning in the case of
Yugoslavia.
Hugh
John Caruso
>> Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a journalist of
>> France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves ne sont pas
>> bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
>
>Thank you. Do you have the book? If yes, could you take the time to post
>the original French text of that paragraph? I'm curious, for example, of
>the original word that has been translated into "unwitted". I am also
>curious of the original raw text in English: James Harf sounds like an
>anglo-saxon name, which leads to believe that the interview was
>originally staged in English, then translated into French, and then
>retranslated into English. Not that I question the reality of this text
>any further, I'm simply surprised by the fact that a PR executive would
>bragg about such sensitive subjects in front of a news reporter.
"Any further" being the key phrase; thus far you've refused meaningful
comment on the horrific content, and have tried mainly to discredit or
diminish the words, or imply that they're simply empty boasting
(despite the lengthy CIPRA citation I quoted). The word "outwit" is
wholely immaterial; even if every word in the interview were softened,
the facts--that Ruder Finn used Jewish suffering during the Holocaust
as a PR tool, and intentionally created the reference frame which
compares Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany--is something which any moral
person should condemn.
I challenge you to condemn Ruder Finn's tactics. I also ask you to
realize how their tactics have influenced the nature of debate, so
that the words "denialism" and "revisionism" have become standard
weapons against those who are simply trying to take a balanced view of
events. Many people, in the media and elsewhere, have been the victim
of these manipulations by Ruder Finn--and this apparently includes you.
That may be difficult to accept, but denying or minimizing it won't
make it go away.
>I am also surprised that a book published in 1992 would contain an
>interview that has, following the text posted here, taken place in April
>1993...
And here you'd said you weren't going to "question the reality of this
text any further". I suppose it's just too tempting to do so,
especially when the content is so reprehensible and damning. But if
you have to ignore such inconvenient facts in order to sustain your
belief system, there's something wrong. That's exactly what
"denialism" and "revisionism" are all about.
Regarding the date, I found one reference, and the publication date
was specified as 1993. We can assume a typo (or misremembered fact)
on someone's behalf. The text, however, is consistent, as you've
seen...and IMHO this type of quibbling is just a bankrupt diversionary
tactic.
- John
John Caruso
>>"Any further" being the key phrase; thus far you've refused meaningful
>>comment on the horrific content, and have tried mainly to discredit or
>>diminish the words, or imply that they're simply empty boasting
>>(despite the lengthy CIPRA citation I quoted). The word "outwit" is
>>wholely immaterial; even if every word in the interview were softened,
>>the facts--that Ruder Finn used Jewish suffering during the Holocaust
>>as a PR tool, and intentionally created the reference frame which
>>compares Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany--is something which any moral
>>person should condemn.
>
>propaganda that the Serbs fought valiantly against the Nazis in WW2
>while the other Yugoslav nationalities supported them, that they
>fought alongside the US & UK, and that they tried to save Serbia's
>Jewish population from extermination during the war (with notable
>unsuccess) ? At one time or another, all sides have sought to cloak
>themselves in a moral halo deriving from World War Two, and not just
>the Albanians.
I'm not condemning the Albanians, I'm condemning Ruder Finn. As to
your question, I don't know enough about the historical accuracy of
the claims you cite to comment definitively; but what I *do* know
verifies at least portions of them, and your implication that they're
entirely false strikes me as revisionism in its own right.
Also, the issue is not the "moral halo"; the issue is the intentional
misuse of the suffering of Holocaust victims, which has been
spectacularly successful, as is evidenced daily on this and other
newsgroups where Yugoslavia is discussed.
>>I challenge you to condemn Ruder Finn's tactics. I also ask you to
>>realize how their tactics have influenced the nature of debate, so
>>that the words "denialism" and "revisionism" have become standard
>>weapons against those who are simply trying to take a balanced view of
>>events. Many people, in the media and elsewhere, have been the victim
>>of these manipulations by Ruder Finn--and this apparently includes you.
>>That may be difficult to accept, but denying or minimizing it won't
>>make it go away.
>
>Your argument that only the machinations of Ruder Finn gave rise to
>the Nazi World War Two era comparisons is simply absurd.
I didn't specifically make that argument, but it takes intentional
blindness to not see the fact that Ruder Finn was the main source of
the shift in public opinion regarding the former Yugoslavia. The URLs,
again, are:
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
And here's a specific quote:
Harff: By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of
good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by
targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear
change of language in the press, with use of words with high emotional
content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which
evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. No one
could go against it without being accused of revisionism.
>The comparisons suggest themselves naturally and don't have to be conjured
>up by any P.R. executive.
Yet, strangely, that's precisely what happened. Regarding your
comment, I'll quote myself:
Yet despite this record, when people are faced with this information
there's often an interesting dynamic. Someone who's been exposed to
years of propganda (unwittingly, of course, and both directly and
indirectly, as noted above) hears about the campaign to demonize the
Serbs, but since they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated they dismiss
this new information--after all, the Serbs are demons, so what's wrong
with portraying them that way?
It may seem natural to you now, but you (and I, and all of us) have
been exposed to YEARS of media coverage which has adopted Ruder Finn's
desired frame. Up until a year or more ago, when I began researching
these events for myself, I reviled the Serbs as animals for the evils
they'd committed and blamed them exclusively for EVERYTHING which has
happened in the Balkans. I'm embarassed that I was ever so misinformed...
but that's true for the majority of people in the US, who receive only
the most simplistic and biased version of these events.
>Similarly, your argument that there is
>something sinister in an attempt to manipulate public opinion in
>favour of one particular point of view is also without merit. Almost
>all points of view, of any significant standing, receive professional
>or organised representation in some shape or form.
The scale and nature of Ruder Finn's efforts outshadow anything I'm
aware of, and their spectacular success has had a clear impact on
the course of events. You and I are both victims of their efforts.
Assuming you've actually read these pages in full, doesn't this
bother you in the slightest?
>The Serbian point
>of view has been advanced by the Serbian Unity Congress
>and has been favoured by the Greek lobby in the United States. These
>competing propaganda efforts are not, in essence, any different from
>the representation that a lawyer affords his client.
Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
a comparison.
>It is the duty of
>a lawyer to represent his client to the best of his ability, whether
>he thinks the client is guilty or not.
An argument I'm sure Rider Finn would love to hear you make for them.
Ruder Finn is paid to do what they do, and they did it well, as Harff
says; but you and I are not required to rubber stamp their disgusting
abuse of the suffering of Holocaust victims. If you want to be an
apologist for that type of tactic, that's your choice.
>Of course, in some cases, a particularly skilful lawyer
>may overpower his opponent and win a case regardless of its intrinsic
>merits and, perhaps, Ruder Finn is indeed particularly good at what it
>does, but there is nothing inherently sinister in the activity of
>giving all-out representation to one particular point of view.
Ruder Finn does appear to be particularly good at it. Advocacy is not
"inherently sinister"; but when it reaches the level we see here, of
Holocaust manipulation, press and media manipulation, and manipulation
of the US Congress, it does indeed become sinister to all but the
voluntarily blind.
I encourage everyone to read the contents of the two URLs above and
judge for themselves.
- John
R.V. Gronoff
> In article <868amg$sv0$1...@news3.isdnet.net>,
> "R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> > Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a
> journalist of
> > France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves ne
> sont pas
> > bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
>
> Thank you. Do you have the book?
Yes: just give me some time to excavate it from my bookshelves :o)
> If yes, could you take the time to post
> the original French text of that paragraph?
Sure. I have a scanner.
Otherwise, for all those who can read French, the book can be purchased
online through www.alapage.com .
> I'm curious, for example, of
> the original word that has been translated into "unwitted". I am also
> curious of the original raw text in English: James Harf sounds like an
> anglo-saxon name, which leads to believe that the interview was
> originally staged in English, then translated into French, and then
> retranslated into English. Not that I question the reality of this text
> any further, I'm simply surprised by the fact that a PR executive would
> bragg about such sensitive subjects in front of a news reporter. That is
> slightly contradictory with the habits of PR execs...
>
> I am also surprised that a book published in 1992 would contain an
> interview that has, following the text posted here, taken place in April
> 1993...
>
Actually, I haven't opened this book for several months, and it might well
have been published in 93.
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <868pae$add$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alan wrote:
>>> Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a journalist of
>>> France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves ne sont pas
>>> bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
>>
>>Thank you. Do you have the book? If yes, could you take the time to post
>>the original French text of that paragraph? I'm curious, for example, of
>>the original word that has been translated into "unwitted". I am also
>>curious of the original raw text in English: James Harf sounds like an
>>anglo-saxon name, which leads to believe that the interview was
>>originally staged in English, then translated into French, and then
>>retranslated into English. Not that I question the reality of this text
>>any further, I'm simply surprised by the fact that a PR executive would
>>bragg about such sensitive subjects in front of a news reporter.
>
>"Any further" being the key phrase; thus far you've refused meaningful
>comment on the horrific content, and have tried mainly to discredit or
>diminish the words, or imply that they're simply empty boasting
>(despite the lengthy CIPRA citation I quoted). The word "outwit" is
>wholely immaterial; even if every word in the interview were softened,
>the facts--that Ruder Finn used Jewish suffering during the Holocaust
>as a PR tool, and intentionally created the reference frame which
>compares Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany--is something which any moral
>person should condemn.
So do you also condemn the endlessly repeated mantra of Serbian
propaganda that the Serbs fought valiantly against the Nazis in WW2
while the other Yugoslav nationalities supported them, that they
fought alongside the US & UK, and that they tried to save Serbia's
Jewish population from extermination during the war (with notable
unsuccess) ? At one time or another, all sides have sought to cloak
themselves in a moral halo deriving from World War Two, and not just
the Albanians.
>
>I challenge you to condemn Ruder Finn's tactics. I also ask you to
>realize how their tactics have influenced the nature of debate, so
>that the words "denialism" and "revisionism" have become standard
>weapons against those who are simply trying to take a balanced view of
>events. Many people, in the media and elsewhere, have been the victim
>of these manipulations by Ruder Finn--and this apparently includes you.
>That may be difficult to accept, but denying or minimizing it won't
>make it go away.
Your argument that only the machinations of Ruder Finn gave rise to
the Nazi World War Two era comparisons is simply absurd. The
comparisons suggest themselves naturally and don't have to be conjured
up by any P.R. executive. Similarly, your argument that there is
something sinister in an attempt to manipulate public opinion in
favour of one particular point of view is also without merit. Almost
all points of view, of any significant standing, receive professional
or organised representation in some shape or form. The Serbian point
of view has been advanced by the Serbian Unity Congress
and has been favoured by the Greek lobby in the United States. These
competing propaganda efforts are not, in essence, any different from
the representation that a lawyer affords his client. It is the duty of
a lawyer to represent his client to the best of his ability, whether
he thinks the client is guilty or not. In a world where all advocates
exert themselves to the best of their ability, the norm is that the
competing efforts should balance out and some semblance of truth
should emerge. Of course, in some cases, a particularly skilful lawyer
may overpower his opponent and win a case regardless of its intrinsic
merits and, perhaps, Ruder Finn is indeed particularly good at what it
does, but there is nothing inherently sinister in the activity of
giving all-out representation to one particular point of view.
>
>>I am also surprised that a book published in 1992 would contain an
>>interview that has, following the text posted here, taken place in April
>>1993...
>
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <ku1i8s8ncfl0bakdg...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>"Any further" being the key phrase; thus far you've refused meaningful
>>>comment on the horrific content, and have tried mainly to discredit or
>>>diminish the words, or imply that they're simply empty boasting
>>>(despite the lengthy CIPRA citation I quoted). The word "outwit" is
>>>wholely immaterial; even if every word in the interview were softened,
>>>the facts--that Ruder Finn used Jewish suffering during the Holocaust
>>>as a PR tool, and intentionally created the reference frame which
>>>compares Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany--is something which any moral
>>>person should condemn.
>>
>>So do you also condemn the endlessly repeated mantra of Serbian
>>propaganda that the Serbs fought valiantly against the Nazis in WW2
>>while the other Yugoslav nationalities supported them, that they
>>fought alongside the US & UK, and that they tried to save Serbia's
>>Jewish population from extermination during the war (with notable
>>unsuccess) ? At one time or another, all sides have sought to cloak
>>themselves in a moral halo deriving from World War Two, and not just
>>the Albanians.
>
>I'm not condemning the Albanians, I'm condemning Ruder Finn. As to
>your question, I don't know enough about the historical accuracy of
>the claims you cite to comment definitively; but what I *do* know
>verifies at least portions of them, and your implication that they're
>entirely false strikes me as revisionism in its own right.
Actually, I didn't mean to imply anything about their truth or
falsehood (other than the one about saving Jews from the Nazis - a
claim whose merits can be assessed relatively simply since statistical
measures of it are available and are not seriously disputed by either
side - for the record around 90% of Serbia's prewar Jewish population
was annihilated - a higher proportion than in Croatia). That's a topic
for another thread. I meant only to comment on their irrelevance. Even
if true, why would Serbia's claims about heroic conduct in World War
Two be relevant to any moral judgement that we should make about them
in the 1990s? Why make such claims if not in an attempt to cloak
yourself in a moral halo?
>
>Also, the issue is not the "moral halo"; the issue is the intentional
>misuse of the suffering of Holocaust victims, which has been
>spectacularly successful, as is evidenced daily on this and other
>newsgroups where Yugoslavia is discussed.
I see no difference between this and the Serbian claims about saving
Jews from the Nazis. What is this if not an attempt to harness
holocaust sentiment in your favour? Moreover, since the Serbs quite
clearly have conducted massive operations directed against ethnic and
religious groups, you do not need to be Edward de Bono to make a
connection between recent events in Yugoslavia and the holocaust.
>
>>>I challenge you to condemn Ruder Finn's tactics. I also ask you to
>>>realize how their tactics have influenced the nature of debate, so
>>>that the words "denialism" and "revisionism" have become standard
>>>weapons against those who are simply trying to take a balanced view of
>>>events. Many people, in the media and elsewhere, have been the victim
>>>of these manipulations by Ruder Finn--and this apparently includes you.
>>>That may be difficult to accept, but denying or minimizing it won't
>>>make it go away.
>>
>>Your argument that only the machinations of Ruder Finn gave rise to
>>the Nazi World War Two era comparisons is simply absurd.
>
>I didn't specifically make that argument, but it takes intentional
>blindness to not see the fact that Ruder Finn was the main source of
>the shift in public opinion regarding the former Yugoslavia.
Rubbish. Vukovar and Dubrovnik were what turned public opinion against
the Serbs, that is to say: facts not the spin put upon facts.
> The URLs,
>again, are:
>
> http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
> http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
>
>And here's a specific quote:
>
> Harff: By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of
> good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by
> targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear
> change of language in the press, with use of words with high emotional
> content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which
> evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. No one
> could go against it without being accused of revisionism.
The vain braggadoccio of one man claiming to have altered history. A
few weeks ago I posted a few messages on soc.culture.yugoslavia making
claims about Serbian military ineptitude. Coincidentally, a few days
later, Milosevic made a series of reforms in the Yugoslav military,
demoting some of his generals and promoting others. Jokingly, I then
made a post claiming credit for the change, as if Milosevic's
intentions had been influenced by my postings. Would you have believed
me?
>
>>The comparisons suggest themselves naturally and don't have to be conjured
>>up by any P.R. executive.
>
>Yet, strangely, that's precisely what happened. Regarding your
>comment, I'll quote myself:
>
> Yet despite this record, when people are faced with this information
> there's often an interesting dynamic. Someone who's been exposed to
> years of propganda (unwittingly, of course, and both directly and
> indirectly, as noted above) hears about the campaign to demonize the
> Serbs, but since they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated they dismiss
> this new information--after all, the Serbs are demons, so what's wrong
> with portraying them that way?
>
>It may seem natural to you now, but you (and I, and all of us) have
>been exposed to YEARS of media coverage which has adopted Ruder Finn's
>desired frame. Up until a year or more ago, when I began researching
>these events for myself, I reviled the Serbs as animals for the evils
>they'd committed and blamed them exclusively for EVERYTHING which has
>happened in the Balkans. I'm embarassed that I was ever so misinformed...
>but that's true for the majority of people in the US, who receive only
>the most simplistic and biased version of these events.
Here again we have the offensive view that only the ignorant can hold
the Serbs responsible. I am not ignorant. I have read many thousands
of words on the subject and, the more I read, the greater my
conviction of Serbian guilt becomes.
>
>>Similarly, your argument that there is
>>something sinister in an attempt to manipulate public opinion in
>>favour of one particular point of view is also without merit. Almost
>>all points of view, of any significant standing, receive professional
>>or organised representation in some shape or form.
>
>The scale and nature of Ruder Finn's efforts outshadow anything I'm
>aware of,
Come on. This is exceptionally naive. There must be many such lobbying
campaigns underway.
> and their spectacular success has had a clear impact on
>the course of events. You and I are both victims of their efforts.
>Assuming you've actually read these pages in full, doesn't this
>bother you in the slightest?
I have read them and, no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am
confident that all sides were making organised efforts to advance
their interests and to influence their portrayal in the media; and I
am confident that enough natural diversity exists in the information
outlets available to me that I can make a judgement based
substantially on truth and not the claims of propaganda.
>
>>The Serbian point
>>of view has been advanced by the Serbian Unity Congress
>>and has been favoured by the Greek lobby in the United States. These
>>competing propaganda efforts are not, in essence, any different from
>>the representation that a lawyer affords his client.
>
>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>a comparison.
There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
'Greek lobby' in the U.S. . I had saved a copy of this article but,
unfortunately, had a total hard drive wipeout in December and no
longer have it. If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
Alan, or anyone else, if you still have a copy of this article please
post it again. If no one else posts it within a few days I will look
through the deja archive for it.
>
>>It is the duty of
>>a lawyer to represent his client to the best of his ability, whether
>>he thinks the client is guilty or not.
>
>An argument I'm sure Rider Finn would love to hear you make for them.
>Ruder Finn is paid to do what they do, and they did it well, as Harff
>says; but you and I are not required to rubber stamp their disgusting
>abuse of the suffering of Holocaust victims. If you want to be an
>apologist for that type of tactic, that's your choice.
Anyone seeking to advance a point of view will use any means at their
disposal to do it. It is naive to expect otherwise. As I have
observed, the Serbs have also sought to harness the suffering of the
holocaust victims to their cause.
>
>>Of course, in some cases, a particularly skilful lawyer
>>may overpower his opponent and win a case regardless of its intrinsic
>>merits and, perhaps, Ruder Finn is indeed particularly good at what it
>>does, but there is nothing inherently sinister in the activity of
>>giving all-out representation to one particular point of view.
>
>Ruder Finn does appear to be particularly good at it. Advocacy is not
>"inherently sinister"; but when it reaches the level we see here, of
>Holocaust manipulation, press and media manipulation, and manipulation
>of the US Congress, it does indeed become sinister to all but the
>voluntarily blind.
No it doesn't because similar efforts are being made by all sides. Let
it be noted that the main article you quote appears to have been
written in 1996. What help had Kosova received from the West in 1996?
None of any significance. They got nothing at Dayton. It was the Serb
military crackdown of 1998 that brought Kosova back onto the agenda,
not anything Ruder Finn did.
esrevnI eilrahC
ironic that this company was using the scapegoating of
Jews and others sixty years ago to justify scapegoating
another whole nationality today. "Never again" has
turned into "Again and again"!
Actually, this is not so surprising. We are taught
to see the Nazis and their victims as absolute good
and absolute evil. Such absolutes are nowhere to be
found in the real world -- real people are complex,
and good and evil intertwine in each individual.
Our indoctrination, however, denies this, and substitutes
a schematic, in which an entire nation (Nazis) serves
as one pole, and another entire nation (Jews) serves as
another. Since this simplistic schematic is not grounded
in reality, it is very easy to manipulate.
Thus, for example, the U.S. and NATzO use this
schematic to justify their own warmaking -- each new
target of their missiles becomes another "Hitler" or
"worse than Hitler".
Similarly, Ruder Finn is able to manipulate the
schematic, pulling one nationality out, and plugging
another in. The real world ceases to matter: the
schematic contains a convincing "LOGIC", which
overrides perception: Good Guys and Bad Guys, Us
and Them. Makes sense!
Your final comment is apt here. Serbs are depicted
as evil. Therefore, they seem evil in our eyes.
Therefore, "the Serbs" deserve to be depicted as
evil. Therefore, they really ARE evil! Similar
"logic" applies when the police arrest a suspect --
"Why would the police arrest him if he were innocent?
Therefore, he must be guilty!" The propagandists here
are using a principle which programmers refer to as
"GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out). We look at the
"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
forget to question the input, the reality.
In article <slrn889ik9...@paradiso.umuc.edu>,
> Yet despite this record, when people are faced with this information
> there's often an interesting dynamic. Someone who's been exposed to
> years of propganda (unwittingly, of course, and both directly and
> indirectly, as noted above) hears about the campaign to demonize the
> Serbs, but since they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated they dismiss
> this new information--after all, the Serbs are demons, so what's wrong
> with portraying them that way?
>
> - John
PacMan
>>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>a comparison.
>There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>'Greek lobby' in the U.S. . I had saved a copy of this article but,
>unfortunately, had a total hard drive wipeout in December and no
>longer have it. If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
>by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
>Alan, or anyone else, if you still have a copy of this article please
>post it again. If no one else posts it within a few days I will look
>through the deja archive for it.
Found a copy on the web, on the freeserbia site ironically enough.
Here's the url:
http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html
Also look at:
http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/sells2.htm
Alan
"R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> "Alan" <alan...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> 868pae$add$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <868amg$sv0$1...@news3.isdnet.net>,
> >
> > > Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a
> > journalist of
> > > France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves
ne
> > sont pas
> > > bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
> >
> > Thank you. Do you have the book?
>
>
> > the original French text of that paragraph?
>
Thank you again. I do not know if attachements work in this ng. I know
dejanews does not accept attachements. So please copy my e-mail address
when you find the time to do this.
>...SNIP...
> Actually, I haven't opened this book for several months, and it might
well
> have been published in 93.
Yes, it had been published in 1993 by Albin Michel, judging by the
bibliography found elsewhere.
........................................................................
........................................................................
....................................................................
Alan
PacMan <Pac...@nwo.org> wrote:
>...SNIP...
> No it doesn't because similar efforts are being made by all sides. Let
> it be noted that the main article you quote appears to have been
> written in 1996. What help had Kosova received from the West in 1996?
> None of any significance. They got nothing at Dayton. It was the Serb
> military crackdown of 1998 that brought Kosova back onto the agenda,
> not anything Ruder Finn did.
Very "operative" post, Pacman ;-)
Grantland
>these events for myself, I reviled the Serbs as animals for the evils
>The scale and nature of Ruder Finn's efforts outshadow anything I'm
>aware of, and their spectacular success has had a clear impact on
>the course of events. You and I are both victims of their efforts.
>Assuming you've actually read these pages in full, doesn't this
>bother you in the slightest?
How pathetic. You've allowed some obscure PR company to take control
of your mind. Heh. What a weak mind you must have.
Grantland
Grantland
<snip evil lies>
>"GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out). We look at the
>"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
>forget to question the input, the reality.
>
The reality is Srebenica you sick little fuck. The input is
systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
Grantland
Damian Martinovich
PacMan <Pac...@nwo.org> wrote in message
news:mo9i8soicam0j59k6...@4ax.com...
Off topic but I think that you will find that almost the entire Croatian
Jewish population was killed in WW2.
(Encylopedia of the Holocaust). Jews from Serbia were in the Ranks of Tito's
Partizans and they also were in the Ranks of the Royalist Chetniks as well.
No Jews were members of the Croatian Nazi Ustashe.
>
> >
> >Also, the issue is not the "moral halo"; the issue is the intentional
> >misuse of the suffering of Holocaust victims, which has been
> >spectacularly successful, as is evidenced daily on this and other
> >newsgroups where Yugoslavia is discussed.
>
> I see no difference between this and the Serbian claims about saving
> Jews from the Nazis. What is this if not an attempt to harness
> holocaust sentiment in your favour? Moreover, since the Serbs quite
> clearly have conducted massive operations directed against ethnic and
> religious groups, you do not need to be Edward de Bono to make a
> connection between recent events in Yugoslavia and the holocaust.
The blatant disinformation probably prelonged the wars.
> >
> >>>I challenge you to condemn Ruder Finn's tactics. I also ask you to
> >>>realize how their tactics have influenced the nature of debate, so
> >>>that the words "denialism" and "revisionism" have become standard
> >>>weapons against those who are simply trying to take a balanced view of
> >>>events. Many people, in the media and elsewhere, have been the victim
> >>>of these manipulations by Ruder Finn--and this apparently includes you.
> >>>That may be difficult to accept, but denying or minimizing it won't
> >>>make it go away.
> >>
> >>Your argument that only the machinations of Ruder Finn gave rise to
> >>the Nazi World War Two era comparisons is simply absurd.
> >
> >I didn't specifically make that argument, but it takes intentional
> >blindness to not see the fact that Ruder Finn was the main source of
> >the shift in public opinion regarding the former Yugoslavia.
> Rubbish. Vukovar and Dubrovnik were what turned public opinion against
> the Serbs, that is to say: facts not the spin put upon facts.
That really is too simplistic an argument. From recollection, was there some
massacre people of Serbian heritage murdered in Dubrovnik and Vukovar?
> > The URLs,
> >again, are:
> >
> > http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
> > http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
> >
> >And here's a specific quote:
> >
> > Harff: By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of
> > good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by
> > targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear
> > change of language in the press, with use of words with high emotional
> > content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which
> > evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. No one
> > could go against it without being accused of revisionism.
> The vain braggadoccio of one man claiming to have altered history. A
> few weeks ago I posted a few messages on soc.culture.yugoslavia making
> claims about Serbian military ineptitude. Coincidentally, a few days
> later, Milosevic made a series of reforms in the Yugoslav military,
> demoting some of his generals and promoting others. Jokingly, I then
> made a post claiming credit for the change, as if Milosevic's
> intentions had been influenced by my postings. Would you have believed
> me?
You obviously follow the events in Yugoslavia far too closely., it is
however quite funny.
This is an obvious affect of the media portrayl of Serbia by Ruder Finn,
they may as well get a copyright this whole Balkan "model", and apply it to
another country/area.
> >
> >>Similarly, your argument that there is
> >>something sinister in an attempt to manipulate public opinion in
> >>favour of one particular point of view is also without merit. Almost
> >>all points of view, of any significant standing, receive professional
> >>or organised representation in some shape or form.
> >
> >The scale and nature of Ruder Finn's efforts outshadow anything I'm
> >aware of,
> Come on. This is exceptionally naive. There must be many such lobbying
> campaigns underway.
> > and their spectacular success has had a clear impact on
> >the course of events. You and I are both victims of their efforts.
> >Assuming you've actually read these pages in full, doesn't this
> >bother you in the slightest?
> I have read them and, no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am
> confident that all sides were making organised efforts to advance
> their interests and to influence their portrayal in the media; and I
> am confident that enough natural diversity exists in the information
> outlets available to me that I can make a judgement based
> substantially on truth and not the claims of propaganda.
How could that possibly be if the media has followed a similar line for the
past 9 years (ok say since 1992)?
>
> >
> >>The Serbian point
> >>of view has been advanced by the Serbian Unity Congress
> >>and has been favoured by the Greek lobby in the United States. These
> >>competing propaganda efforts are not, in essence, any different from
> >>the representation that a lawyer affords his client.
> >
> >Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
> >the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
> >to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
> >a comparison.
> There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
> before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
> 'Greek lobby' in the U.S. . I had saved a copy of this article but,
> unfortunately, had a total hard drive wipeout in December and no
> longer have it. If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
> by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
> Alan, or anyone else, if you still have a copy of this article please
> post it again. If no one else posts it within a few days I will look
> through the deja archive for it.
You don't mean that Micheal Sells article do you? The Religion lecturer from
HAREFORD College (not Harvard). A college of 1000 students formed by Quakers
(not of course there is anything wrong with Quakers). I think Micheal Sells
is a Croat anyway, isn't his surname Crnobja or something? Doesn't his
companian , Brad K. Blitz (interesting name) , go to the same univeristy
where Micheal Sells (Crnobja?) go to?
You seem to forget that there happened to be a bit of terrorism going on in
Kosovo during that time instigated by the KLA. Please go to:
http://www.thevolusian.com/ProfMichel.html
Regards,
Damian Martinovich
Damian Martinovich
>
> >>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
> >>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
> >>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
> >>a comparison.
> >There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
> >before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
> >'Greek lobby' in the U.S. . I had saved a copy of this article but,
> >unfortunately, had a total hard drive wipeout in December and no
> >longer have it. If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
> >by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
> >Alan, or anyone else, if you still have a copy of this article please
> >post it again. If no one else posts it within a few days I will look
> >through the deja archive for it.
>
> Here's the url:
>
> http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html
>
>
> Also look at:
>
> http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/sells2.htm
>
As I mentioned in my previous reply to "Pacman", by all means read the
Michael Sells article by keep in mind and to quote from my other post"
You don't mean that Michael Sells article do you? The Religion lecturer from
HAREFORD College (not Harvard). A college of 1000 students formed by Quakers
(not of course there is anything wrong with Quakers). I think Michael Sells
is a Croat anyway, isn't his surname Crnobja or something? Doesn't his
companion , Brad K. Blitz (interesting name) , go to the same university
where Michael Sells (Crnobja?) go to?
"
As for freeserbia.net, a Serbian website? Don't think so.
Regards,
Damian Martinovich
PacMan
<marti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Off topic but I think that you will find that almost the entire Croatian
>Jewish population was killed in WW2.
Almost the entire Jewish population of Serbia certainly was.
>(Encylopedia of the Holocaust). Jews from Serbia were in the Ranks of Tito's
>Partizans and they also were in the Ranks of the Royalist Chetniks as well.
>No Jews were members of the Croatian Nazi Ustashe.
And no Jews were members of Nedic's government either.
>
>That really is too simplistic an argument. From recollection, was there some
>massacre people of Serbian heritage murdered in Dubrovnik and Vukovar?
You tell me. You keep asking questions instead of making statements.
You expect me to do your research for you?
>
>
>> I have read them and, no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am
>> confident that all sides were making organised efforts to advance
>> their interests and to influence their portrayal in the media; and I
>> am confident that enough natural diversity exists in the information
>> outlets available to me that I can make a judgement based
>> substantially on truth and not the claims of propaganda.
>
>How could that possibly be if the media has followed a similar line for the
>past 9 years (ok say since 1992)?
They've followed the line carved out by the facts.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>The Serbian point
>> >>of view has been advanced by the Serbian Unity Congress
>> >>and has been favoured by the Greek lobby in the United States. These
>> >>competing propaganda efforts are not, in essence, any different from
>> >>the representation that a lawyer affords his client.
>> >
>> >Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>> >the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>> >to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>> >a comparison.
>> There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>> before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>> 'Greek lobby' in the U.S. . I had saved a copy of this article but,
>> unfortunately, had a total hard drive wipeout in December and no
>> longer have it. If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
>> by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
>> Alan, or anyone else, if you still have a copy of this article please
>> post it again. If no one else posts it within a few days I will look
>> through the deja archive for it.
>
>You don't mean that Micheal Sells article do you?
No, though I quoted that url too.
>The Religion lecturer from
>HAREFORD College (not Harvard).
Your point?
> A college of 1000 students formed by Quakers
>(not of course there is anything wrong with Quakers).
Your point?
> I think Micheal Sells
>is a Croat anyway,
Your point?
>isn't his surname Crnobja or something?
Don't know. You do some research and then tell me.
> Doesn't his
>companian , Brad K. Blitz (interesting name) , go to the same univeristy
>where Micheal Sells (Crnobja?) go to?
Don't know. You do some research and then tell me.
And then tell me why it would matter if he did.
What if he's a professor of religion? What if he works at a Quaker
college? What if Sells is a Croat (though I've no reason to believe
that he is)? What if Blitz goes to the same university as Sells? It
seems to be a favourite tactic of the Serbian apologists to attempt to
discredit people personally, rather than focus on the content of what
they have to say. If someone makes a factual assertion, that assertion
is either true or not true. It stands on its own, quite apart from the
person making it. Of course, if someone lacks the factual knowledge
required to evaluate the claim on its own merits, judgements about the
person's credibility and likely motivations may then be justified. I
am not prepared to take seriously an attempt to invalidate a person's
work simply on the basis that they are a professor of religion or a
Quaker or a Croat or that they may have gone to the same university as
someone who was. Of course I perfectly understand why a Serbian
apologist would want to avoid tangling with the facts, since they are
so resolutely against you, but it would be nice to see you at least
make the attempt.
A terrorism amply justified by the apartheid regime that the Kosovar
Albanian population was being subjected to.
>Please go to:
>http://www.thevolusian.com/ProfMichel.html
OK, so let's apply your logic to this. Do you mean that article by
Michael Chossudovsky? The professor of Economics? The one at that
university in Canada? The university that's run by all those Canadians
(not that there's anything wrong with Canadians). Isn't Chossudovsky
a Russian? (His name Chossudovsky certainly sounds Russian). Didn't he
used to be friendly with a Serb when he was busking for kopecks on the
Moscow underground? Didn't Chossudovsky do all the singing while the
Serb strummed out the chords on his guitar?
esrevnI eilrahC
> >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
> >forget to question the input, the reality.
> >
> systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
THIS is the "evil lie". The proportion of Albanians in
Kosovo was INCREASING, and the proportion of Serbs
DECREASING. If anyone was being "cleansed", it was the
Serbs. If the situation in Kosovo was as your propaganda
says it was, why is it that so many Albanians emigrated
to Kosovo? Name one other "ethnic cleansing" in history
that resulted in an INCREASE in the population being
"cleansed".
The KLA terrorized not just Serbs. They also terrorized
Roma and even fellow Albanians. The terror cut across
ethnic lines. Many Albanians and Serbs continued to live
in peace together, even after NATzO started bombing! None
of this is consistent with your "ethnic cleansing" party-
line.
>
> Grantland
R.V. Gronoff
"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> a écrit dans le message news:
388a255b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
> >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
> >forget to question the input, the reality.
> >
> systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
>
There was another ethnic cleansing happening in Croatia too.
Of course, mediatic Croatia couldn't afford mass-murdering all their Serbs.
They just brutalized them enough to have them want to escape to Serbia.
I don't know when the world will realize that ALL the sides in this f*@$%
war have their butchers and their good people.
Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than Pavelic !
And Republika Srpska (with Montenegro and Macedonia) is, today, the ONLY
place in former-Yugoslavia that is fully multi-ethnic.
All the others (except Slovenia maybe) are based on a tribal, ethnic and
FASCIST idea of the nation.
Alan
"R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> "Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> 388a255b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
> > esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip evil lies>
> >
> > >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
> > >forget to question the input, the reality.
> > >
> > systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
> >
>
> There was another ethnic cleansing happening in Croatia too.
> Of course, mediatic Croatia couldn't afford mass-murdering all their
Serbs.
> They just brutalized them enough to have them want to escape to
Serbia.
> I don't know when the world will realize that ALL the sides in this
f*@$%
> war have their butchers and their good people.
>
> Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than
Pavelic !
You are right: Tudjman could easily be seen as a mirror image of
Milosevic. He was a creation of the nationalist fury initiated by Mr
Milosevic back in 1989. No Milosevic could have meant no Tudjman and no
KLA. Tudjman is dead, and the Croats have finally put an end to the
rule of his party. There is hope for Croatia. One day, there will be
hope for Serbia as well.
> And Republika Srpska (with Montenegro and Macedonia) is, today, the
ONLY
> place in former-Yugoslavia that is fully multi-ethnic.
> All the others (except Slovenia maybe) are based on a tribal, ethnic
and
> FASCIST idea of the nation.
That is a bit far fetched. One could argue that Serbia is fully multi-
ethnic. And that Bosnia could have been and has been prevented from
being so by Milosevic and Co. Slovenia, Montenegro and Macedonia seem
multi-ethnic to me. Croatia got rid of its Serb population after an
extremely bloody war, again initiated by Milosevic and Co. I'm sure
Croatia and the EU will find ways of garanteeing a massive return of
Serbs once the Milosevic-Seselj threat will have been removed by the
Serbian people themselves. The KLA is the other remaining "fascist"
party in power in the region. It could become even more difficult to
neutralise Thaci than to neutralise Milosevic: 85% of the population of
Kosovo seem to LOVE that "hero", again thanks to Milosevic. We should
not be too proud of that.
Darko Peric
R.V. Gronoff wrote in message <86iskm$2q2p$1...@news4.isdnet.net>...
>
>"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> a écrit dans le message news:
>388a255b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
>> esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip evil lies>
>>
>> >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
>> >forget to question the input, the reality.
>> >
>> systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
>>
>
>There was another ethnic cleansing happening in Croatia too.
>Of course, mediatic Croatia couldn't afford mass-murdering all their
Serbs.
>They just brutalized them enough to have them want to escape to Serbia.
>I don't know when the world will realize that ALL the sides in this
f*@$%
>war have their butchers and their good people.
>
>Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than
Pavelic !
Darko: When did he say this?
>
>And Republika Srpska (with Montenegro and Macedonia) is, today, the
ONLY
>place in former-Yugoslavia that is fully multi-ethnic.
Darko: Republika Srpska? What are you smoking? Do you know the
population stats?
>All the others (except Slovenia maybe) are based on a tribal, ethnic
and
>FASCIST idea of the nation.
Darko: Why is Croatia full of Italians, Czechs, Slovaks,
Ukrainians, Slovenes, Magyars, Germans, etc.?
Robert the 'erbert
(PacMan) wrote:
> OK, so let's apply your logic to this. Do you mean that article by
> Michael Chossudovsky? The professor of Economics? The one at that
> university in Canada? The university that's run by all those Canadians
> (not that there's anything wrong with Canadians). Isn't Chossudovsky
> a Russian? (His name Chossudovsky certainly sounds Russian). Didn't he
> used to be friendly with a Serb when he was busking for kopecks on the
> Moscow underground? Didn't Chossudovsky do all the singing while the
> Serb strummed out the chords on his guitar?
LOL. Nice one PacMan.
____________________________________________________________
'The specific character of Serbia comes from the fact that in
this country the highest posts in Government are occupied by
people one meets in hospitals and prisons in every normally
developed country. And in Serbia such people are ruling the
country. They decide the nation's fate. That's why all these
people must be subjected to a detailed medical examination'.
/ZORAN DJINDJIC/
John Caruso
>Actually, I didn't mean to imply anything about their truth or
>falsehood (other than the one about saving Jews from the Nazis - a
>claim whose merits can be assessed relatively simply since statistical
>measures of it are available and are not seriously disputed by either
>side - for the record around 90% of Serbia's prewar Jewish population
>was annihilated - a higher proportion than in Croatia).
(This doesn't necessarily imply Serb complicity, unless you assume these
deaths were caused by Serbs.)
>That's a topic
>for another thread. I meant only to comment on their irrelevance. Even
>if true, why would Serbia's claims about heroic conduct in World War
>Two be relevant to any moral judgement that we should make about them
>in the 1990s? Why make such claims if not in an attempt to cloak
>yourself in a moral halo?
I haven't heard such claims, and certainly not in any mainstream
media, so I'm not qualified to comment; but you've already said you
won't challenge their truth. Given that, fighting against fascism is
a pretty compelling argument for proving that you're NOT a fascist--
especially in a case like the former Yugoslavia. So citing former
behavior in this case is not only proper but completely natural,
though it may ultimately be irrelevant (and I doubt anyone would be
swayed by the arguments you're claiming were offered).
There is a significant difference between citing actual behavior, as
you're claiming these Serbs have done, and trying to characterize
other behavior, no matter how reprehensible, in a manner which far
exceeds the facts--which is exactly what Ruder Finn did, as anyone
reading the selection(s) can see. By the admission of its own top
executive, Ruder Finn attempted to boil a complex situation down to
a simple case of Good vs. Evil, leveraging the suffering of Holocaust
victims and cold-bloodedly using Jewish organizations to cement their
attempt to specify the terms of debate.
However, putting all that aside: this Serbian "spin" you're saying was
so constant was practically invisible in the mainstream press. I know
I've seen no references to this, and it's CERTAINLY true that the
issues are never framed in this way--as they constantly are in Ruder
Finn's "Holocaust" framework. The morality of the strategy is only half
the equation; I'm sure you could find some ranting Serbian propaganda
somewhere which would claim that the Serbs were committing no atrocities
in Bosnia or elsewhere, for example, but that's a pointless exercise.
The other half of the equation is *success*...and Ruder Finn was
spectacularly successful, as is evident. Their propaganda affected
the terms of debate in ways which we can still see today, and which
were pervasive throughout NATO's attack.
>Moreover, since the Serbs quite
>clearly have conducted massive operations directed against ethnic and
>religious groups, you do not need to be Edward de Bono to make a
>connection between recent events in Yugoslavia and the holocaust.
The Holocaust was the systematic extermination of millions of Jews,
gypsies, and others. To make a connection to that level of horror
without significant reason is to abuse history. To do so in the case
of Kosovo, for instance, goes far beyond "abuse" of history; "rape"
would probably be more accurate. Yet images and precedents of Nazi
Germany were commonly invoked in the mainstream press throughout
the NATO bombing, and people are STILL trying to claim "genocide" in
Kosovo despite the evidence that the level of killing was so much
lower than claimed by NATO countries. To allow that kind of debasement
of highly emotional terms is to actively participate in your own
manipulation.
>>The URLs, again, are:
>>
>> http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
>> http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
>>
>>And here's a specific quote:
>>
>> Harff: By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of
>> good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by
>> targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear
>> change of language in the press, with use of words with high emotional
>> content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which
>> evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. No one
>> could go against it without being accused of revisionism.
>
>The vain braggadoccio of one man claiming to have altered history. A
>few weeks ago I posted a few messages on soc.culture.yugoslavia making
>claims about Serbian military ineptitude. Coincidentally, a few days
>later, Milosevic made a series of reforms in the Yugoslav military,
>demoting some of his generals and promoting others. Jokingly, I then
>made a post claiming credit for the change, as if Milosevic's
>intentions had been influenced by my postings. Would you have believed me?
Like your analogy of Serbs citing Holocaust actions, this one is
tempting but specious, and could be used to argue that *nothing* has
a specific cause or causes...obviously an absurdity.
To answer your question (not that you're seriously asking): of course
I wouldn't have believed you, because there's no realistic possibility
that your posting affected Milosevic's actions. In the case of Ruder
Finn, though, we can use CIPRA's extensive description of their machinations
(given, BTW, in the terms of a citation for the campaign's efficacy) to
judge the campaign for ourselves. I'll cite just a small portion:
Two Congressional Delegation visits to Kosova were organized by Ruder
Finn in 1995, with six Members of the House traveling to the region on
an itinerary organized and escorted by Ruder Finn. The President and
Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosova visited the U.S. four times
in 1995 for the purpose of meeting with targets, speaking to foreign
policy organizations, and participating in interviews with journalists
including The Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Time,
Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, Associated Press Television,
Reuters Television, CNN on numerous occasions, WTN BBC and C-[SPAN?]
[...]
On three occasions, Secretary of State Christopher met with the
President and Prime Minister; Ruder Finn also arranged meetings with
National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Madeleine Albright numerous Assistant Secretaries of State and Defense
Department officials, and Vice President Al Gore.
"CNN on numerous occasions" is my favorite part; we certainly couldn't
have guessed it from their resulting coverage....
This extraordinary level of involvement illustrates why Harff's
statements are not simple "braggadocio". If you could show this level
of activity on your behalf--perhaps with access all the way to Milosevic
himself, forcing him to read your posting, persuading large portions
of his military to read and accept the truth of your posting's words,
and convincing large segments of the world press to support your
posting's particulars--then yes, maybe I would be willing to give
credit to you for the changes you cite. Barring that, though, we'll
have to put it aside as the false analogy that it is.
>>>The comparisons suggest themselves naturally and don't have to be conjured
>>>up by any P.R. executive.
>>
>>Yet, strangely, that's precisely what happened. Regarding your
>>comment, I'll quote myself:
>>
>> Yet despite this record, when people are faced with this information
>> there's often an interesting dynamic. Someone who's been exposed to
>> years of propganda (unwittingly, of course, and both directly and
>> indirectly, as noted above) hears about the campaign to demonize the
>> Serbs, but since they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated they dismiss
>> this new information--after all, the Serbs are demons, so what's wrong
>> with portraying them that way?
>>
>>It may seem natural to you now, but you (and I, and all of us) have
>>been exposed to YEARS of media coverage which has adopted Ruder Finn's
>>desired frame. Up until a year or more ago, when I began researching
>>these events for myself, I reviled the Serbs as animals for the evils
>>they'd committed and blamed them exclusively for EVERYTHING which has
>>happened in the Balkans. I'm embarassed that I was ever so misinformed...
>>but that's true for the majority of people in the US, who receive only
>>the most simplistic and biased version of these events.
>
>Here again we have the offensive view that only the ignorant can hold
>the Serbs responsible.
I agree that this appears to be the crux of the matter. You don't
want to accept that you may have been manipulated by the large-scale
framing of these issues. I didn't either. Unfortunately, whether or
not you want to admit it, you *have*, as have all of us. This does
not necessarily invalidate your views, especially if they're well-
informed views (which does not apply to the vast majority of the
population in the US, I can tell you), but I think it would be foolish
of you to ignore or deny these elements of the equation simply because
you find them uncomfortable.
>I am not ignorant. I have read many thousands
>of words on the subject and, the more I read, the greater my
>conviction of Serbian guilt becomes.
That's your prerogative. Few are so well-informed; for the majority
of people, opinions are essentially guided/dictated by the framing of
the news. If the framing of stories about Yugoslavia offers demonic
Serbs carrying out their horrors on innocent, lily-white, peace-loving
Croats, Muslims, and Kosovars, that will inevitably have its effect on
those who only know the facts through the occasional newspaper or TV
feature. As Harff said, Ruder Finn's achievement was to create "a simple
story of good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself"...which
is precisely what's happened.
In assessing the information you've used to form your opinions, I
think you should keep in mind that it was produced in an intellectual
climate dominated by the Holocaust frame, as championed by Ruder Finn
(and possibly others). IMHO, anything produced by an agent (reporter,
journalist, and so on) who lacks that realization is seriously suspect.
Consider, for example, this statement by Christianne Amanpour:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media bias on Bosnia was also the subject of a '96 article by Sherry
Ricchiardi in the American Journalism Review. But Ricchiardi didn't
question whether the media were biased on Bosnia, only whether the
bias was justified.
One of those she interviewed, Cable News Network correspondent
Christiane Amanpour, insisted it was: ''In certain situations, the
classic definition of objectivity can mean neutrality, and neutrality
can mean you are an accomplice to all sorts of evil - in this case,
genocide and crimes against humanity.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's obvious that, given this statement, anyone watching her
coverage should be VERY skeptical. And remember, the greatest abuse
of truth is not in what is covered; it's not about outright falsehoods,
which are relatively infrequent. Rather, it's in what is NOT covered,
and the emphasis that's chosen for those stories which do appear.
>>>Similarly, your argument that there is
>>>something sinister in an attempt to manipulate public opinion in
>>>favour of one particular point of view is also without merit. Almost
>>>all points of view, of any significant standing, receive professional
>>>or organised representation in some shape or form.
>>
>>The scale and nature of Ruder Finn's efforts outshadow anything I'm
>>aware of,
>
>Come on. This is exceptionally naive. There must be many such lobbying
>campaigns underway.
Fine. Find the evidence which shows the breadth and nature of those
campaigns, and specifically, the evidence of the level of success. All
of that has been provided here in the case of Ruder Finn.
>> and their spectacular success has had a clear impact on
>>the course of events. You and I are both victims of their efforts.
>>Assuming you've actually read these pages in full, doesn't this
>>bother you in the slightest?
>
>I have read them and, no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am
>confident that all sides were making organised efforts to advance
>their interests and to influence their portrayal in the media; and I
>am confident that enough natural diversity exists in the information
>outlets available to me that I can make a judgement based
>substantially on truth and not the claims of propaganda.
I think your confidence is misplaced, but again, it's your prerogative.
>>>The Serbian point
>>>of view has been advanced by the Serbian Unity Congress
>>>and has been favoured by the Greek lobby in the United States. These
>>>competing propaganda efforts are not, in essence, any different from
>>>the representation that a lawyer affords his client.
>>
>>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>a comparison.
>
>There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>'Greek lobby' in the U.S.
I'll respond to this elsewhere.
>>>It is the duty of
>>>a lawyer to represent his client to the best of his ability, whether
>>>he thinks the client is guilty or not.
>>
>>An argument I'm sure Rider Finn would love to hear you make for them.
>>Ruder Finn is paid to do what they do, and they did it well, as Harff
>>says; but you and I are not required to rubber stamp their disgusting
>>abuse of the suffering of Holocaust victims. If you want to be an
>>apologist for that type of tactic, that's your choice.
>
>Anyone seeking to advance a point of view will use any means at their
>disposal to do it. It is naive to expect otherwise.
Absolutely. However, it's also naive to refuse to recognize it, or
its effects--which are directly related to the level of success.
I don't question the right of lobbying, or its validity, on the part
of ANY group. What I'm doing is identifying one group's (disgusting)
tactics and pointing out the pervasiveness of their efforts, so that
people can see how deeply those efforts have affected the framing of
the issues.
>>>Of course, in some cases, a particularly skilful lawyer
>>>may overpower his opponent and win a case regardless of its intrinsic
>>>merits and, perhaps, Ruder Finn is indeed particularly good at what it
>>>does, but there is nothing inherently sinister in the activity of
>>>giving all-out representation to one particular point of view.
>>
>>Ruder Finn does appear to be particularly good at it. Advocacy is not
>>"inherently sinister"; but when it reaches the level we see here, of
>>Holocaust manipulation, press and media manipulation, and manipulation
>>of the US Congress, it does indeed become sinister to all but the
>>voluntarily blind.
>
>No it doesn't because similar efforts are being made by all sides.
Efforts alone are meaningless; scale and success are not.
>Let it be noted that the main article you quote appears to have been
>written in 1996. What help had Kosova received from the West in 1996?
>None of any significance. They got nothing at Dayton. It was the Serb
>military crackdown of 1998 that brought Kosova back onto the agenda,
>not anything Ruder Finn did.
You're begging the question. You don't know how involved they've been
since 1996, and neither do I. I do, however, find it rather laughably
unlikely that Ruder Finn would REDUCE their efforts as the issue has
gained more prominence; after, all, the "Republic of Kosova" remains
on their client list. Barring evidence to the contrary, it's natural
to assume that they've maintained the same level of advocacy, and that
some of the prominence of the issue is in fact a *result* of their
manipulations. For example, the mention of Bob Dole in the CIPRA
citation, paired with Dole's continued involvement in the Kosovo issue
up through NATO's bombing, supports this assumption.
(I don't and wouldn't claim, BTW, that Ruder Finn unilaterally caused
the Kosovo crisis...and that's not the question under discussion.
What we're looking at is the framing of these issues, from the very
beginning of the Yugoslav wars.)
Again, I encourage everyone to read the contents of the two URLs
and judge for themselves just how comfortable they are with what's
been done to affect their opinions:
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
- John
John Caruso
>Actually, these facts have been reported by Jacques Merlino, a journalist of
>France 2 Télévision, in his book "Toutes les vérités yougoslaves ne sont pas
>bonnes à dire", published in 1992.
I'd like to hear your opinion, R.V.: do you feel that the transcripts
which have been presented here are an adequate translation of the text
of the book? Are there any significant diversions from the texts which
have been cited here? ("Significant" meaning specifically anything
which materially alters the content, as opposed to minor translation
quibbles.)
- John
John Caruso
>>>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>>a comparison.
>.
>>There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>>before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>>'Greek lobby' in the U.S.
The article you've found (http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html),
though committed to paper by one Brad Blitz, is attributed to:
Students Against GEnocide (SAGE)--Project Bosnia is a national
student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate
of the American Committee to Save Bosnia.
This is an enormous flashing red light, particularly because this is
not simply cited material, but is an original text. Personally, I
never trust such documents from EITHER side; and I can only hope that
this isn't typical of the "many thousands of words" you say you've
read on the subject.
(I should also note that the documents regarding Ruder Finn's
activities do not suffer from these deficiencies. The Harff interview
in particular is so notable because it's IN HIS OWN WORDS; and the
CIPRA site is just a factual description of the nature of the campaign.)
Setting this aside for the moment, though, the first question is
impact: what impact have the efforts by Serb groups had in affecting
media coverage and/or public opinion? The answer is: damn little, as
anyone who took even the most cursory glance at typical Kosovo coverage
could see. The standard reference frame is completely in the opposite
direction, with Serbs the unquestioned and complete villains throughout
the 1990s, often explicitly compared to Nazis. This report is filled
with ludicrous attempts to exaggerate the impact of the Serb efforts
described (quite frequently undercut by the report itself, which often
lists nefarious campaign contributions which are then RETURNED by the
recipient).
Setting even that aside, the bias inherent in the report is evident
throughout. The author(s) base their worldview on several points:
that the Serbs were unilaterally to blame for events in the Balkans;
that they are genocidal monsters on the level of the Nazis; that all
allegations of "concentration camps" or "rape camps" must be taken as
gospel truth; and so on. These assumptions are presented without
proof, and their attacks on Serbian "revisionists" are based on the
disputing of precisely these assumed truths, thus begging the very
question at hand. In other words, anyone who does not fully endorse
the genocide/Nazi frame, championed by Ruder Finn and wholeheartedly
accepted by SAGE, is a "revisionist". Here's just one telling example
of their bias:
A frequent tactic of the Serbian lobby is to begin public debates by
arguing that critically-minded people should recognize the existence
of political interests behind the production of information and thus
should be aware that 'truth' and 'objectivity' lie 'somewhere in the
middle.'
I find it incredible that SAGE would attempt to paint as nefarious
an appeal to people to look at the forces which guide news production,
and to look at the misbehavior on ALL sides...but there it is. SAGE/
Blitz seem oblivious to the fact that any informed listener hearing
the above invocation with an open mind would also apply it to the Serbs!
They're such fanatics that the idea of any such objectivity offends them.
Only total agreement with their party line is acceptable, and anything
short of that is "revisionism". The bulk of their criticisms follow
precisely this pattern.
This is strikingly similar to the Freedom House study which claimed
that the US press undermined the government in Vietnam, extensively
analyzed in _Manufacturing Consent_ by Herman and Chomsky. They show
how the press in fact embraced the government's chosen propaganda
frame, deviating in minor ways and primarily over tactical concerns,
and how Freedom House's assessment boils down to a dissatisfaction
with anything short of total and complete subservience to the Official
Line. Blitz/SAGE agonize over every single article which falls anywhere
outside their own preconceived notion of the truth...they can't stand
the idea that even one article will exist which does not further their
own worldview. They rarely discuss even the content of these articles;
they simply cite the fact of their existence as proof of evil intent.
This also calls to mind the actions of the British government after
the Kosovo bombing, when it viciously attacked the British press with
accusations that the press had somehow supported the Serbs(!). That
such an accusation could be levelled with a straight face is nothing
short of comical, given the extraordinarily high level of fealty of
all the major British media I saw to the official line, but again, the
standard applied is one of TOTAL obedience. When such obedience is
not offered, the response is quick and unyielding. This use of "flak"
to discipline and control the media is described at some length in
_Manufacturing Consent_; I found it very interesting indeed to see it
verified in such textbook fashion through a contemporary example.
I've already given this tract far more attention than it deserves, so
I'll stop. The fact is that it goes nowhere near proving that Serb
efforts to put forward some (imagined) "revisionist" agenda are on a
par with Ruder Finn's efforts, described by Ruder Finn's own top
executive...as we can see ourselves by the paradigm which dominates
the media these days.
>>If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
>>by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
I recall that as well. The fact that Alan would endorse a report which
is so biased, and which comes from such a clearly biased source--and
that he'd ally himself with a zealot of Barry's ilk--are among the reasons
that I feel he has lost almost any shred of objectivity.
>Also look at:
>
>http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/sells2.htm
Similar comments apply. I find it humorous in the extreme that the
author attempts to portray GOP bickering about Clinton as motivated by
some sinister "Belgrade Lobby", as opposed to being a continuation of
the pathetic partisan attacks they'd been carrying out for years (has
he already forgotten Monicagate?). If he doubts the sincerity of
right-wing extremists who consider Kosovo to be Clinton's attempt to
"wag the dog", he doesn't get around much. I know plenty of such
credulous folk myself, and they most certainly aren't under Belgrade's
control (unless Rush Limbaugh is secretly a Yugoslav agent, that is...).
- John
John Caruso
>> Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than Pavelic !
>
>Milosevic. He was a creation of the nationalist fury initiated by Mr
>Milosevic back in 1989.
Funny, I thought Tudjman was older than that, and that his involvement
with the Ustashe happened well before 1989. To say that he was somehow
a "creation" of Milosevic is just needless piling on. In (correctly)
condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary to try to shift the blame for
every petty nationalist in the Balkans to him...and doing so reveals a
lack of objectivity.
>No Milosevic could have meant no Tudjman and no KLA.
Possibly no KLA (speaking very specifically), but you're deluding
yourself about Tudjman.
The current actions by KLA and ex-KLA in Kosovo cannot be laid at
Milosevic's doorstep. In my opinion, they reveal what these extremists
have wanted all along: an ethnically pure Albanian statelet. This fact
doesn't validate the Yugoslav response, which was repressive, over-
inclusive, and far too violent; however, it does make it clear that
the standard Western propaganda frame, of a civilian population under
unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack by a brutally racist regime, was
a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
>Tudjman is dead, and the Croats have finally put an end to the
>rule of his party.
(No thanks to the US, Germany, or NATO and NATO-country governments,
who supported him despite his fascistic policies and background.)
>> And Republika Srpska (with Montenegro and Macedonia) is, today, the ONLY
>> place in former-Yugoslavia that is fully multi-ethnic.
>> All the others (except Slovenia maybe) are based on a tribal, ethnic and
>> FASCIST idea of the nation.
>
>That is a bit far fetched. One could argue that Serbia is fully multi-
>ethnic.
It's a pretty uncontroversial statement, in fact, since the province
has significant constituent minorities. This is one of the biggest
ironies of the claims of racial or religious intolerance on the part
of the Serbs.
>It could become even more difficult to
>neutralise Thaci than to neutralise Milosevic: 85% of the population of
>Kosovo seem to LOVE that "hero", again thanks to Milosevic.
Again, you attempt to put all the blame on Milosevic. Why? Thaci
is surely to blame for his own actions...and if we're talking about
who brought him to prominence, surely NATO deserves a large share of
that credit, for giving him the LEADING role in the Albanian delegation
at Rambouillet, supporting him and the KLA throughout the bombing
campaign, and by marginzalizing Rugova (the elected president) in
favor of Thaci and his terrorist thugs.
- John
John Caruso
>>Given that, fighting against fascism is
>>a pretty compelling argument for proving that you're NOT a fascist--
>>especially in a case like the former Yugoslavia.
>
>own national character which predispose it towards good or evil down
>through the generations.
Not at all, and in fact, this is exactly the type of argument often
put forward by "reputable" writers who attempt to identify some
uniquely Serbian deficiency which makes them such lovers of genocide.
It's oversimplified and fallacious. What I've said here doesn't
follow this model at all; rather, it says that past behavior is at
least relevant to assessing current behavior, and certainly much more
so than propagandistic frames imposed by third parties (as in the case
of Ruder Finn's Holocaust frame). Also, I was speaking about
individuals, not entire nations, since I don't know the details of
your example (and don't need to, I think).
>>So citing former
>>behavior in this case is not only proper but completely natural,
>>though it may ultimately be irrelevant (and I doubt anyone would be
>>swayed by the arguments you're claiming were offered).
>
>It was something often cited by those opposed to the military action
>against Serbia. Whether they were swayed by it or not is another
>matter, though actually I believe many people were influenced by it
>initially.
"Many people"? You mean generally, as in large populations? This
is so counter to my own experience that I can't even imagine you could
mean it that way. The guiding metaphor of nearly all the media coverage
I saw was that of Nazis and the Holocaust, with the Serbs the unquestioned
villains (and attributed as such throughout the 1990s and the secession
wars in the Balkans).
Speaking for myself, I can tell you that such claims have had not any
meaningful impact on my own positions WRT Kosovo and Yugoslavia.
>> and trying to characterize
>>other behavior, no matter how reprehensible, in a manner which far
>>exceeds the facts
>
>I can't agree with you here. Citing current behaviour is, in my view,
>far more justifiable that citing historical acts or myths about
>historical acts. Whether characterising Serb behaviour as being
>something similar to the holocaust 'far exceeded the facts' or not is
>a purely subjective judgement on your part. Clearly, it did not
>involve death on the same scale as the holocaust.
I give you credit for saying so.
>However, so
>cold-bloodedly singling out a distinct ethnic and religious group for
>atrocity is not something that has occurred in Europe, on this scale,
>since the Second World War.
The Turkish repression of Kurds dwarfs anything in Kosovo, actually...
yet the Turkish government is a member of NATO and is supported quite
directly by the US, militarily and otherwise. This was true before,
during, and after the Kosovo bombing. Yet US officials are strangely
unable to muster even the weakest Holocaust analogy where Turkey is
concerned, and the media (here) follow the script.
Also, to invoke the word "religious" is misguided, IMHO; I've seen no
indication that religion had anything to do with it. The actions were
targeted at ethnic Albanians, and specifically at those who supported
secession from Yugoslavia or who were involved in direct or indirect
support of the KLA. It was far too inclusive and heavy-handed (after
the NATO attack began), but this was the thrust. It was not simply a
mindless, hate-inspired attack against a defenseless civilian population,
and certainly nowhere in the league of the purposeful extermination of
an entire ethnic group such as the Holocaust. There WAS a civil war
going on, and ignoring that fact distorts the entire situation (which
is exactly what happened...and which comes right back to what we're
discussing in this thread).
>>However, putting all that aside: this Serbian "spin" you're saying was
>>so constant was practically invisible in the mainstream press. I know
>>I've seen no references to this, and it's CERTAINLY true that the
>>issues are never framed in this way--as they constantly are in Ruder
>>Finn's "Holocaust" framework. The morality of the strategy is only half
>>the equation; I'm sure you could find some ranting Serbian propaganda
>>somewhere which would claim that the Serbs were committing no atrocities
>>in Bosnia or elsewhere, for example, but that's a pointless exercise.
>>The other half of the equation is *success*...and Ruder Finn was
>>spectacularly successful, as is evident. Their propaganda affected
>>the terms of debate in ways which we can still see today, and which
>>were pervasive throughout NATO's attack.
>
>No. This hinges on the assumption that the holocaust metaphor would
>never have emerged into limelight had it not been for Ruder Finn's
>manipulations.
Not particularly; I'm simply highlighting Ruder Finn's specific
success at advancing and advocating for that frame.
>This is an absurd view. Indeed, you would probably have
>to struggle to think of any major conflict in which analogies have not
>been drawn with World War Two.
Absolutely. The difference here is the *success* of imposing that
interpretation. Whether or not you attribute that success to Ruder
Finn, it's a fact which cannot be denied. There is, however, ample
evidence in the citations provided to suggest that Ruder Finn deserves
much of the credit.
>Your judgment of the success of the
>campaign is purely subjective. We have no way of knowing what terms of
>reference would have been had Ruder Finn not existed. My subjective
>judgement is that they would have been exactly the same. Since Ruder
>Finn, from what I can gather, confines its efforts exclusively to the
>United States, maybe you could speculate about how the rest of the
>developed world all came round to substantially the same judgement
>about the Serbs.
(I might first disagree with your assessment, since I don't feel that
you or I are qualified to judge the mindset of the entire world...and
discourse outside the US does appear to have been more balanced, though
on the whole still highly anti-Serb.)
>Of course, certain U.S. media, like CNN, have
>influence throughout the world but there influence is not as great as
>you might think and was certainly much less potent than it is now at
>the time when the recent conflicts began and the 'frame of reference'
>was established.
The CIPRA citation also mentioned Reuters and the BBC explicitly (and
the list was apparently not exhaustive). Also AP; and Reuters and AP
are of course distributed throughout the world. The CIPRA site also
mentions UN officials, though it doesn't specify nationalities.
>>>>The URLs, again, are:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
>>>> http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
>>>>
>>>>And here's a specific quote:
>>>>
>>>> Harff: By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of
>>>> good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by
>>>> targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear
>>>> change of language in the press, with use of words with high emotional
>>>> content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which
>>>> evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. No one
>>>> could go against it without being accused of revisionism.
>>>
>>>The vain braggadoccio of one man claiming to have altered history. A
>>>few weeks ago I posted a few messages on soc.culture.yugoslavia making
>>>claims about Serbian military ineptitude. Coincidentally, a few days
>>>later, Milosevic made a series of reforms in the Yugoslav military,
>>>demoting some of his generals and promoting others. Jokingly, I then
>>>made a post claiming credit for the change, as if Milosevic's
>>>intentions had been influenced by my postings. Would you have believed me?
>>
>>Like your analogy of Serbs citing Holocaust actions, this one is
>>tempting but specious, and could be used to argue that *nothing* has
>>a specific cause or causes...obviously an absurdity.
>
>You have not demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between
>anything that Ruder Finn did and the subsequent popularity of the
>holocaust metaphor.
You're correct, and it would be impossible for me to do so. I feel
that the evidence speaks for itself, however. Harff's accounts are
supported by the fact that his firm received an award for its efforts
in Kosovo from an independent PR organization, as well as by the fact
that the details revealed in that citation support what he'd claimed.
The sheer extent and pervasiveness of Ruder Finn's efforts, as evidenced
by their manipulation of Congressmen, the media, and so on, are the very
reasons why I'm willing to believe they've had an effect.
Again, I encourage everyone to visit the above URLs and judge for
themselves. I also ask you if you honestly believe Ruder Finn had
*no* effect, which is where you seem to be headed now. Assuming that's
not the case, we're just disagreeing about how much of an effect it was.
And regarding what drew you into this thread initially: putting aside
all questions of effectiveness, I reiterate my feeling that any truly
moral person would not hesitate to condemn Harff's statements and the
tactics he describes. Anyone who cannot do that, or who avoids doing
so simply because they feel it would hurt their "position", is in my
view a moral coward. I don't feel the need to deny Yugoslav atrocities
in Kosovo to make my points, and I have no respect for anyone who does.
I consider this analogous, and a good litmus test of the objectivity
of those involved in the debate. Alan's refusal to respond to my direct
challenge on this point speaks volumes.
>Even according to the text that you quote, the
>articles about the camps in Newsday appeared spontaneously. Ruder Finn
>did not create them. It simply took advantage of them afterwards.
Point taken. However, their success in doing so, and in using those
stories to co-opt Jewish groups to support their position, is the crucial
issue. Just because one outlet chooses to sensationalize a story does
not mean that that frame will become dominant; but Ruder Finn acted
consciously to produce that result.
I imagine, BTW, that Hill and Knowlton might have made a similar argument
about the Iraqi "incubator babies" story--i.e. they didn't create it,
they just distributed it. That doesn't take away from their spectacular
success at placing this ridiculous and fraudulent story so prominently,
to the point that it was endorsed by Amnesty International and was
mentioned in several speeches by Bush.
>So someone else had already arrived at the analogy on their own. Harff
>then says he 'outwitted' the big Jewish organisations. What does that
>mean? He then says that the three big Jewish organisations
>demonstrated against the Serbs. It remains to be shown how Harff
>cajoled the Jewish organisations into doing something they would not
>otherwise have done. I very much doubt that he did.
That's your prerogative. I don't have any reason to doubt him, again,
especially given the evidence of the extent of Ruder Finn's actions
as shown in the CIPRA citation. And as I said, even if you doubt the
truth of his words I can see no reasonable defense of the morality of
the actions he describes (I'm not saying that you've attempted one, though
you have seemed to excuse it on the basis that "everybody does it").
I appreciate your reasoned and resonable response, BTW. You make some
good points.
- John
Amigocabal
> The Holocaust was the systematic extermination of millions of Jews,
> gypsies, and others. To make a connection to that level of horror
> without significant reason is to abuse history. To do so in the case
> of Kosovo, for instance, goes far beyond "abuse" of history; "rape"
> would probably be more accurate. Yet images and precedents of Nazi
> Germany were commonly invoked in the mainstream press throughout
> the NATO bombing, and people are STILL trying to claim "genocide" in
> Kosovo despite the evidence that the level of killing was so much
> lower than claimed by NATO countries. To allow that kind of
debasement
> of highly emotional terms is to actively participate in your own
> manipulation
There is absolutely no difference, except in magnitude, between the
attempted genocide conducted by the Serbs against Muslems and Croats,
and the German Nazis genocide against "lesser races: and jews!
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <mo9i8soicam0j59k6...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>Actually, I didn't mean to imply anything about their truth or
>>falsehood (other than the one about saving Jews from the Nazis - a
>>claim whose merits can be assessed relatively simply since statistical
>>measures of it are available and are not seriously disputed by either
>>side - for the record around 90% of Serbia's prewar Jewish population
>>was annihilated - a higher proportion than in Croatia).
>
>(This doesn't necessarily imply Serb complicity, unless you assume these
>deaths were caused by Serbs.)
True. It does, however, make somewhat bizarre the prominence of the
idea that the Serbs exerted themselves to save Jews from the Nazis,
one of those vague notions most people have about history which swirls
around somewhere in the depths of the popular (un-?) consciousness.
>
>>That's a topic
>>for another thread. I meant only to comment on their irrelevance. Even
>>if true, why would Serbia's claims about heroic conduct in World War
>>Two be relevant to any moral judgement that we should make about them
>>in the 1990s? Why make such claims if not in an attempt to cloak
>>yourself in a moral halo?
>
>I haven't heard such claims, and certainly not in any mainstream
>media,
Well I find that very odd. This 'popular idea' of history is, to my
mind, even more prominent than the idea of the Serbs saving the Jews.
It was often mentioned at the time of the conflict in Kosova. In fact,
amusingly enough, the people repeating it often use the same false
facts and even the same terminology. They usually talk about how the
Serbs 'tied down' 20 elite German divisions. It's amazing how often
the phrase 'tied down' appears in this kind of discourse.
>so I'm not qualified to comment; but you've already said you
>won't challenge their truth.
I have challenged their truth in other threads but it would be a
needless diversion in this one.
> Given that, fighting against fascism is
>a pretty compelling argument for proving that you're NOT a fascist--
>especially in a case like the former Yugoslavia.
No it's not, unless you think the each country has qualities of its
own national character which predispose it towards good or evil down
through the generations.
> So citing former
>behavior in this case is not only proper but completely natural,
>though it may ultimately be irrelevant (and I doubt anyone would be
>swayed by the arguments you're claiming were offered).
It was something often cited by those opposed to the military action
against Serbia. Whether they were swayed by it or not is another
matter, though actually I believe many people were influenced by it
initially.
>
>There is a significant difference between citing actual behavior, as
>you're claiming these Serbs have done,
Actually it was mostly a myth, not actual behaviour.
> and trying to characterize
>other behavior, no matter how reprehensible, in a manner which far
>exceeds the facts
I can't agree with you here. Citing current behaviour is, in my view,
far more justifiable that citing historical acts or myths about
historical acts. Whether characterising Serb behaviour as being
something similar to the holocaust 'far exceeded the facts' or not is
a purely subjective judgement on your part. Clearly, it did not
involve death on the same scale as the holocaust. However, so
cold-bloodedly singling out a distinct ethnic and religious group for
atrocity is not something that has occurred in Europe, on this scale,
since the Second World War.
>--which is exactly what Ruder Finn did, as anyone
>reading the selection(s) can see. By the admission of its own top
>executive, Ruder Finn attempted to boil a complex situation down to
>a simple case of Good vs. Evil, leveraging the suffering of Holocaust
>victims and cold-bloodedly using Jewish organizations to cement their
>attempt to specify the terms of debate.
All who take a partisan position in a conflict attempt to do the same.
>
>However, putting all that aside: this Serbian "spin" you're saying was
>so constant was practically invisible in the mainstream press. I know
>I've seen no references to this, and it's CERTAINLY true that the
>issues are never framed in this way--as they constantly are in Ruder
>Finn's "Holocaust" framework. The morality of the strategy is only half
>the equation; I'm sure you could find some ranting Serbian propaganda
>somewhere which would claim that the Serbs were committing no atrocities
>in Bosnia or elsewhere, for example, but that's a pointless exercise.
>The other half of the equation is *success*...and Ruder Finn was
>spectacularly successful, as is evident. Their propaganda affected
>the terms of debate in ways which we can still see today, and which
>were pervasive throughout NATO's attack.
No. This hinges on the assumption that the holocaust metaphor would
never have emerged into limelight had it not been for Ruder Finn's
manipulations. This is an absurd view. Indeed, you would probably have
to struggle to think of any major conflict in which analogies have not
been drawn with World War Two. Your judgment of the success of the
campaign is purely subjective. We have no way of knowing what terms of
reference would have been had Ruder Finn not existed. My subjective
judgement is that they would have been exactly the same. Since Ruder
Finn, from what I can gather, confines its efforts exclusively to the
United States, maybe you could speculate about how the rest of the
developed world all came round to substantially the same judgement
about the Serbs. Of course, certain U.S. media, like CNN, have
influence throughout the world but there influence is not as great as
you might think and was certainly much less potent than it is now at
the time when the recent conflicts began and the 'frame of reference'
was established. In fact, initially, the European countries made a
much more severe judgement on the Serb/Croat war than the U.S. did. EU
recognition of Croatia in 1991 bespoke a common sense of revulsion at
what the Serbs had done at Vukovar and Dubrovnik. The US was opposed
to this recognition being granted. 'We haven't got a dog in this
fight?', James Baker said. Ruder Finn weren't acting in Europe yet we
too came to despise the Serbs.
You have not demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between
anything that Ruder Finn did and the subsequent popularity of the
holocaust metaphor. Even according to the text that you quote, the
articles about the camps in Newsday appeared spontaneously. Ruder Finn
did not create them. It simply took advantage of them afterwards. So
someone else had already arrived at the analogy on their own. Harff
then says he 'outwitted' the big Jewish organisations. What does that
mean? He then says that the three big Jewish organisations
demonstrated against the Serbs. It remains to be shown how Harff
cajoled the Jewish organisations into doing something they would not
otherwise have done. I very much doubt that he did.
>
The point of the analogy was and is that because someone attempts to
have a view accepted by others, and the fact of its subsequently being
accepted by others, are not necessarily related. Subsequence does not
prove consequence. The other party might have arrived at the same view
independently.
Their success is irrelevant and has not been demonstrated in the case
of Ruder Finn. I have already provided you with evidence of the
lobbying efforts on behalf of the Serbs. I have not looked into many
issues in the same depth that I have looked into the Balkan conflicts
so I do not have any detailed documentation of any other lobbying
efforts underway and I am not going to waste my time looking for it. I
do not doubt, however, that issues like gun control, smoking, Israel,
to quote just a few out of the innumerable many, must receive the same
kind of focused lobbying efforts in the United States.
Alan
car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
> In article <86jnns$vim$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alan wrote:
> >> Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than
Pavelic !
> >
> >You are right: Tudjman could easily be seen as a mirror image of
> >Milosevic. He was a creation of the nationalist fury initiated by Mr
> >Milosevic back in 1989.
>
> Funny, I thought Tudjman was older than that, and that his involvement
> with the Ustashe happened well before 1989. To say that he was
somehow
> a "creation" of Milosevic is just needless piling on. In (correctly)
> condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary to try to shift the blame for
> every petty nationalist in the Balkans to him...and doing so reveals a
> lack of objectivity.
I would not mind a little discussion on the events between 1987 and
1991. I maintain my assertion: Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to the ignition of the nationalist
powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia. By trying to monopolise control on
the Yugoslav collective presidency in the name Serb nationalism, and
through other actions including the cancellation of Kosovo's autonomy,
he triggered and credibilised the secessionnist processes in Slovenia,
Croatia and Bosnia.
Tudjman and his party are no better than him, and should have thanked
him for throwing the Croat voters in their arms.
> >No Milosevic could have meant no Tudjman and no KLA.
>
> Possibly no KLA (speaking very specifically), but you're deluding
> yourself about Tudjman.
Not Tudjman as a person, but Tudjman as the undisputed ruler of
Croatia. I am not deluding myself. Again, BTW, if you want to discuss
with me, please refrain from adding those personal diversions ("lack of
objectivity", "deluding yourself", etc, etc) in your posts. Thank you.
> The current actions by KLA and ex-KLA in Kosovo cannot be laid at
> Milosevic's doorstep. In my opinion, they reveal what these
extremists
> have wanted all along: an ethnically pure Albanian statelet.
The very existence of the KLA, and even more so its gain of hegemonious
control on the Kosovar political playing field, are to be laid on
Milosevic's doorstep. The current actions of the structures derived
from the KLA may reveal what you say they reveal. The fact that those
objectives seem to have became hegemonious is once more a direct
consequence of Serbia's policies in Kosovo. Elections will soon show if
the reasonable currents that have supported leaders like Ibrahim Rugova
through the peaceful civic desobedience movement between 1989 and 1998
have a chance to regain ground in the short term. With Milosevic/Seselj
remaining in power in Belgrade and bragging about the reconquest of
Kosovo, that chance seems pretty slim.
This fact
> doesn't validate the Yugoslav response, which was repressive, over-
> inclusive, and far too violent; however, it does make it clear that
> the standard Western propaganda frame, of a civilian population under
> unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack by a brutally racist regime, was
> a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
I am happy to read that first sentence in this paragraph. But do not
agree with the following ones of course. The general frame you refer to
was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful and near unanimous civic
opposition only brought more repression, more harassment and more
humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
> >Tudjman is dead, and the Croats have finally put an end to the
> >rule of his party.
>
> (No thanks to the US, Germany, or NATO and NATO-country governments,
> who supported him despite his fascistic policies and background.)
He was hardly supported, and the main reason his party has been
rejected by Croat electors is precisely the desire to get out of
isolation and join the movement of neighbouring countries towards
closer ties with the EU.
...SNIP...
>
> Again, you attempt to put all the blame on Milosevic. Why? Thaci
> is surely to blame for his own actions...and if we're talking about
> who brought him to prominence, surely NATO deserves a large share of
> that credit, for giving him the LEADING role in the Albanian
delegation
> at Rambouillet, supporting him and the KLA throughout the bombing
> campaign, and by marginzalizing Rugova (the elected president) in
> favor of Thaci and his terrorist thugs.
Facts have proven that the KLA strategy was more productive, in the
Albanian Kosovar point of view, than the Rugova strategy. Thanks to the
policies of Mr Milosevic, who had placed all his hopes on the
unwillingness of the international community to be seen as supporting
an "armed extremist" group (recognised as a terrorist group by the USA
in early 1998, BTW). The KLA gained its hegemony at gun point. The
composition of the Rambouillet delegation simply acknowledged a fact
and was the only way of getting the KLA at the negociation table. UNMIK
is doing everything possible to insure the presence of moderates in the
administrative institutions that are currently being created. The
coming elections in Kosovo will show if the Albanian population might
prefer to give the dividends of victory to those moderates.
Again with Milosevic/Seselj remaining in power and salivating at the
idea of a frontal conflict with Nato in June (a salivation that has
largely been induced by their Russian friends), such a moderate
scenario seems unlikely. If I was an Albanian Kosovar, I would refuse
to turn my arms in till the parties ruling Serbia stopped threatening
me.
Please read again the current ng thread relating the latest SRS
congress to better understand what I am refering to:
QUOTE
...SNIP....
"The Serb people have lost a lot of territory, but we radical Serbs are
convinced that the loss is only temporary."
....SNIP...
"We will be able to re-take all that was taken from us and is
occupied today if we are united and if we don't let foreign
countries divide us and provoke civil war," Seselj told his audience
including extreme right-wing Russian Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
...SNIP....
Seselj also attacked what he called "knaves and renegades of the
lowest order among the Serbs and other peoples living in Serbia and
Yugoslavia."
...SNIP...
UNQUOTE
Barry Marjanovich
The Serbian Unity Congress and the Serbian Lobby
A Study of Contemporary Revisionism and Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
Introduction..........2
Organization..........2
Lobbying Practices..........4
The Direct Lobbying Campaign..........4
The Indirect Lobbying Campaign..........5
Revisionism and the Serbian Propaganda Campaign..........6
Public Relations Efforts and Links with other Communities..........13
I The Hellenic Community..........13
II Jewish Groups..........14
III The Armenian Community..........15
The Role of the U.S. Information Agency..........15
The Serbian Community and Lobby Abroad..........15
Conclusion..........16
Post Script: Warning..........17
APPENDIX A: Lee Hamilton: A Willing Target for Serbian and
Greek Sponsorship..........18
APPENDIX B: The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action
Committee
An Amateur and Inattentive Lobby.........20
APPENDIX C: Attached propaganda from the Serbian Unity
Congress and SAVA..........23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributors
Students Against GEnocide (SAGE) -- Project Bosnia is a national student
organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate of the
American Committee to Save Bosnia. Over the past eighteen months SAGE has
been monitoring the activities of Serbian activists in the San Francisco
Bay Area as part of an on-going campaign to discredit Serb-nationalist
apologists and revisionists. The information presented in this briefing was
collected from a vast number of sources. This includes personal
correspondence, private meetings and forums organized by the Serbian Unity
Congress and its affiliated groups. This briefing was written by Brad K.
Blitz, a Ph.D. candidate in international development education at Stanford
University.
© 1994 Brad K. Blitz October 18, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Serbian Unity Congress and the Serbian Lobby
A Study of Contemporary Revisionism and Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The Serbian Unity Congress (SUC) is the largest Serb- nationalist
organization in the United States. Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, it
is devoted to political lobbying on behalf of the regimes in Belgrade and
Pale. The SUC is both a membership organization made up of individuals and
an umbrella organization linking a number of Serb-nationalist groups. It
represents the interests of Serbian political leaders by: i) lobbying as a
political action committee; ii) sponsoring a disinformation campaign which
targets the media, university campuses and research centers; iii) engaging
public relations firms to lobby on behalf of the Serbian leadership in Pale
and ensure representation during congressional committee hearings; iv)
purchasing the services and support of journalists and speakers.
Organization
The SUC is registered in the State of California as a 501c3 and is also
connected to a political action committee registered under the name of the
Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee. According to its own
introductory letter, the SUC has a number of bank accounts for different
activities which are now organized from three main offices in the United
States. The offices regularly communicate by electronic mail, phone and
fax. 1 Two of these are in the San Francisco Bay Area and one, the Serbian
Information Center, is in Washington, D.C. Few of the offices are run more
by more than one or two staff members.
The Central Office of the SUC, in Napa Valley, is run by Jelena Kolarovich
and is perhaps the largest of all the SUC offices. Kolarovich is the wife
of George Kolarovich who is President of Fairmont Vineyards. It is believed
that the central office is based on their estate and that this is where
most of the information concerning accounts, membership lists, newsletters
etc. is stored. The central office is nonetheless under the supervision of
the Executive Director, Mirjana Samardjzia, who works out of her home in
Pacific Heights, San Francisco. 2 The Washington office, under the
direction of Danielle Sremac, has recently received more public attention
than the other offices as a result of a series of interviews on CNN and
NPR's Talk of the Nation in June and July. However, in spite of the
increased visibility of its director, this office is largely a one person
outfit and Sremac is the only visible face of the SUC in Washington.
When addressing an American public, the key speakers of the SUC often
present themselves as representatives of different groups. Although they
attempt to project an image of unity there are ideological differences
between the various groups. For the past five months at least, there has
been considerable in-fighting between the leaders of these groups as some
have been more publicly critical of the Milosevic regime than others. 3 The
Serbian groups that are attached to the SUC are, however, united in their
perception of Serbs as victims and in their denial that genocide has been
committed against the people of Bosnia.
The SUC works very closely with two information centers, Serbnet (which
includes the Serbian American Media Center) based in Chicago and SAVA (the
Serbian American Voters Alliance) based in Los Angeles. Both of these
organizations produce materials which are distributed by the SUC as part of
their speaker tour programs and press kits. SAVA, like the SUC, was also
set up as a political action committee. It was initially registered as the
American Serbian Institute Political Action Committee but had made no
contributions in 1992 and 1993. 4 The connection between Serbnet, SAVA and
the Serbian Unity Congress requires further explanation.
Serbnet and SAVA are managed independently of the SUC. Serbnet is
structured primarily as an umbrella organization linking groups around
North America. However, there is a considerable overlap between directors
and members of these groups with some members serving on the boards of more
than one organization. There is also an obvious overlap in terms of
purpose. Both Serbnet and the SUC organize speaker tours, campus-based
programs and editorial meetings with local and national newspapers. Serbnet
was responsible for placing advertisements in the Washington Post and New
York Times on July 10 and August 17, 1993. SAVA also circulates press
reports from Tanjug, the official Yugoslav-Serbian news agency and has
produced a number of cartoons as part of its propaganda campaign (see
attached).
Lobbying Practices
In 1993-94 there was a concerted lobbying effort to further the SUC's
political interests which was largely financed by Greek-American money. The
fact that Serbian monetary contributions do not stand out from the Federal
Election Commission reports only disguises the actual nature of the Serbian
lobbying program. The campaign to promote Serbian interests has been
conducted through public relations firms and friendly ethnic groups that
have well-defined political interests in the region. This is most evident
within the Hellenic community. For the sake of clarity, it is therefore
necessary to distinguish between the direct lobbying campaign conducted by
the SUC and Serbian-affiliated groups and the indirect efforts of Greek and
Cypriot- Americans which have also advanced the cause of the SUC.
The Direct Lobbying Campaign
The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee (SUC PAC) has made
financial contributions to a number of public officials, although the
amount offered to each candidate has been relatively small. Most of their
contributions have been made to House members and candidates running for
office. Only a handful of senators have received contributions from this
Serbian PAC. The most significant recipients of donations from the SUC PAC
are Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-Md) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-In). Bentley,
former President of Serbnet (and now Honorary President) has been the most
vocal pro-Serbian voice in the House.
The 1993-94 returns from the Federal Elections Commission for the Serbian
Unity Congress PAC reveal a random targeting of individuals. Apart from
Representatives Delich Bentley and Burton, there is little indication that
this Serbian PAC has developed a coherent strategy for targeting Members of
Congress by offering monetary contributions. Congressional candidates, Kay
Bailey Hutchinson and Sam Gejdenson rejected the donations sent by the SUC
almost immediately.5 Others such as Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Ca) were unaware
that they had even been the beneficiaries of SUC contributions and denied
having had any contact with Serbian groups.6 The FEC returns also shed
light on the disorganized accounting and reporting procedures of the SUC.
On several occasions, the Federal Election Commission staff have written to
the SUC asking for reports to be submitted, reminding the organization of
past deadlines etc. The FEC has also pointed out that the accounts reported
by the SUC do not correspond with the declared donations and receipts. This
raises further questions about the SUC's internal administration and use of
funds.7 (see attached report)
The Indirect Lobbying Campaign
In the past eighteen months, an indirect lobbying campaign has been
conducted by SUC-financed public relations firms in order to unite Serbian
and Greek interests. This lobbying effort has been orchestrated by the
Washington-based firm Mantos and Mantos, Inc. and has been aimed primarily
at mobilizing individuals -- as opposed to PACs.8 In addition to direct
contributions made on behalf of the Serbian Unity Congress PAC, prominent
figures and sponsors of the SUC have made significant personal
contributions to congressional campaigns. Contributors include: Michael
Djordjevich, former President of the SUC; George Bogdanich, Director of
Serbnet; both the Director and Chairman of the Serbian American Media
Center, Messrs. Peter Samardzija and Nicholas Trkla, respectively. Mr.
Milan Panic, the former political challenger to Milosevic, has also made
noticeable contributions. On two specific occasions, a series of personal
donations from Serbian leaders was made simultaneously with members of the
Greek-American Community. Targeting congressional members with multiple
contributions seems to be part of a determined public relations effort
organized by Andrew Manatos of Manatos and Mantos, Inc.
Manatos and Manatos, Inc. was hired by the SUC on September 15, 1992 to
foster better relations between the Greek and Serbian communities and,
above all, to secure political support from the established Hellenic
community in the United States. Manatos and Manatos, Inc. was well- placed
to organize this public relations exercise since this firm represents a
number of Hellenic institutions as well as the City of San Francisco, where
the leadership of the SUC is based. Mantos' clients include: the Embassy of
Greece, the United Hellenic American Congress and the Pan-Cyprian
Association of America. According to Morton M. Kondracke, Andrew Manatos
had developed an extremely successful fundraising and lobbying effort with
a small group of wealthy Greek-American businessmen by the late 1980s. In a
1988 article for The New Republic, Kondracke noted how the network set up
between Manatos and Senator Paul Sarbanes had been exploited for the
purposes of raising vast sums of money from small numbers of sponsors to
support Dukakis' presidential ambitions.9 This network also succeed in
introducing potential non Greek-American contributors to the Greek lobby. A
careful study of the FEC records suggests that this lobby is once again
active and is working along side Serbnet and the SUC.
Together with leading figures of Serbnet and the SUC, prominent individuals
in the Hellenic Community have made repeated donations to influential
political officials at critical periods in the Balkan conflict. For
example, a flurry of contributions were made at the time of the Serbian
assault on Gorazde (April 1994) when NATO re-issued a threat of airstrikes
and when the divergent agendas of NATO and the United Nations were made
public.10 The most popular recipient of these multiple contributions is the
Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Lee
Hamilton (D- In). On September 29, 1993 and April 25, 1994 Hamilton
received over $30,000 in multiple contributions from leaders of the Serbian
and Greek-American communities. Contributors included: Andrew Athens, head
of the United Hellenic American Congregation; Philip Christopher, President
of the Pan- Cyprian Association of America; Michael Djordjevich, former
President of the SUC; Ronald Radakovich, Vice-President of the SUC. (see
attached report)
The aim of this indirect campaign is two-fold: first, to lend support to
potentially sympathetic congressional representatives by bolstering their
campaign funds; second, to create an image of a powerful lobby. The Serbian
contributions, on their own, do not amount to large sums of money. However,
combined with Greek-American sponsorship, the Serbian lobby appears
certainly more influential. The Greek lobby is well-established, highly
professional and, as the Kondracke article points out, potentially
extremely wealthy. (Greek-Americans are the second wealthiest ethnic group
in terms of wealth per capita after the Jewish community.) The organized
nature of this lobbying effort is evident since contributions are sent
simultaneously and are often for the exact amount. Each time, the donations
made to Hamilton's campaign are sent on one specific day. This pattern is
repeated at other times in the year. The impression given is that of a
community of individuals who can unite quickly to raise large sums of money
when necessary and may therefore carry some influence.
Revisionism and the Serbian Propaganda Campaign
Most important of all the Serbian lobbying practices is the way in which
the SUC and Serbnet have gained access to the media and the American
public. Their disinformation campaign is the center of their activities.
Both organizations have distributed a 26 minute video to Members of
Congress, national and regional newspapers, television and radio stations.
This video, Truth is the Victim in Bosnia, is narrated by a woman with a
BBC accent and attempts to copy a serious documentary format. It contains
three interviews with former U.N. General Lewis MacKenzie. His statements
are then followed by extracts from Strategic Policy, an academically
obscure journal, which is used as a source of authority for the Serb's
claims of military and political insecurity. Arguing that the Western media
favors the Croats, this video contains a number of common myths circulated
by Serbian apologists. The most notable of these is the claim that
breadline massacre was staged by the Bosnians to gain sympathy from the
West. The main references in this video come from MacKenzie but his
comments are supported by partial citations from politicians such as Sir
David Hannay and respectable authorities on human rights such as Ms. Jeri
Laber.
The Serbian lobby has used the cautionary statements of human rights
authorities such as Jeri Laber and Aryeh Neier and journalists such as A.M.
Rosenthal to create an atmosphere of doubt (especially over the use of
rape) and moral relativism.11 Two frequent lines of attack used by the Serb
lobby have formed the basis of a successful propaganda campaign which has
aimed to confuse and deter unilateral criticism of Serbia. 12 First, there
is the argument equating the diplomatic recognition of Croatia and Bosnia-
Herzegovina by Germany with the use of violence on the ground. Such
violence, they argue was initially defensive and justifiable under the
provisions of the CSCE Helsinki Accords. Second, there is the emotive
argument based on their 'justifiable' fear of German expansionism and
Croatian aggression as a result of historical events. 13 SerbNet Media
Watch (April 1993) reporting on the achievements of Serbnet, took credit
for Abe Rosenthal's use of Serbnet material in his column in the New York
Times. The information sent to Rosenthal was on the 'German role in the War
in Yugoslavia.' Since his early writings on the War in Bosnia, Rosenthal's
columns have become increasingly confused and he has more than once adopted
the line that the conflict is hopeless.
A frequent tactic of the Serbian lobby is to begin public debates by
arguing that critically-minded people should recognize the existence of
political interests behind the production of information and thus should be
aware that 'truth' and 'objectivity' lie 'somewhere in the middle.' 14 By
reducing real events to personal interpretations the Serbian lobby has
managed to camouflage the actual aggression and the commission of genocide
behind supposed 'opinions' which can be neither 'verified' nor 'denied.'
Their aim is clearly to present the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia as a
civil war rooted in ancient hatreds in order to discourage public opinion
from supporting direct U.S. military intervention.15 To these ends the SUC,
Serbnet, SAVA etc. have developed a well organized system of producing
propaganda and seemingly credible references.
The Serbian propaganda campaign employs methods similar to Holocaust denial
and revisionism Their first line of action is to create an atmosphere of
relativism, as discussed above. The seccession of Slovenia and Croatia from
the former Yugoslavia and their recognition by Germany is equated with the
bombardment of civilian centers such as Sarajevo, Dubrovnik and Vukovar.
The second line of action is then to deny the totality of the destruction
in order to downplay the purpose and systematic nature of the aggression.
Dubrovnik was barely attacked, they argue. Vukovar was destroyed by
Croatian forces... There is no evidence of a systematic rape policy --
where is the commander who gave the order, they argue? Personal testimonies
and eye witness accounts are discarded as 'inadequate evidence.'16 The
third line of action is then to create their own 'facts' and 'references'
and it is here where they have been most successful.17
As in the Serbnet produced video, the sources which the SUC representatives
cite when speaking publicly are most often their own. The SUC has used
public relations firms (Manatos and Manatos, McDermott O'Neill and
Associates, David Keene and Associates), in order to grant their leaders
and paid representatives access to television and radio interviews,
congressional sub-committee hearings and U.N. sponsored commissions. These
congressional hearings, interviews and official reports are then used as
references, which lend legitimacy to their position.18 For example, the
Serbnet speeches made by former UN General Lewis MacKenzie on his
speaker-tour are frequently advertised, as are the articles of Sir Alfred
Sherman which appeared in the British press. Sherman, reportedly to have
admitted to being a paid public relations advisor to Radovan Karadzic last
summer, 19 is frequently cited as a distinguished journalist and Jewish
knight 20 who supports the Serbian position. David Erne, a Milwaukee
attorney who is responsible for information within the SUC, was able to use
his position as reporter of the UN Commission of Experts to produce a
report on The Historical Background of the Civil War in the Former
Yugoslavia. This document which was published on U.N. letterhead presents
Karadzic as an elected leader, former dissident and poet supported by a
Shakespeare scholar for vice president.
The creation of a community of revisionists and deniers who circulate these
Serb-manufactured tales has been quite successful. The Serbian lobby has in
the process managed to co-opt Marxist/Socialist organizations, as well as
respectable members of the academic community in support of their
position.21 This is illustrated in periodicals, newsletters and reports
produced by adherents to the 'old left.' For example, the briefing produced
by the London-based Campaign Against Militarism (CAM) entitled 20 Things
you Know About the Serbs That Aren't True maintains that Serbia is simply
the victim of Western imperialism -- the West's latest 'whipping boy.'
Arguing against the use of air-strikes on Serbian artillery positions, the
CAM briefing cites MacKenzie's speeches from his Serbnet tour and repeats a
number of Serb-nationalist claims such as the 'choreographed staging' of
the breadline massacre and the role of the 'partisan press.' The CAM
briefing even argues that the encirclement of Sarajevo by Serb forces is
defensive, concluding that Sarajevo is not really besieged.
"It is not strictly true to say that Sarajevo is 'besieged' by the Serbs.
As several UN commanders have suggested, the Serbian encirclement of
Sarajevo is essentially defensive, concerned with holding on to territory
rather than grabbing more. It is a funny sort of siege where the besiegers
allow relief supplies into the city by air and road. The Serbs handed over
control of Sarajevo airport to the UN in June 1992, and have allowed the
free passage of relief flights into the city ever since."22
The author of the above statement is a certain British journalist, Joan
Phillips, who works for the Campaign Against Militarism in London.23
Elsewhere, Phillips has questioned the parallels drawn between of the
genocide in Bosnia and the Nazi Holocaust. In her writings, Phillips has
repeatedly sought to describe the conflict as something other than a war in
which genocide is the defining characteristic. The fact is, she allocates
blame almost solely to the Western powers and ignores the ideological
antecedents for the war while absolving the armed militants on the
ground.24 Similar apologies for Serbian expansionism are found in her
articles published in Living Marxism, the monthly journal of the
Revolutionary Communist Party (UK). 25
Outside the margins of Living Marxism, Phillips' thesis over the
intersection between this new round of 'Great power politics' and the
production of information has received greater attention both from
apologists and serious journalists. In January 1994, Peter Brock of El
Paso, Texas published an article in Foreign Policy accusing the press of
being partisan and anti-Serb.26 According to Phillips, Brock contacted her
before he wrote the article for Foreign Policy.27 The article repeated a
number of Serbian myths and raised questions about his own objectivity.
Charles Lane of The New Republic has already exposed both Brock's
connections with Serbia and the factual distortions in his writing. Brock,
who communicates regularly with the Executive Director of the Serbian Unity
Congress and chief propagandist in the San Francisco Bay Area, Mirjana
Samardzija, has however succeeded in one aim.28 He has succeeded in
furthering the claims of 'old-left' ideologues and academic
deconstructionists who are using epistemological debate as a means to
'discredit' personal testimonies in order to advance their own politically
motivated agendas. 29
At the root of this epistemological debate are three obvious political
agendas. Together, these unite the ideologies of the extreme-Left and
extreme-Right struggle agains alleged imperialism. These are: i) a campaign
of appeasement and struggle against imperialism by traditional adversaries
of U.S. foreign policy30 ; ii) an increasingly Russo-centric foreign policy
which is being advanced outside as well as inside the State Department by
sovietologists and political commentators ;31 iii) an explicitly racist
claim to power by Serbian ultra- nationalists and apologists. 32
The actual influence of Foreign Policy's decision to include Brock's lies
in this serious journal will be determined by subsequent studies and
publications. Universities, the most obvious centers of knowledge
production, are currently under attack from revisionists and moral
relativists on a number of fronts. Yet, the lack of resistance from the
academic community to apologists and relativists who promote the 'Serbian
side' is startling. This is all the more the serious given the growing
entry and expansion of Holocaust revisionism and denial on American college
campuses. Eventhough such Serbian revisionism is crudely apparent and seems
to be in an embryonic stage of development, Phillips' and Brock's
accusations are starting to emerge elsewhere in the form of articles and
books. The photocopied pamphlets produced by Serbnet and Samardzija's 'News
Analysis Network ' will soon no longer be necessary to advance their cause
once their arguments are institutionalized in serious publications. The
current intellectual climate of silence can only but serve the interests of
Serbian ultra-nationalists and their apologists. It is they who have filled
the void created by the absence of serious scholarship dedicated to the
defense of certain standards of evidence, including personal testimony. In
the past six months, a few intellectuals have actively furthered the
charges made by Brock in an attempt to legitimize Serbian propaganda and
grant it a place in the canon of Balkan history. They seem to be gaining
ground. Their ideological arguments are now contrasted against first-hand
reports and personal testimonies collected by serious journalists like
Pulitzer-Prize winners Roy Gutman and John F. Burns. 33
Professor Thomas Fleiner who is the Director of the Institute for
Federalism in Freiburg and Chairman on the CSCE Human Rights Commission is
one of the latest academics to have lent legitimacy to Serb-nationalist
propaganda. On April 14, 1994, Fleiner published an article entitled People
must not be Pilloried in Zurich's Die Weltwoche -- the same publication
which had printed Brock's piece for European audiences. Fleiner's argument
rested on the power of the oligopolistic media to influence public opinion
and determine foreign policy positions. His piece, which contains the same
Serbian myths, not only questions the responsibility of the journalistic
community but unfairly condemns the international media for provoking the
conflict.
"The more power the media obtain and are able to influence, through public
opinion, political decision- making also important foreign policy matters,
the greater is their responsibility. As far as the war in Croatia and
Bosnia is concerned, it is suspected that local international media helped
the division of peoples and incitement of hatred." (my underlining) 34
While Fleiner's political associations and affiliations are not known, one
thing is clear: his article has circulated on the electronic notice boards
of Serb-nationalist groups and has been used by apologists who support
Brock and Phillips' bias. Thomas Deichmann, a colleague of Joan Phillips
who wrote the NOVO book review which contrasts Roy Gutman's first-hand
accounts against Klaus Bittermann's polemic Serbien muß Sterbien --
Wahrheit und Lüge im jugoslawischen Bürgerkrieg (Serbs must Die -- truth
and lies in the Yugoslav Civil War), has based his review on all the same
infected sources of bias.
The incestuous nature of this publication drive is at the heart of the
revisionist program. It seeks to advance marginalized ideologies -- not
least critiques of Western imperialism. Phillips, herself, has a clear
political agenda. Her organization, the Campaign Against Militarism is a
front for the British Revolutionary Communist Party. She is fundamentally
opposed to militarism. The influence of Western imperialist nations and the
use of war is obviously central to her publication program. The nature of
such politicized 'journalism' raises two important issues here. First,
there is the issue of dogmatic reductionism masquerading as a 'critical
bias.' Are Phillips' writings truly critical of Western imperialism or is
she blind to the actual aggression being conducted in and around Sarajevo?
It is essential that serious academics and scholars recognize the often
all-too-impulsive response of those who seek to present a 'critical voice.'
Apologists who use such arguments should be exposed, even those like
Phillips who may sincerely claim that their political interests are defined
by their concerns for a 'better world.' Second, there is the issue of
scholarship. The above-mentioned authors are not producing serious
investigative or academic-quality research. They are simply
cross-referencing across borders and in different languages. They are not
advancing knowledge but are rather recycling the founding ideas of certain
ideological arguments that mesh with their own political agendas. Phillips'
outrageous comments (many of which came straight out of the
government-controlled Belgrade media) are re-packaged by Brock in Foreign
Policy. This article (and all its factual errors) is then cited by Fleiner
and Diechmann who also makes reference to Phillips' 20 Things You Know
About the Serbs That Aren't True. Diechmann is Phillips' colleague who then
promotes the work of another author, Klaus Bittermann. In his book,
Bittermann himself cites Brock and Phillips and again repeats the same
accusations.
Public Relations Efforts and Links with other Communities
I The Hellenic Community
The Serbian Unity Congress operates very closely with the Hellenic
Community. According to the 1993 handbook Washington Representatives, The
SUC has engaged Manatos and Manatos, Inc. for a project attached to the
Serbian Orthodox Church. It is through the Orthodox Church that the
Hellenic community is being approached to support the Serbian lobby. 35Ron
Radakovich of Walnut Creek, California is responsible for Church relations.
The SUC is also supported by the International Orthodox Christian Charities
based in Pittsburgh for humanitarian assistance. In addition, Manatos and
Manatos has also been particularly successful in getting its clients to
testify before congressional hearings. Michael Djordjevich, former
President of the SUC and Philip Christopher, President of the Pan-Cyprian
Association and PSEKA, International Coordinating Committee, Justice for
Cyprus have both been invited to speak before the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
II Jewish Groups
Croatian Ustashe
The organized Jewish community has been particularly critical of the
Serbian regime and the violence inflicted on the Bosnian people. However,
there is a clear counter- offensive being launched by the SUC and Serbnet
to co-opt Jewish public opinion. This involves a propaganda campaign which
recalls the role of the Ustashe and certain Muslim contingents who
supported by the Mufti of Jerusalem during the Second World War. Their main
attack is in the form of articles written by Alfred Lipson, a leader of the
community of Holocaust survivors36 and Sir Alfred Sherman37 . Through the
Serbian Jewish Friendship Society and direct meetings with Jewish
organizations, the SUC has conducted an energetic campaign to win over
Jewish and Israeli support. 38This has included efforts to overturn the
position adopted by the National Organization of Jewish Community Relation
Councils (NJCRAC), which endorsed a call for air strikes and the lifting of
the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. According to Bosnian and
Jewish sources, the Serbian lobby is also engaged in a broader campaign
which has targeted the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. 39
III The Armenian Community
It is difficult to determine the extent of the connection between the
Armenian Community and Serb- nationalist organizations. There are certain
notable lines of association: the Government of Armenia is also represented
by David Keene, who was until recently also on the payroll of the Serbnet.
Like the SUC, the Armenian National Committee and the National Association
of Armenian Americans have made multiple contributions to Rep. Lee Hamilton
in 1994 (see attached report). The extent to which the Armenian Community
has been approached by its the SUC, under the banner of its Orthodox Church
unity project is, however, not known.
The Role of the U.S. Information Agency
Throughout 1994 the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) has been organizing a
series of visits for several journalists and politicians. Although this is
common practice for this governmental agency, the SUC has organized a
number of meetings around these visits and is generally included on the
agenda. According to Dick Christiansen at Meridian International, these
have been organized by Katherine Marinis who arranges these visits directly
with Belgrade.40 Visitors have included the Vice-President and Secretary
General of the extreme nationalist Serbian Renewal Movement, Mihailo
Markovic and Vladimir Gajic, respectively.
The Serbian Community and Lobby Abroad
The practices established by the SUC and other organizations are very
similar to those of Serbian groups abroad. In both London and Paris, the
Serbian Information Centers function as propaganda centers for the local
community.41 In London there is also a specifically nationalist (Chetnik)
organization of Serbian royalists: the Yugoslav Royal Draza Mihailovic
Association. The Serbian Cultural and Information Center in Paris contained
lists of student activists in the Paris area. Amongst these activists are
also two former UN 'Blue Helmets.' The Serbian lobby in France is organized
around l'Association pour la Défense des Droits et Intérêts du Peuple Serbe
(ADDIPS). Like the SUC, ADDIPS has made a number of approaches to other
Orthodox communities, notably the Russian congregation of Paris. ADDIPS,
like the SUC, is run by a handful of staff. Its director is a
well-established Serbian Parisien, Ljubomir Peskirevic.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that organizations such as the Serbian Unity Congress,
Serbnet, SAVA and ADDIPS represent ultra- nationalist leaders and suspected
war criminals in Pale and Belgrade. The Serbian Unity Congress is
Karadzic's mouthpiece in the United States. The major achievement of the
Serbian lobby must be its infiltration of the media and the U.S. public
through its disinformation campaign, bullying tactics, letter-writing etc.
Yet, it must be remembered that the Serbian lobby has only managed to gain
ground here because the current cultural/intellectual climate has made this
possible. The lack of resistance from academics and an intellectual trend
which promotes a simplistic breed of relativism offers an unchallenged
platform to Serbian apologists. This is an extremely worrying trend and it
is difficult to work against. Combating historical revisionism and denial
is a time-consuming effort. Moreover, the need to combat revisionism by
meeting apologists' 'demands for proof' actually advances the cause of
reductionists and those who frequently dismiss personal testimonies and
eye-witness accounts as 'soft evidence' and 'non-verifiable.'
The Serbian lobby is certainly an organized entity. It involves many people
across a number of continents. There are, however, many holes in its
organization. First, there is considerable in-infighting. At present, the
two camps are quite separate: those who are more pro-Milosevic and those
more supportive of Karadzic are now engaged in internecine struggles.
Second, the day to day organization of the Serbian Unity Congress is
handled by relatively few staff. Third, the Serbian lobby is highly
dependent on the Hellenic community. On its own, it is less influential.
This is evident from its haphazard lobbying of elected officials and poor
accounting and reporting procedures. These failings are indicative of a
truly embryonic lobby. Finally, there are blatant holes in the Serbian
lobby's internal security. Subscribers to e-mail systems and even mailing
lists are not always vetted.
The above-mentioned areas of weakness should be studied. A successful
campaign that discredited the Serbian and Greek-American lobbies would
serve one important purpose long after the genocide in Bosnia is over: it
will prevent Serbian ultra-nationalists from gaining unrestricted entry
into the canons of Balkan history. It will deny them their ultimate goal --
the destruction of the memory and civilization of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Post Script: Warning
At the time of writing, two additional sources of Serbian revisionism have
been reported to be have reached both the Congress and the general public.
These are: i) an article published in Mediterranean Quarterly entitled
Yugoslavia's Wars of Secession ad Succession : Media manipulation,
Historical Amnesia, and Subjective Morality by Carl C. Jacobsen; ii) a
film, Vukovar-One-Story.
The article contains the typical sources of Serbian propaganda: Serbnet's
paid spokesman, General Lewis MacKenzie, as well as a number of
Belgrade-based references. What is disturbing is that this piece of Serbian
propaganda is reported to have been distributed to members of the House
Armed Service Committee by its Chairman, Ronald Dellums (D- CA). Dellums,
who is based in Oakland, California, is one of a number of California
representatives that the San Francisco Bay Area Serbian Unity Congress may
be targeting. Other California representatives include recipients of SUC
contributions: Bill Baker, Anna Eshoo (see attached disclaimer) and Nancy
Pelosi.
The film Vukovar-One Story was produced in Cyprus and directed by Boro
Draskovic. The Press Office of the Croatian Embassy claims that the filming
was done with the assistance of the Yugoslav National Army on-site in
Vukovar. This seems highly plausible since Vukovar is currently occupied by
JNA (Serbian) troops. The film is scheduled to be shown in the Bay Area at
Los Gatos Cinema on November 11th (3:30 PM) and 12th (7:30 PM).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A
Lee Hamilton: A Willing Target for Serbian and Greek Sponsorship
The 1993 Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reports record that on
September 29, 1993 Representative Lee Hamilton received $24,000 from an
assembly of over 45 prominent Americans. The amount of money which was
credited to Hamilton's congressional campaign account on this one day is
disproportionately important. This series of contributions represents over
35% percent of the contributions which he received for the preceding six
month period (January to July 1993) and over 10% of his receipts for the
whole 15-month Federal Elections Commission (FEC) cycle. 1 Over ninety per
cent of these contributors resided in the Chicago-area and fell almost
exclusively into one of three ethnic groups: Serbian, Greek, or Jewish. 2
Most occupied very senior management positions in prominent firms and
industries. According to his own Federal Elections Commission (FEC)
returns, Hamilton's staff traveled to Chicago on September 23, 1993. What
were they doing there? Did they meet with Serbnet? and how could they
account for these donations from this collection of Greeks, Serbs and Jews?
The circumstances behind this series of donations require further
investigation.
It looks very much like this series of donations was part of a special
fundraising effort. These contributions were the first noticeable series of
donations made to Hamilton by an identifiable group. They followed an
active press campaign in July and August 1993, when Serbnet placed
advertisements in the New York Times and Washington Post. The Serbian lobby
has been approaching both Greeks and Jews in the hopes of 'winning them
over.' In addition to the traditional arguments that the Greeks are
co-religionists threatened by Turkey or that, like the Jews, they too were
victims of the Nazi genocide is the common threat of 'Islamic
fundamentalism.' Was an anti-Islamic/anti-Turkish bias a rallying point for
these groups who chose to rally behind Hamilton? Is Representative Hamilton
capitalizing on their hysteria? The only grounds to suggest that such a
bias might lie behind this series of donations is the macro-political
context in which these contributions were made.
This series of contributions coincided with an energetic campaign by
Bosnian President, Alija Izetbegovic, who aimed to rally support for the
use of force against Serbian positions and the lifting of the arms embargo.
They also coincided with the failed attempt by Owen and Stoltenberg to
carry out a three-way partition of Bosnia. Throughout the first half of
September, Izetbegovic traveled around the world to secure support and
financial assistance. His tour took him to Turkey (Sept. 2-5), the United
States (Sept. 5- 9), Saudi Arabia (Sept. 12), Iran and Kuwait (Sept. 13).
It also coincided with a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference in Istanbul and a closed meeting with the UN Security Council on
September 7. During this time, Izetbegovic also appealed directly to the
Clinton Administration. The response from the former US Defense Secretary,
Les Aspin, was the first admission that the U.S. was truly prepared to send
troops to enforce a peace agreement (Sept. 12).
On April 25, 1994 Hamilton received a further $9,525 through multiple
contributions from 25 members of the Greek and Serbian Community. This
included $2,000 from PACs, notably the pan-Hellenic Dynamis Federal. The
majority of the contributors were from Maryland and Virginia and almost
every contribution was of the order of $300. Contributors again included,
Michael Djordjevich of the SUC; his vice-president Ron Radakovich and both
leaders of the Greek and Cypriot communites, Andrew Athens and Philip
Christopher, respectively. Three weeks after this second series of
donations, Djordjevich was invited to speak before a hearing of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by Hamilton.3
What is important to note about both series of donations is that they
coincided with a series of major foreign policy debates. In April 1994, the
threat to use force against Serbian forces as they assaulted the Bosnian
town of Gorazde was another reason for Serbian anxiety. On April 25, the
Western press had reported that Yashui Akashi, the UN envoy, has vetoed the
request of the NATO Secretary-General to authorize strikes. The
contributions made on April 25, therefore coincide with the renewed threat
of air strikes and were made before it was established that the Serbian
para- military units would ultimately be forced to withdraw without the use
of NATO air power.4 This series of contributions clearly looks like the
Serbian and Hellenic sponsors were responding to these events as the threat
of direct military intervention through NATO air power became increasingly
realistic.
Hamilton's acceptance of these contributions raises a number of questions.
He is, after all, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Serbian nationalists and Greek-American leaders, who have their own
political agenda, have singled him out. Unlike Sarbanes and Delich Bentley,
he does not seem to have a direct attachment to any particular
ethnic/Balkan group. Why has he not, unlike other Members of Congress (e.g.
Sam Gejedenson), returned these contributions? Does he not recognize that
those sponsoring his campaign are also Radovan Karadzic's representatives
in the United States?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX B
The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee An Amateur and
Inattentive Lobby
The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee (SUC) has not been
extremely active as PAC. The contributions made to support congressional
candidates have been fairly small. Yet, the SUC PAC sheds some light on the
internal organization of the operations of the SUC as a whole.
First, there are the administrative practices of the SUC PAC. From 1991-94,
there was a series of correspondence between the Federal Elections
Commission and the SUC. This correspondence reveals an inattentive PAC that
often did not even reply to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
1.Correspondence from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to the SUC
notifying the PAC that it should have filed its mid-year report
(4/16/91-6/30/91) 2.Reply from the SUC (mistakenly) dated January 9, 1991
but received January 13, 1992 in which the then Treasurer, Peter Chelovich
apologized to the assistant director of the Federal Elections
Commission's(FEC) Federal Analysis Division for "not complying with certain
procedures." 3.Reminder from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) (not
dated) that neither the year-end reports (7/1/91-12/31/91) nor the April
quarterly report (1/1/92- 3/31/92) had been filed. 4.Reply sent by the SUC
on August 2, 1992 by SUC Secretary Momcilo Tasich concerning contributions
to Rep. Dan Burton which he was forced to refund. In this letter, Tasich
notes that the PAC acquired the status of a multicandidate committee on
July 20, 1992. 5.Letter from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) dated
March 9, 1994, questioning the totals listed in the SUC PAC's 1993 year-end
report. The letter reminded the PAC that it had to file a response or
amendment to correct the original report. 6.Letter dated March 31, 1994 in
which the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) noted that the SUC PAC had not
responded to the letter sent on March 9. In this letter, the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC) warned the SUC that the Commission may choose to
initiate an audit or enforce legal action.
Second, the SUC does not seem to have done its accounting properly. The
author has noted two instances where reports submitted to the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC) do not align with those submitted by
congressional recipients.
• Rep. Dan Burton (R-In) did not report the in-kind donation of $1,041
which the SUC accounted for as dinner expenses with Burton on 03/08/93
•Rep. Anna Eshoo, in a letter dated September 24, 1994, claimed that she
never received the $500 donation listed by the SUC on 10/31/92 and can find
no record of this donation from any of her accounts and Federal Elections
Commission (FEC) reports. (letter attached)
These two episodes mentioned above suggest that the SUC PAC is not really a
serious PAC in its own right. These errors and failings therefore suggest
that the role of the Hellenic lobby and its associated public relations
firms is all the more important in understanding the relative success of
the Serbian lobby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna G. Eshoo
MEMBER of CONGRESS
September 24, 1994
Brad Blitz
Executive Director
Students Against Genocide
PO Box 9248
Stanford, CA 94305
Dear Brad,
I want to give you an update regarding the "contribution" you suggested I
had received from the Serbian Unity Congress in 1992.
At the time you mentioned it in my office, I had no recollection of it, so
I asked my campaign staff to check it out.
Having researched the Serbian Unity Congress PAC's Federal Elections
Commission report for 1992, we discovered that they reported to the FEC a
$500 contribution to my campaign. However, I never received this
contribution. My treasurer has no record of it, nor does any FEC report
from the period reflect such a contribution.
I have written to the Serbian Unity Congress PAC requesting they amend
their Federal Elections Commission report to reflect that I did not receive
any funds. I also sent a copy of my request to the Federal Elections
Commission. Federal Elections Commission. I am awaiting confirmation of the
correction from the Serbian Unity Congress. I will forward a copy to you
when I receive it. I hope this clarifies the situation Sincerely
Anna G Eshoo
(signed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C
Attached propaganda from the Serbian Unity Congress and SAVA
THE VIOLENT DISSOLUTION OF YUGOSLAVIA
TRUTH AND DECEIT
1991-1994
ONE HUNDERED IRREFUTABLE FACTS
NORTH AMERICAN NEWS ANALYSIS GROUP
P.O. BOX 471432
SAN FRANSISCO, CA 94147
•Western countries are repeatedly stating that their approach to the
conflict has been mistaken, yet the same mistakes are now being made again,
thus compounding the problems of war. •We believe that the only way to
attain peace immediately is to make the whole of the former
Bosni-Herzegovina a safe area, taking into account that there are two
realities there: the Muslim-Croat federation and the Republic of Srepak. •A
general cessation of hostilities cannot prejudice the outcome of political
agreement. A political agreement is only possible in the absence of
fighting. A general cessation of hostilities is thus the only way forward
to peace.
97. On April 24, 1994, several Serb civilians from villages around Gorazde
returned to their villages from which they had been expelled by Muslim
forces earlier in the war. UNPROFOR, whose troops are being deployed along
lines separating Ser and Muslim forces, have guaranteed safety to the Serb
villagers. Upon their return, the expelled Serb civilians found devastation
as Mulsims had razed and burned down their houses and other buildings.
98. On April 25, 1994, deadly Mulsim sniper bullets in Gorazde directed
against Serbs and hitting a Serb soldier conferring with Ukrainian
peacekeepers symbolized the unabating intentions of the Muslims to
violently provoke the Serbs.
99. On April 26, 1994, the special correspondent of the French television
channel "TF-1" in Sarajevo admitted that the figures given by the Muslims
humanitarian organisations and western media for Muslim casualties at
Gorazde, 700 dead and nearly 2,000 wounded Muslims were grossly inflated.
He added that only several dozens of seriously wounded Muslims had been
evacuated from Gorazde. The "TF-1" special correspondent also said that
neither U.N. spokesman nor humanitarian workers could explain how several
hundered dead and wounded Muslims from Gorazde were able to suddenly
disappear without trace.
100. On April 29, 1994, two U.N. officials, a general and civilian, accused
the United States of prolonging the war in Bosnia. They said that Muslims
had orchestrated their defeat on Gorazde in the hope of NATO warplanes,
reacting to pressure from the United States, would help lift the Serb
siege. They also indicated that the extent of the destructions of the city
and of the killing and wounding of civilians in the past month has been
grossly exaggerated by the U.N. officials stationed in Gorazde. Their
comments reflected an overwhelming feeling on the part of the U.N.
officials in Sarajevo that the greatest impediment to peace has been the
flawed policy of the United States. The aim of this policy has been the
establishment of the unitary Muslim state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an aim
that has been the very cause of the two-year long civil and religious war
in this region.
may 7, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF MAJOR CONCENTRATION CAMPS, PRISONS AND DETENTION SITES SET UP BY
THE MUSLIMS IN THE STATE OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA FOR THE SERBIAN CIVILIANS
SOURCE: The Secretary for Information of The Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina
June 22, 1992, Sarajevo
(excerpt)
There are numerous locations accross the Bosnia-Herzegovina region where
captured Serbian civilians are detained, tortured, starved to death, women
raped, many inmates are being killed, or disappeared with no trace of their
whereabouts.
The following chart presents only a few of similar sites in the above
region,many are hastily being open and run as makeshift concentration
camps. The world news media has turned one blind eye at these wretched
people, facing another physical anihilation in the same area where they
were deimated by the same Muslim and Croatian forces 50 years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATIONDETENTION SITENUMBER OF INMATESNOTE1. GORAZDESPORTS
STADIUM200+WOMEN, CHILDREN2. GORAZEDPOLICE STATION150+WOMEN, CHILDREN3.
GORAZDECITY JAIL (open on 6/15/92)1,200+WOMEN, CHILDREN, MEN (Torturing,
killing)4. SARAJEVO"KOSHEVO" STADIUM (open on 6/15/92)2,000+ALL CIVILIANS
caught on spot5. SARAJEVOMILITARY JAILUNKNOWNCIVILIANS6. SARAJEVOCENTRAL
JAILUNKNOWNCIVILIANS7. Ali-Pashino Polje (A.P.Field)HOT WATER
PLANT6,000+Civilians, mass liquidation8. TARCINSILOSUNKNOWNVILLAGERS from
KONJIC, HADZICI9. BUTUROVI-POLJECONCENTRATION CAMPUNKNOWNCIVILIANS from
HADZICI, KONJIC, JABLANICA10. BRADINARAILWAY TUNNEL400+ (survivors of
4,000)PREDOMINANTLY CHILDREN - LEFT ORPHANS FATHERS KILLED BY MUSLIMS, AND
WOMEN.11. CHAPLJINA/LJUBUSKOCONCENTRATION CAMP IN OPENTHOUSANDS OF SERBIAN
CIVILIANS THAT WERE ROUNDED UP FROM THE LEFT BANK OF THE NERETVA RIVER.12.
CHELEBICI by KONJICTHE WHOLE PLACE HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A CONCENTRATION
CAMPUNKNOWNCIVILIANS13. SARAJEVORADIO-TV CENTRE (UNDERGROUND
ROOMS)UNKNOWNSERBIAN JOURNALIST. ALREAD KNOWS AS KILLED: Mr. Milivoje Karan
and Mr. Rajko Bogdanovic14. VISOKOSEVERAL LOCATIONSTHOUSANDSALL SERBIAN
CIVILIANS FROM VISK-ONE15. LIVNODIFFERENT LOCATIONSTHOUSANDSALL THE SERBS
FROM LIVNO AND ADJACENT VILLAGES, TWO MONTHS IN DETENTION16.
FOJNICACONCENTRATION CAMPS ARE HURRIEDLY BEING SET-UP AND17. ZENICAFILLED
UP WITH SERBIAN CIVILIANS WHO DID NOT MANAGE TO FLEE ON TIME.18. TRAVNIK
19. OZDAKSEVERAL CONCENTRATION CAMPS ARE ALREADY SET-UP FOR THE SERBIAN20.
DERVENTACIVILIANS, WHO ARE BEING SAVAGELY TORTURED AND KILLED BY THE
MUSLIMS. 21. SLAVONSKI BROD (CROATIA)CONCENTRATION CAMPTHOUSANDSSERBIAN
CIVILIANS IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE, FORCED LABOUR, WOMEN RAPING, TORTURING,
KILLING OF INMATES THE ABOVE LIST WILL BE UPDATED AS NEW INFORMATION IS
MADE AVAILABLE.
Secretary for Information of The Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina,
Velibor Ostojic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TELL CHARLES REDMAN THAT SERBS WILL JOIN IN A CROAT AND MUSLIM FEDERATION
WHEN PIGS FLY...
SAVA - Serbian American Voters Alliance - March 23, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
1.The SUC has at least one internal e-mail link . The executive
communicates primarily by e-mail although fax and telephone are standard
means of contact. In addition to the SUC e-mail link, the Serbian
Information Initiative (SII) connects subscribers and provides information
in Serbian as well as in English. The SII has certain rules of behavior,
including no threats to subscribers. Although this claims to be a
semi-monitored service, the SII seems to have very lax conditions of
membership and subscription. 2.Samardzija's office is located on the third
floor of her house 2714 Steiner Street, San Francisco, California 941234-
4717. 3.This in-fighting was immediately obvious during a SUC/News Analysis
Group forum held at La Peña Community Center in Berkeley on July 29 1993.
On this occasion, one of the invited speakers, Mr. Antonio Erceg Yurovich,
publicly attacked the organizer, Mirjana Samardzija. 4.Nonetheless, this
account should be monitored. FEC ID number C00239723 5.On May 17, 1993 and
December 10, 1992 the SUC PAC made donations of $1,000 to Hutchinson and
Gjedenson respectively. In less than one month both had returned their
contributions. 6.Anna Eshoo, in private meeting at her office in Palo Alto,
July 16, 1994. 7.At the time of writing, the author has noted two instances
where reports submitted to the FEC do not align with those submitted by
congressional recipients. First, in 1993 Rep. Dan Burton did not report the
in-kind donation of $1,041 which the SUC accounted for as dinner expenses
with the Congressman on 03/08/93. Second, Rep. Anna Eshoo, in a letter
dated September 24, 1994, claimed that she never received the $500 donation
listed by the SUC on 10/31/92 and can find no record of this donation from
any of her accounts and FEC reports. 8.Only one PAC, stands out in the
Federal Election Reports as explicitly Pan Hellenic. This is Dynamis
Federal PAC, registered in Sacramento and based in Palo Alto California.
The number of donations made on behalf of this PAC to congressional
representatives is quite small. 9.Morton M. Kondracke, Grecian Formula: the
Arrival of an American Ethnic Group in the New Republic. June 6, 1988.
10.While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much has been directed
towards payment for speakers and journalists, the SUC and Serbnet have set
up a special fund for this purpose. Based on former UN General Lewis
MacKenzie's own admission which was later corroborated by Serbnet -- that
he was receiving over $15,000 per speaking engagement -- the amount spent
on MacKenzie represents more than what the SUC is paying to PR firms such
as Manatos and Manatos, Inc. 11.In addition to Truth is the Victim in
Bosnia, Neier's articles in The Nation and Laber's letters to the Editor in
the New York Times in 1993 have been distributed by the SUC at meetings and
forums to cast doubt on the use of rape as a systematic means of genocide.
12.One argument used is that 'Serbs simply want to live with other Serbs'
and that Serbian nationalism is no different from say German unification.
Michael Djordjevich argued before the House on May 11, 1994 that Germany
was allowed to unite but Serbia is not. "What kind of logic is there that
we permit one people to unite but not the same thing to another people. And
that is the problem. We have double standards, Congressman. " 13.In his
speech before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Djordjevich used this
tactic He then tried to describe the conflict as a civil war..."we have a
Civil War here. We do not have aggression. What I am saying is that there
are no Bosnian tanks in Serbia; there are no Serbian tanks in Bosnia. The
tanks in Bosnia belong to the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Serbs have lived in
Bosnia for 400, 700 years. That is a civil war. Are you going to tell me
that Sherman's march to and burning of Atlanta was a genocide and that it
was a "foreign intervention" in Southern States? That is what you are
saying sir. That is precisely what you are saying." See: US Policy toward
Bosnia and the Balkans. (May 11, 1994) 14.This appeal of relativism has
aided the Serbian lobby to gain air-time on local radio stations.
'Progressively minded' producers have been encouraged to hear the 'Serbian
point of view.' Jerry Jacob of KALW Radio in San Francisco, an NPR
affiliate, was so taken in by the Serbian lobby that he joined in their
accusations that critical listeners who phoned in to challenge three
members of the SUC Executive were surely Croatian supporters. After the
broadcast (August 29, 1993) Mr. Jacob sent the following message to a local
Croatian: "Well I am very impressed with the level of organization of the
Bay Area Croatian Community. You are to be congratulated for jamming the
call-in lines during Saturday night's program. The attempt to stifle
informed debate and an open expression of ideas and questions from people
who really want to know a view different from your own deserves to be known
for what it is. It is hard to disbelieve the 'Serbs'' claims of media
manipulation given the experience of Saturday." Mr. Jacob was wrong about
the callers -- only two callers were members of the Croatian Community.
15.This is the most common tactic used by Mirjana Samardjzia and Tina
Tomasevic Hone both, prominent Serbian apologists in the Bay Area. These
SUC leaders often go to ridiculous lengths to persuade audiences of their
objectivity. Tomasevic, an image of tolerance rather than a school teacher,
presents herself as the daughter of an African American mother and graduate
of UC-Berkeley Law School to create a image of tolerance and authority
before she makes her racist beliefs publicly known. Samardjzia often uses
the fact that she has a Bosnian Muslim au paire girl and Jewish husband to
persuade audiences of her objectivity before she speaks. 16.See Rapes in
Yugoslavia: Separating: Fact from Fiction (1993) produced by Mirjana
Samardzija for the North American News Analysis Group. This is the basis of
the report which the SUC sent to major newspapers and television stations.
17.See Deborah Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust: the Growing assault on
Truth and Memory. (1994) where Lipstadt discusses how revisionism preceded
outright Holocaust denial as part of a concerted epistemological attack .
18.When Michael Djordjevich spoke before the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, he had a report based on meetings with Radovan Karadzic attached
to the final record, U.S. Policy Toward Bosnia and the Balkans May, 11,
1994. Karadzic's statements now figure in the appendix of this official
document. 19.see Noel Malcolm in The Spectator July 1993 20.He is always
Sir Alfred Sherman. 21.Only two Marxist organizations, Socialist Action and
the News and Letters Committee have openly opposed the Milosevic- Karadzic
regime(s) and the Serbian lobby in the U.S. The academic community has
responded to Serbian lobbying efforts with silence and in some cases by
lending tacit support to Serbian nationalists. As one looks into their
tactics, it is clear that this campaign has really only promoted marginal
thinkers and scholars. This includes outcast Marxists such as the
tenure-denied Michael Parenti, author of the Invention of Reality. Although
the SUC distributes articles written by non-Yugoslav academics at SUC
events and invites their participation at public forums in order to give an
impression of authority, most of these academics are junior faculty and
doctoral students at mediocre universities and colleges. Respectable
scholars do have their uses, however. Another cover for the SUC in Northern
California is the Balkan Peace Committee, (BPC) a collection of academics
based at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution. In reality, this
group is run by a graduate student and research assistant at the Hoover
Institution, Dushan Djordjevich. The BPC has only succeeded organizing a
handful of small forums and in placing an advertisement in the Stanford
Daily in the form of an open letter to Clinton with signatures from 35
senior faculty. The letter was an excellent illustration of the kind of
moral relativism now gripping college campuses. In search of a 'balanced'
perspective, this letter contained a number of statements which did not
correspond with facts and figures recorded in official reports e.g. those
produced by the UN Commission of Experts on war crimes in the Former
Yugoslavia. One published statement by the Balkan Peace Committee stands
out immediately..."no side has a monopoly on either atrocities of suffering
in this war." Few of the scholars who signed the open letter are aware of
the continued existence of this committee and that their names are still
being used as supporters. 22.Campaign Against Militarism Briefing 20 Things
You Should Know About the Serbs That Aren't True. February 1994 No 4.
23.Joan Phillips also produced the Channel Four (UK) current affairs
program for the series Free for All entitled, Journalists at War August 15,
1993 24.Elsewhere she claims... "Indeed the fact is there was no war in
Yugoslavia until the West stuck its nose in." See: Bloody Liberals in
Living Marxism September 1993. 25.See: Living Marxism September 1992;
February 1993; May 1993; July 1993. 26.Foreign Policy No 3 January 20,
1994. 27.Joan Phillips in conversation in London, October 14, 1994 28.See
lane's article Press BockCrock in 'The New Republic, September 5, 1994
According to A. S., who worked for Samardjzia, Brock speaks to the SUC
leaders frequently. 29.This debate is not just limited to the traditional
'Left' but includes Libertarians as well. In fact, the Balkan Peace
Committee was initially launched by Williamson (Bill) Evers, a Libertarian
activist and researcher at the Hoover Institution. Evers attempted to
disrupt a forum at Stanford University (May 22, 1994) with the feminist
legal scholar Katherine MacKinnon by calling on students to hear the 'other
side.' 30.This includes those on the extreme-Left such as the Revolutionary
Communist Party and Trotskyist groups. The academic community which has
been supportive of non- intervention (e.g. the Balkan Peace Committee)
would fit into this category even though this community has in some cases
been co-opted by the Serbian nationalists. The inaudible response from the
academic community and their inability to understand the nature of the
conflict in the Balkans has prompted Nigel Osborne, composer and professor
of music at Edinburgh University, to describe some of his colleagues as
'intellectual failures.' 31.The most notable Russophile writing on the
Balkans is Misha Glenny author of The Fall of Yugoslavia, (1993). Those who
argue that the role of Russia has been constructive in preparing a
diplomatic settlement often display an overt sympathy towards Serbia. This
is sometimes expressed in the controversial claims that Serbia was an ally
against the Fascists during the Second World War and therefore should be
treated more 'fairly' e.g. Sharyl Cross of San Jose State University. See
Sharyl Cross's article in the San Jose Mercury News The Path to Peace in
Bosnia (March 6, 1994) . 32.This racism is reminiscent of the articles
produced by Sherman in the early 1970s and is immediately identifiable in
the language used in SUC reports and publications which describe Bosnians
as 'Turks' and 'Islamic fundamentalists.' 33.See: the German language
publication NOVO September/October 1994 which contrasts the first-hand
reports and Pulitzer Prize-winning writings by Roy Gutman against the book
by Klaus Bittermann Serbien muß Sterbien -- Wahrheit und Lüge im
jugoslawischen Bürgerkrieg, (Serbs must die -- truth and lies in the
Yugoslav Civil War) Edition Tiamat, Berlin 1994. The title of the article
immediately questions the idea of bearing witness by suggesting that such
reports may be propaganda: Augenzeugen oder Propagandisten. 34.See: People
Must Not be Pilloried in Die Weltwoche April 14, 1994 35.In a number of
cities, the Serbian Community Center and Serbian Information Center are
housed in the Orthodox Church. The Serbian Clergy have been particularly
supportive of ultranationalist leaders in Serbia and occupied Bosnia. This
is evident from Serbnet's Media Watch newsletters. Also see the letter from
Bishop Anthony of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese to President Clinton dated
April 20, 1994 and included in the appendix of the Congressional Hearing US
Policy Toward Bosnia and the Balkans (May 11, 1994) pp. 55-56 36.Lipson is
leader of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors in New York.
He is most active as a writer, publishing articles which expose the role of
the Croatian Ustashe from 1941-45. Lipson's articles repeatedly recall the
atrocities committed by the Croatian Ustashe and advance the xenophobic
arguments made by Serbian nationalists. His group has argued against
intervention and has successfully sabotaged events organized by pro-Bosnian
groups in New York such as the Jewish Ad-Hoc Committee on Bosnia (JACOB)
and the Coalition for Intervention Against Genocide. (See Lipson's Croatia
Report is Misleading in Forward, February 14, 1992) 37.Together with Nora
Beloff, Alfred Sherman is the most active apologist for the Serbian lobby
in the U.K. Sherman , a British Jew who received a peerage under Thatcher,
has been publishing racist articles in the Daily Telegraph since the late
1970s. His writings on Bosnia are reminiscent of his articles opposing
immigration in the U.K. which develop racist arguments based on the concept
of an exclusive national homeland for the English, Scots and Welsh. (See:
Britain is not Asia's Fiancee in The Daily Telegraph, Sept. 11, 1979). A
former Communist who fought in the Spanish Civil War, Sherman is now
aligned with the far Right. He has been associated with the leader of the
French National Front, Le Pen, and attempted to organize a speaker tour for
Le Pen in the U.K. in 1987. Since the start of the war, he has been a
constant supporter of Karadzic and in July 1993 admitted to be working as
Karadzic's public relations advisor in Pale. Sherman is one of the most
frequently cited sources of support and authority by the SUC. According to
Dushan Djordevich of the Balkan Peace Committee, the Serbian community had
hoped to invite the controversial speaker to the U.S. last year. (See
Sherman's statements and writings on Bosnia: Spain had heroes; Bosnia only
laptop bombardiers in The Daily Telegraph, May 3, 1994;The Coming of the
Sword, (Opinions) The Jerusalem Post March 23, 1994;Focus on Bosnia by Paul
Goodman in The Sunday Telegraph August 8, 1993; Letters The Spectator, 8
may, 1993) 38.See: Philip J. Cohen's manuscript Desecrating the Holocaust:
Serbia's Exploitation of the Holocaust as Propaganda (1993) 39.Richard
Raimi of Austin Texas tried to pass a counter resolution on January 18,
1994. According to the Charge d'Affairs at the Bosnian Embassy in London,
there was a considerable effort aimed at encouraging the State of Israel to
recognize the New Republic of Yugoslavia this past August. The Israeli
Government did not agree to recognition immediately but instead sent a
mission to Belgrade to meet with the Jewish Community prior to any
diplomatic recognition. 40.Dick Christiansen in (telephone) conversation,
June 3, 1994. 41.The importance of these centers as propaganda bureaus is
clearly evident from the working of ADDPIS in Paris. ADDIPS served as the
medium through which SRNA, the information agency of Radovan Karadzic,
signed a contract with Agence France Press (AFP) under which SRNA would
receive reports and information from AFP. ADDIPS represents Karadzic in
Paris.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES TO THE APPENDIX
1.According to the report, FEC Releases 15 Month Congressional Election
Figures, May 9, 1994, Hamilton received $193,441 from individual
contributions. 2.Several of these figures e.g. Dr. Martin Gecht and Sidney
Epstein were active leaders in (nominally conservative) Jewish Community
organizations, including the Jewish Federation of Chicago and the Jewish
Theological Seminary. 3.On May 11, 1994 Michael Djordjevich, former SUC
President, spoke before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also
present were Ambassador Vladimir Matic, Former Assiatnt Federal Minister
for Foreign Affairs, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; Warren Zimmermann and
Jeane Kirkpatrick. Representing the National Federation of Croatian
Americans was Professor Edward Damich. Introducing the hearing, Chairman
Hamilton asked for advice on "how to end the war and promote the U.S.
national interest." 4.These donations also appear at the time when the
European Commission took action for the first time against Greece for its
refusal to end the trade blockade of Macedonia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darko Peric
Alan wrote in message <86mc0d$soh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>I would not mind a little discussion on the events between 1987 and
>1991. I maintain my assertion: Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
>agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to the ignition of the nationalist
>powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia. By trying to monopolise control on
>the Yugoslav collective presidency in the name Serb nationalism, and
>through other actions including the cancellation of Kosovo's autonomy,
>he triggered and credibilised the secessionnist processes in Slovenia,
>Croatia and Bosnia.
Darko: Couldn't have said it better myself....
>
>> >Tudjman is dead, and the Croats have finally put an end to the
>> >rule of his party.
>>
>> (No thanks to the US, Germany, or NATO and NATO-country governments,
>> who supported him despite his fascistic policies and background.)
>
>He was hardly supported, and the main reason his party has been
>rejected by Croat electors is precisely the desire to get out of
>isolation and join the movement of neighbouring countries towards
>closer ties with the EU.
Darko: Yes, but it also had to do with things such as living
standards and corruption...
>
>Please read again the current ng thread relating the latest SRS
>congress to better understand what I am refering to:
>
>QUOTE
>...SNIP....
>"The Serb people have lost a lot of territory, but we radical Serbs are
>convinced that the loss is only temporary."
Darko: Gotta love 'em. I've been saying for years that Serbs have
been living in a delusion and Seselj is the prime example...
Relja the unready
>car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
>>
>> Funny, I thought Tudjman was older than that, and that his involvement
>> with the Ustashe happened well before 1989. To say that he was
>somehow
>> a "creation" of Milosevic is just needless piling on. In (correctly)
>> condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary to try to shift the blame for
>> every petty nationalist in the Balkans to him...and doing so reveals a
>> lack of objectivity.
>
>I would not mind a little discussion on the events between 1987 and
>1991. I maintain my assertion: Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
>agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to the ignition of the nationalist
>powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia. By trying to monopolise control on
>the Yugoslav collective presidency in the name Serb nationalism, and
>through other actions including the cancellation of Kosovo's autonomy,
>he triggered and credibilised the secessionnist processes in Slovenia,
>Croatia and Bosnia.
I agree with you. However, if it wasn't for Albanian nationalism and
oppression of Kosovar Serbs (that took place from 1974 till 1989)
there wouldn't have been that much support for Milosevic's nationalistic
politics.
Therefore I see no point in accusing nationalists of one particular
nation as "the most responsible". They're all equally guilty.
>> This fact
>> doesn't validate the Yugoslav response, which was repressive, over-
>> inclusive, and far too violent; however, it does make it clear that
>> the standard Western propaganda frame, of a civilian population under
>> unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack by a brutally racist regime, was
>> a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
>
>I am happy to read that first sentence in this paragraph. But do not
>agree with the following ones of course. The general frame you refer to
>was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful and near unanimous civic
>opposition only brought more repression, more harassment and more
>humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
I also agree with John's first sentence. :-)
As far as the rest of your reply (Alan) is concerned: KLA were not
fighting for liberation, but for independence and POWER. Hasim
Taci is "Albanian Milosevic", if you know what I mean. KLA had
to be stopped. After all, they were terrorists, weren't they?
>Please read again the current ng thread relating the latest SRS
>congress to better understand what I am refering to:
>
>QUOTE
>...SNIP....
>"The Serb people have lost a lot of territory, but we radical Serbs are
>convinced that the loss is only temporary."
>....SNIP...
> "We will be able to re-take all that was taken from us and is
>occupied today if we are united and if we don't let foreign
>countries divide us and provoke civil war," Seselj told his audience
>including extreme right-wing Russian Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
>...SNIP....
> Seselj also attacked what he called "knaves and renegades of the
>lowest order among the Serbs and other peoples living in Serbia and
>Yugoslavia."
>...SNIP...
>UNQUOTE
:-DDD Yes, the guy is unbelievable!
Fortunately, only militant, bloodthirsty idiots support Seselj now. And
they're a minority. Milosevic uses Seselj as a way to force other
people to vote for him ("I'm bad, OK, but if you don't elect me, you'll
get Seselj!").
Regards
-------------------------------
Re...@mail.com
Alan
"Relja the unready" <rel...@mail.com> wrote:
> Alan wrote in message <86mc0d$soh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
> >>
> involvement
> >> with the Ustashe happened well before 1989. To say that he was
> >somehow
> >> a "creation" of Milosevic is just needless piling on. In
(correctly)
> >> condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary to try to shift the blame
> for
> >> every petty nationalist in the Balkans to him...and doing so
> a
> >> lack of objectivity.
> >
> >I would not mind a little discussion on the events between 1987 and
> >1991. I maintain my assertion: Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
> >agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to the ignition of the nationalist
> >powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia. By trying to monopolise control on
> >the Yugoslav collective presidency in the name Serb nationalism, and
> >through other actions including the cancellation of Kosovo's
autonomy,
> >he triggered and credibilised the secessionnist processes in
Slovenia,
> >Croatia and Bosnia.
>
> oppression of Kosovar Serbs (that took place from 1974 till 1989)
> there wouldn't have been that much support for Milosevic's
nationalistic
> politics.
The Kosovar Serbs have not always been correctly treated by the Kosovar
authorities during the period of autonomy, that is a documented fact,
you are right. But neither have Albanian protesters, as became clear
during the repression of the 1981 nationalist demonstrations. It is in
the clandestinity and in the emigration that followed those repressions
that the elements that were much later to become the KLA started to get
organised.
> Therefore I see no point in accusing nationalists of one particular
> nation as "the most responsible". They're all equally guilty.
I sign that statement with both hands: nationalism is evil. It is evil
in Serbia as it is evil in Kosovo or Croatia. It is also evil in Russia,
in Belgium (Vlaams Blok), in France (Front National), in Austria or in
Switserland.
However, as evil as they are, all those nationalisms have not (yet)
provoked war. Milosevic's brand of nationalism has been at the root of
three very ugly wars within a decade. Each of those wars has ended in
disaster for Serbia. This gives Serb nationalism a specificity.
Also, the legitimate request of the right of people to self-
determination often uses nationalist rethorics to mobilise populations.
Ruling powers that ignore that legitimate request play in the hands of
nationalist escalation.
> >> This fact
> >> doesn't validate the Yugoslav response, which was repressive, over-
> >> inclusive, and far too violent; however, it does make it clear that
> >> the standard Western propaganda frame, of a civilian population
under
> >> unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack by a brutally racist regime,
was
> >> a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
> >
> >I am happy to read that first sentence in this paragraph. But do not
> >agree with the following ones of course. The general frame you refer
to
> >was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful and near unanimous civic
> >opposition only brought more repression, more harassment and more
> >humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
>
> I also agree with John's first sentence. :-)
> As far as the rest of your reply (Alan) is concerned: KLA were not
> fighting for liberation, but for independence and POWER. Hasim
> Taci is "Albanian Milosevic", if you know what I mean. KLA had
> to be stopped. After all, they were terrorists, weren't they?
That was my point. I stated that Taci was a fascist, and that we should
not smile when Mrs Albright accepts his kisses. I also stated that the
policies of Milosevic provoked the birth and the gain of influence of
the KLA. Between 1989 and 1998, the massive protest against Serbia's
rule was largely non-violent, though very determined. There had been
plenty of lost opportunities for negociations leading to autonomy within
the FRY (rather than within Serbia), giving Kosovo a full republican
status. Those negociations could have included strong protection
measures for national minorities. Treating Rugova's requests with
disdain during 9 years opened the path for the strenghtening of the
military options and for the request of immediate rather than gradual
full independence. The way Milosevic managed his so-called campaign
against the KLA made sure that the KLA gained widespread support amongst
the Albanian population of Kosovo and made a fool of Rugova. It also
garanteed that bridges would be completely burned between communities.
He made a radical bet, and lost it (as usual).
The KLA has clearly become the legitimate representatives of the
Kosovars, like it or not. Only peace, and the removal of the threats
from Belgrade, could help weaken Taci.
> >Please read again the current ng thread relating the latest SRS
> >congress to better understand what I am refering to:
> >
> >QUOTE
> >...SNIP....
> >"The Serb people have lost a lot of territory, but we radical Serbs
are
> >convinced that the loss is only temporary."
> >....SNIP...
> > "We will be able to re-take all that was taken from us and is
> >occupied today if we are united and if we don't let foreign
> >countries divide us and provoke civil war," Seselj told his audience
> >including extreme right-wing Russian Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
> >...SNIP....
> > Seselj also attacked what he called "knaves and renegades of the
> >lowest order among the Serbs and other peoples living in Serbia and
> >Yugoslavia."
> >...SNIP...
> >UNQUOTE
>
> :-DDD Yes, the guy is unbelievable!
> Fortunately, only militant, bloodthirsty idiots support Seselj now.
And
> they're a minority. Milosevic uses Seselj as a way to force other
> people to vote for him ("I'm bad, OK, but if you don't elect me,
you'll
> get Seselj!").
Right on. Good luck for the future !
........................................................................
........................................................................
............................
Alan
"Relja the unready" <rel...@mail.com> wrote:
> Alan wrote in message <86mc0d$soh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
> >>
> involvement
> >> with the Ustashe happened well before 1989. To say that he was
> >somehow
> >> a "creation" of Milosevic is just needless piling on. In
(correctly)
> >> condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary to try to shift the blame
> for
> >> every petty nationalist in the Balkans to him...and doing so
> a
> >> lack of objectivity.
> >
> >I would not mind a little discussion on the events between 1987 and
> >1991. I maintain my assertion: Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
> >agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to the ignition of the nationalist
> >powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia. By trying to monopolise control on
> >the Yugoslav collective presidency in the name Serb nationalism, and
> >through other actions including the cancellation of Kosovo's
autonomy,
> >he triggered and credibilised the secessionnist processes in
Slovenia,
> >Croatia and Bosnia.
>
> >> This fact
> >> doesn't validate the Yugoslav response, which was repressive, over-
> >> inclusive, and far too violent; however, it does make it clear that
> >> the standard Western propaganda frame, of a civilian population
under
> >> unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack by a brutally racist regime,
was
> >> a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
> >
> >I am happy to read that first sentence in this paragraph. But do not
> >agree with the following ones of course. The general frame you refer
to
> >was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful and near unanimous civic
> >opposition only brought more repression, more harassment and more
> >humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
>
> I also agree with John's first sentence. :-)
> As far as the rest of your reply (Alan) is concerned: KLA were not
> fighting for liberation, but for independence and POWER. Hasim
> Taci is "Albanian Milosevic", if you know what I mean. KLA had
> to be stopped. After all, they were terrorists, weren't they?
That was my point. I stated that Taci was a fascist, and that we should
not smile when Mrs Albright accepts his kisses. I also stated that the
policies of Milosevic provoked the birth and the gain of influence of
the KLA. Between 1989 and 1998, the massive protest against Serbia's
rule was largely non-violent, though very determined. There had been
plenty of lost opportunities for negociations leading to autonomy within
the FRY (rather than within Serbia), giving Kosovo a full republican
status. Those negociations could have included strong protection
measures for national minorities. Treating Rugova's requests with
disdain during 9 years opened the path for the strenghtening of the
military options and for the request of immediate rather than gradual
full independence. The way Milosevic managed his so-called campaign
against the KLA made sure that the KLA gained widespread support amongst
the Albanian population of Kosovo and made a fool of Rugova. It also
garanteed that bridges would be completely burned between communities.
He made a radical bet, and lost it (as usual).
The KLA has clearly become the legitimate representatives of the
Kosovars, like it or not. Only peace, and the removal of the threats
from Belgrade, could help weaken Taci.
> >Please read again the current ng thread relating the latest SRS
> >congress to better understand what I am refering to:
> >
> >QUOTE
> >...SNIP....
> >"The Serb people have lost a lot of territory, but we radical Serbs
are
> >convinced that the loss is only temporary."
> >....SNIP...
> > "We will be able to re-take all that was taken from us and is
> >occupied today if we are united and if we don't let foreign
> >countries divide us and provoke civil war," Seselj told his audience
> >including extreme right-wing Russian Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
> >...SNIP....
> > Seselj also attacked what he called "knaves and renegades of the
> >lowest order among the Serbs and other peoples living in Serbia and
> >Yugoslavia."
> >...SNIP...
> >UNQUOTE
>
> :-DDD Yes, the guy is unbelievable!
> Fortunately, only militant, bloodthirsty idiots support Seselj now.
And
> they're a minority. Milosevic uses Seselj as a way to force other
> people to vote for him ("I'm bad, OK, but if you don't elect me,
you'll
> get Seselj!").
Right on. Good luck for the future !
........................................................................
........................................................................
............................
John Caruso
>> >> Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than Pavelic!
>> >
>> >You are right: Tudjman could easily be seen as a mirror image of
>> >Milosevic. He was a creation of the nationalist fury initiated by Mr
>> >Milosevic back in 1989.
>>
>> Funny, I thought Tudjman was older than that, and that his involvement
>> with the Ustashe happened well before 1989. To say that he was somehow
>> a "creation" of Milosevic is just needless piling on. In (correctly)
>> condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary to try to shift the blame for
>> every petty nationalist in the Balkans to him...and doing so reveals a
>> lack of objectivity.
>
>I would not mind a little discussion on the events between 1987 and
>1991. I maintain my assertion: Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
>agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to the ignition of the nationalist
>powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia.
Putting aside your assessment, Tudjman was still in a position to assume
power--which was not due to Milosevic. And his nationalism and anti-
Semitism were his own as well.
>> >No Milosevic could have meant no Tudjman and no KLA.
>>
>> Possibly no KLA (speaking very specifically), but you're deluding
>> yourself about Tudjman.
>
>Not Tudjman as a person, but Tudjman as the undisputed ruler of
>Croatia. I am not deluding myself. Again, BTW, if you want to discuss
>with me, please refrain from adding those personal diversions ("lack of
>objectivity", "deluding yourself", etc, etc) in your posts. Thank you.
Have you had an epiphany since Friday? Try following your own advice,
Alan, before you start lecturing me. You've made a start here.
>> The current actions by KLA and ex-KLA in Kosovo cannot be laid at
>> Milosevic's doorstep. In my opinion, they reveal what these extremists
>> have wanted all along: an ethnically pure Albanian statelet.
>
>The very existence of the KLA, and even more so its gain of hegemonious
>control on the Kosovar political playing field, are to be laid on
>Milosevic's doorstep.
Only if you halt your gaze in the mid-1990s. Albanian nationalism and
violence were alive and well throughout the 1980s and earlier (i.e.
before Milosevic's ascent), as documented here:
http://www.fair.org/extra/9905/kosovo.html
http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html
I met a Serb at protests here who told me that it was common wisdom in
Yugoslavia that you should stay away from Kosovo, since people would just
"disappear" there. That kind of reputation doesn't grow out of nothing.
>The current actions of the structures derived
>from the KLA may reveal what you say they reveal. The fact that those
>objectives seem to have became hegemonious is once more a direct
>consequence of Serbia's policies in Kosovo.
The actions of Albanian nationalists prior to Milosevic also show a
desire for an independent Albanian Kosovo; it didn't suddenly spring
into being because of Milosevic. And...
>Elections will soon show if
>the reasonable currents that have supported leaders like Ibrahim Rugova
>through the peaceful civic desobedience movement between 1989 and 1998
>have a chance to regain ground in the short term.
....the movement you're talking about, no matter how peaceful it may have
been, was still directed at establishing independent Albanian structures.
In fact the Albanian rejection of Yugoslav forums for making their power
felt was in part responsible for Milosevic's continued grasp on power;
had the Albanians participated in elections, their votes would likely
have changed the results.
>> This fact
>> doesn't validate the Yugoslav response, which was repressive, over-
>> inclusive, and far too violent; however, it does make it clear that
>> the standard Western propaganda frame, of a civilian population under
>> unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack by a brutally racist regime, was
>> a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
>
>I am happy to read that first sentence in this paragraph. But do not
>agree with the following ones of course. The general frame you refer to
>was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful and near unanimous civic
>opposition only brought more repression, more harassment and more
>humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
This is a sweeping statement for which I've never seen real support.
By all accounts, Albanians had significant rights in Kosovo--much
greater than minorities in the US, for example--despite the restrictions
on complete autonomy. And had the possibilities for peace been allowed
to come to fruition at Rambouillet, they would have had far more, but
without the costs resulting from the military solution.
If Serbs are such anti-Albanian racists, why is it that Albanians have
full rights in Serbia? What differentiates Albanians in Kosovo? The
answer is simply that full rights were not enough; they wanted complete
control of their own territory, disregarding the needs of the other
constituent minorities there.
>> >Tudjman is dead, and the Croats have finally put an end to the
>> >rule of his party.
>>
>> (No thanks to the US, Germany, or NATO and NATO-country governments,
>> who supported him despite his fascistic policies and background.)
>
>He was hardly supported,
Not only was he supported--especially during the wars--the US went so
far as to block attempts by the ICTY to investigate him and his generals.
>and the main reason his party has been
>rejected by Croat electors is precisely the desire to get out of
>isolation and join the movement of neighbouring countries towards
>closer ties with the EU.
This is press release editorializing. Perhaps the Croats want to get
out from under Tudjman's brand of authoritarianism? Or perhaps they're
simply reacting to a sluggish economy, as voters everywhere do.
However, consider this tidbit about the two contenders in the runoff:
They were both jailed by communist authorities in early 1970s for
taking part in the nationalist movement that wanted Croatia to be an
independent state 20 years too early.
[ http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000125/wl/croatia_leadall_13.html ]
In other words, they were both nationalists, though perhaps not as
extreme as Tudjman. Time will tell.
>> Again, you attempt to put all the blame on Milosevic. Why? Thaci
>> is surely to blame for his own actions...and if we're talking about
>> who brought him to prominence, surely NATO deserves a large share of
>> that credit, for giving him the LEADING role in the Albanian delegation
>> at Rambouillet, supporting him and the KLA throughout the bombing
>> campaign, and by marginzalizing Rugova (the elected president) in
>> favor of Thaci and his terrorist thugs.
>
>Facts have proven that the KLA strategy was more productive, in the
>Albanian Kosovar point of view, than the Rugova strategy.
The KLA strategy was more productive precisely because NATO backed it.
The validation of that strategy, thanks to NATO, will fuel Albanian
nationalism for years to come, and will act as a spur to other nationalist
movements elsewhere.
>Thanks to the
>policies of Mr Milosevic, who had placed all his hopes on the
>unwillingness of the international community to be seen as supporting
>an "armed extremist" group (recognised as a terrorist group by the USA
>in early 1998, BTW).
It would have been extraordinarily naive of him to assume so, and no
matter what we may think of his morals, he's not stupid. The fact is
that the KLA put Yugoslavia in an untenable position; they couldn't
allow the KLA to go unchecked, yet NATO and NATO countries were
demanding that they do just that. The standard Western propaganda
frame completely ignores this element of the equation, and presents
the conflict (specifically from late 1998 through the beginning of the
NATO bombing) as an armed assault against a peaceful civilian population,
motivated solely by ethnic and religious hatred. It's a fairy tale.
>The KLA gained its hegemony at gun point. The
>composition of the Rambouillet delegation simply acknowledged a fact
>and was the only way of getting the KLA at the negociation table.
Exactly. It's the very "appeasement" which was bandied about in
reference to Milosevic by those who were clamoring for bombing. Had
the NATO strategy not been structured in this way, it's possible that
a true compromise could have been worked out. IMO, NATO (as always,
meaning primarily the US) backed the KLA precisely because they wanted
a military solution.
>Again with Milosevic/Seselj remaining in power and salivating at the
>idea of a frontal conflict with Nato in June (a salivation that has
>largely been induced by their Russian friends),
The "frontal conflict" you refer to is the desire to see NATO follow
the agreements which were signed, and which have already been roundly
ignored in spirit by NATO. It's whistling in the wind; in my opinion,
NATO never had any intention of following the agreements, as evidenced
by their actions.
>such a moderate
>scenario seems unlikely. If I was an Albanian Kosovar, I would refuse
>to turn my arms in till the parties ruling Serbia stopped threatening me.
Sorry, but this is more piling on. You can't continue to blame the
Serbs for Albanian nationalism, especially now that it's no threat. The
fact is that if you were an Albanian Kosovar, you would likely refuse to
turn in your arms until you'd finally established an independent Albanian
state...and even then I doubt you'd be willing to hand them over.
- John
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <c69s8ss9jg48quc3t...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>Given that, fighting against fascism is
>>>a pretty compelling argument for proving that you're NOT a fascist--
>>>especially in a case like the former Yugoslavia.
>>
>>No it's not, unless you think the each country has qualities of its
>>own national character which predispose it towards good or evil down
>>through the generations.
>
>Not at all, and in fact, this is exactly the type of argument often
>put forward by "reputable" writers who attempt to identify some
>uniquely Serbian deficiency which makes them such lovers of genocide.
>It's oversimplified and fallacious.
Actually, in my view, it's justified in the case of the Serbs, but a
dodgy notion generally. Look at Cubrilovic's 1937 memorandum - a
programme for ethnic cleansing in Kosova; read some of the accounts of
Serbian atrocities in Kosova in 1912, when they took over the
province. Evil is not a new thing in Serbia.
> What I've said here doesn't
>follow this model at all; rather, it says that past behavior is at
>least relevant to assessing current behavior, and certainly much more
>so than propagandistic frames imposed by third parties (as in the case
>of Ruder Finn's Holocaust frame). Also, I was speaking about
>individuals, not entire nations, since I don't know the details of
>your example (and don't need to, I think).
>
>>>So citing former
>>>behavior in this case is not only proper but completely natural,
>>>though it may ultimately be irrelevant (and I doubt anyone would be
>>>swayed by the arguments you're claiming were offered).
>>
>>It was something often cited by those opposed to the military action
>>against Serbia. Whether they were swayed by it or not is another
>>matter, though actually I believe many people were influenced by it
>>initially.
>
>"Many people"? You mean generally, as in large populations?
Yes, I think the idea of the Croats as fascists and Serbs as heroic
warriors against fascism was one of those vague historical notions
which lurked somewhere within the popular consciousness, influencing
many people. I remember talking about the issue with my uncle in the
early stages of the Serb-Croat war. I expressed total outrage about
what the Serbs were doing and argued for military intervention to stop
them. I assume that everyone would take substantially the same view of
it. I was amazed when he didn't, and started talking about the Croats
as being 'Nazi bastards', referring to what they had done in the
Second World War.
>This
>is so counter to my own experience that I can't even imagine you could
>mean it that way.
You'd be amazed how many ridiculous Tory MP's have got up in the House
of Commons and made some bumptious speech about how the Serbs were our
allies in WW2 etc, how they 'tied down' 20 elite divisions etc...
>The guiding metaphor of nearly all the media coverage
>I saw was that of Nazis and the Holocaust, with the Serbs the unquestioned
>villains (and attributed as such throughout the 1990s and the secession
>wars in the Balkans).
>
>Speaking for myself, I can tell you that such claims have had not any
>meaningful impact on my own positions WRT Kosovo and Yugoslavia.
>
>>> and trying to characterize
>>>other behavior, no matter how reprehensible, in a manner which far
>>>exceeds the facts
>>
>>I can't agree with you here. Citing current behaviour is, in my view,
>>far more justifiable that citing historical acts or myths about
>>historical acts. Whether characterising Serb behaviour as being
>>something similar to the holocaust 'far exceeded the facts' or not is
>>a purely subjective judgement on your part. Clearly, it did not
>>involve death on the same scale as the holocaust.
>
>I give you credit for saying so.
>
>>However, so
>>cold-bloodedly singling out a distinct ethnic and religious group for
>>atrocity is not something that has occurred in Europe, on this scale,
>>since the Second World War.
>
>The Turkish repression of Kurds dwarfs anything in Kosovo, actually...
>yet the Turkish government is a member of NATO and is supported quite
>directly by the US, militarily and otherwise.
I haven't looked into this issue in detail so I'll refrain from
comment except to say that whether Turkey is really part of Europe or
not is at least a moot point. Certainly most Europeans don't consider
it to be such, and its culture is alien to most other European
countries. In any case, the holocaust analogy is applied most
vigorously in the case of Bosnia, not Kosova, and it was there that it
evolved originally.
> This was true before,
>during, and after the Kosovo bombing. Yet US officials are strangely
>unable to muster even the weakest Holocaust analogy where Turkey is
>concerned, and the media (here) follow the script.
>
>Also, to invoke the word "religious" is misguided, IMHO; I've seen no
>indication that religion had anything to do with it. The actions were
>targeted at ethnic Albanians, and specifically at those who supported
>secession from Yugoslavia or who were involved in direct or indirect
>support of the KLA.
I assumed that we were talking about the full course of the Balkan
wars generally including Croatia and Bosnia and so on. Surely the
holocaust metaphor was in widespread use before the Kosova conflict
really warmed up. I mention religion only because it does seem to be
the most significant delimiting factor in the case of the
Bosnian/Croat/Serb populations. Indeed the 'Bosnian Muslims' are
generally referred to specifically as a religious group. I think they
only adopted the term 'Bosniak' in official discourse circa 1992/3 in
an attempt to correct this. I'm not an ethnologist but I would guess
that the ethnic differences between the Serbs, Croats and Bosnian
Muslims were somewhere between minimal and non-existent. The Bosnian
Muslims especially are, as far as I know, just Serbs/Croats who
adopted another religion, not a distinct ethnic group.
> It was far too inclusive and heavy-handed (after
>the NATO attack began), but this was the thrust. It was not simply a
>mindless, hate-inspired attack against a defenseless civilian population,
>and certainly nowhere in the league of the purposeful extermination of
>an entire ethnic group such as the Holocaust. There WAS a civil war
>going on, and ignoring that fact distorts the entire situation (which
>is exactly what happened...and which comes right back to what we're
>discussing in this thread).
I think there is a natural human tendency to sympathise with the
underdog. When the recent Balkan wars began, there was an enormous
disparity of armed force in favour of the Serbs. We saw entire cities
being shelled into rubble and their defenders had nothing but AKs to
fight with. This alone, in my view, was the most powerful single
factor in swaying public opinion against the Serbs. If the Balkan wars
had broken out with a rough parity of armed force on all sides,
Western sympathies might have settled into a different pattern. We can
never know.
The English-speaking countries were the most lukewarm about the Croats
initially, the most resistant to recognition being granted.
It speaks volumes about your own flawed judgement on this matter. I
also refuse to condemn it. There was nothing wrong with what Ruder
Finn did and, in any case, it was a triviality. The analogy with the
holocaust was obvious - people selected for their ethnicity and herded
into prison camps (I mean how much more similar does it have to be
before the use of the analogy is justified? Gas Showers?) . The
difference between the holocaust and what the Serbs did was one of
scale only, not of intent. As regards Ruder Finn, you are attempting
to apportion moral blame on the basis of how successful someone was in
achieving their intent. This is absurd. Surely moral blame relates to
the intent itself, not the success of the intent. If Ruder Finn had
attempted the same thing but not successsfully achieved it, their
culpability would have gone away, would it? Clearly not. I have
demonstrated to you that organised lobbying efforts were being made on
behalf of the Serbs also. The intent behind those efforts was no
different from the intent behind Ruder Finn's, therefore any moral
culpability must be the same.
>
>>Even according to the text that you quote, the
>>articles about the camps in Newsday appeared spontaneously. Ruder Finn
>>did not create them. It simply took advantage of them afterwards.
>
>Point taken. However, their success in doing so, and in using those
>stories to co-opt Jewish groups to support their position, is the crucial
>issue.
Their success in co-opting Jewish groups has yet to be demonstrated.
Harff says he 'outwitted' them. What that means has not been
explained. I think these Jewish groups probably know a lot more about
the holocaust than either you or I do so, if they decided the analogy
was appropriate in relation to Bosnia, that's good enough for me.
> Just because one outlet chooses to sensationalize a story does
>not mean that that frame will become dominant; but Ruder Finn acted
>consciously to produce that result.
>
>I imagine, BTW, that Hill and Knowlton might have made a similar argument
>about the Iraqi "incubator babies" story--i.e. they didn't create it,
>they just distributed it. That doesn't take away from their spectacular
>success at placing this ridiculous and fraudulent story so prominently,
>to the point that it was endorsed by Amnesty International and was
>mentioned in several speeches by Bush.
This is a good point. Given what you have said about the holocaust
metaphor and related demonisation of the Serbs propelling the entire
Western crusade against them would you seriously argue that this
fabricated story about the incubators was what propelled the Western
action againt Iraq? That without it Saddam Hussein and Iraq would not
have been 'demonised' in the way that they were and the war would not
have taken place? Clearly not. Clearly, in the great scheme of things,
it was nothing but a passing triviality, as was anything that Ruder
Finn did in relation to the Serbs.
>
>>So someone else had already arrived at the analogy on their own. Harff
>>then says he 'outwitted' the big Jewish organisations. What does that
>>mean? He then says that the three big Jewish organisations
>>demonstrated against the Serbs. It remains to be shown how Harff
>>cajoled the Jewish organisations into doing something they would not
>>otherwise have done. I very much doubt that he did.
>
>That's your prerogative. I don't have any reason to doubt him, again,
>especially given the evidence of the extent of Ruder Finn's actions
>as shown in the CIPRA citation. And as I said, even if you doubt the
>truth of his words I can see no reasonable defense of the morality of
>the actions he describes (I'm not saying that you've attempted one, though
>you have seemed to excuse it on the basis that "everybody does it").
All people who have power find people attempting to influence them. It
is the norm, not the exception. They get used to it. Any politician or
journalist of any standing will be familiar with the scenario of a
partisan of some conflict attempting to foist their point of view upon
them. They will develop a resistance. They may look into the issue but
they will exercise their critical faculties in doing so. If they
eventually decide that the partisan presentation was substantially
correct, it will be because their own judgement and other
corroborating evidence tells them that it is.
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <udvi8s4fp19h8mdga...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>>>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>>>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>>>a comparison.
>>.
>>>There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>>>before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>>>'Greek lobby' in the U.S.
>
>The article you've found (http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html),
>though committed to paper by one Brad Blitz, is attributed to:
>
> Students Against GEnocide (SAGE)--Project Bosnia is a national
> student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate
> of the American Committee to Save Bosnia.
>
>This is an enormous flashing red light, particularly because this is
>not simply cited material, but is an original text. Personally, I
>never trust such documents from EITHER side;
Another attempt to discredit a document with referring to any of its
contents, and one that I don't accept.
>and I can only hope that
>this isn't typical of the "many thousands of words" you say you've
>read on the subject.
I try and read everything.
>
>(I should also note that the documents regarding Ruder Finn's
>activities do not suffer from these deficiencies. The Harff interview
>in particular is so notable because it's IN HIS OWN WORDS; and the
>CIPRA site is just a factual description of the nature of the campaign.)
Harff also had an agenda and the agenda was self-aggrandisement.
>
>Setting this aside for the moment, though, the first question is
>impact: what impact have the efforts by Serb groups had in affecting
>media coverage and/or public opinion?
I believe the challenge originally posed was to produce evidence of
organised lobbying efforts on behalf of the Serbs on a scale
comparable to those of Ruder Finn. I have done that. You are now
attempting to change the terms of the challenge to one of the
'success' of those efforts. As I have observed, the success can never
be measured because we cannot know how things would have developed if
the propaganda efforts had not been made. The Blitz document lists
access gained through P.R. companies to both media and political
organisations. This was one aspect of what you found so sinister in
the case of Ruder Finn.
Quote:
The SUC has used public relations firms (Manatos and Manatos,
McDermott O'Neill and Associates, David Keene and Associates), in
order to grant their leaders and paid representatives access to
television and radio interviews, congressional sub-committee hearings
and U.N. sponsored commissions.
The other aspect of Ruder Finn's work which you took objection to was
their attempt to win Jewish opinion to their side. The Blitz document
describes identical efforts made on behalf of the Serbs.
I quote:
The organized Jewish community has been particularly critical of the
Serbian regime and the violence inflicted on the Bosnian people.
However, there is a clear counter- offensive being launched by the SUC
and Serbnet to co-opt Jewish public opinion. This involves a
propaganda campaign which recalls the role of the Ustashe and certain
Muslim contingents who supported by the Mufti of Jerusalem during the
Second World War. Their main attack is in the form of articles written
by Alfred Lipson, a leader of the community of Holocaust survivors36
and Sir Alfred Sherman37 . Through the Serbian Jewish Friendship
Society and direct meetings with Jewish organizations, the SUC has
conducted an energetic campaign to win over Jewish and Israeli
support. 38This has included efforts to overturn the position adopted
by the National Organization of Jewish Community Relation
Councils (NJCRAC), which endorsed a call for air strikes and the
lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government.
>The answer is: damn little, as
Judgements made in the article about events in the recent wars are not
particularly noteworthy. What is noteworthy is the description of
organised lobbying on behalf of the Serbs, something whose existence
you originally disputed.
>
>I find it incredible that SAGE would attempt to paint as nefarious
>an appeal to people to look at the forces which guide news production,
>and to look at the misbehavior on ALL sides...but there it is. SAGE/
>Blitz seem oblivious to the fact that any informed listener hearing
>the above invocation with an open mind would also apply it to the Serbs!
>They're such fanatics that the idea of any such objectivity offends them.
>Only total agreement with their party line is acceptable, and anything
>short of that is "revisionism". The bulk of their criticisms follow
>precisely this pattern.
>
>This is strikingly similar to the Freedom House study which claimed
>that the US press undermined the government in Vietnam, extensively
>analyzed in _Manufacturing Consent_ by Herman and Chomsky. They show
>how the press in fact embraced the government's chosen propaganda
>frame, deviating in minor ways and primarily over tactical concerns,
>and how Freedom House's assessment boils down to a dissatisfaction
>with anything short of total and complete subservience to the Official
>Line. Blitz/SAGE agonize over every single article which falls anywhere
>outside their own preconceived notion of the truth...they can't stand
>the idea that even one article will exist which does not further their
>own worldview. They rarely discuss even the content of these articles;
>they simply cite the fact of their existence as proof of evil intent.
Your quotes on Ruder Finn did the same. When Ruder Finn attempts to
foist their point of view on a journalist and the point of view is
accepted by the journalist, it is evidence of an evil manipulation.
When the SUC does exactly the same thing, it is evidence of a healthy
criticality. Do you not feel your judgement has become clouded?
>
>This also calls to mind the actions of the British government after
>the Kosovo bombing, when it viciously attacked the British press with
>accusations that the press had somehow supported the Serbs(!). That
>such an accusation could be levelled with a straight face is nothing
>short of comical, given the extraordinarily high level of fealty of
>all the major British media I saw to the official line, but again, the
>standard applied is one of TOTAL obedience.
Not really. The Western press obsessed about civilian casualties.
There would be a big fuss the next day following even the slightest
incident in which a civilian was killed.
>When such obedience is
>not offered, the response is quick and unyielding. This use of "flak"
>to discipline and control the media is described at some length in
>_Manufacturing Consent_; I found it very interesting indeed to see it
>verified in such textbook fashion through a contemporary example.
>
>I've already given this tract far more attention than it deserves, so
>I'll stop. The fact is that it goes nowhere near proving that Serb
>efforts to put forward some (imagined) "revisionist" agenda are on a
>par with Ruder Finn's efforts, described by Ruder Finn's own top
>executive...as we can see ourselves by the paradigm which dominates
>the media these days.
I disagree. You have again adopted 'success' as the criterion of
comparability. Success cannot be measured. In scale and in nature, the
only true measures of comparability, the efforts on behalf of the
Serbs were no different.
>
>>>If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
>>>by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
>
>I recall that as well. The fact that Alan would endorse a report which
>is so biased, and which comes from such a clearly biased source--and
>that he'd ally himself with a zealot of Barry's ilk--are among the reasons
>that I feel he has lost almost any shred of objectivity.
More personal attacks which completely ignore the content. The fact
that someone holds passionate views does not automatically invalidate
their contributions. I suggest you take a step back and look at
yourself. You have complained about sinister efforts being made behind
the scenes to thwart Serbian interests. When I have demonstrated to
you exactly the same efforts being made behind the scenes to advance
Serbian interests, you have casually dismissed it.
Milan Budimirovic
years old and here is what they accuse the Serbian lobby of:
[By reducing real events to personal interpretations the Serbian lobby
has managed to camouflage the actual aggression and the commission of
genocide behind supposed 'opinions' which can be neither 'verified' nor
'denied.' Their aim is clearly to present the conflict in the Former
Yugoslavia as a civil war rooted in ancient hatreds in order to
discourage public opinion from supporting direct U.S. military
intervention.]
How sinister of the Serbs to portray a war between Bosnian Serbs,
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats as a civil war. Or to point out the
historical and socio-economic factors that led to the Balkan wars. I
also find it curious that the authors take "genocide" and "actual
aggression" as a matter of fact and make no effort to show that this
interpretation of events is beyond reproach - a petitio principii
argument in its crudest form. And here is another gem:
[The academic community has responded to Serbian lobbying efforts with
silence and in some cases by lending tacit support to Serbian
nationalists.]
In other words the academic community is not particularly outraged by
the Serbian community's rather weak efforts to get some balanced
coverage of events.
Realistically, there is nothing that the Serbian lobby did that could
approach the Ruder Finn's use of the Trnopolje pictures, which were
known from day one not to be pictures of a concecntration camp, to
portray the Serbs as committing a Nazi-like extermination of the
Muslims. They managed to take the actions of a few Serbs snd magnify
them several orders of magnitude so that all Serbs were painted with the
same brush. It created a climate where sympathy towards Bosnia's Muslims
attained a high lavel of political correctness in the media, to the
point where any semblance of balance and objectivity went out the
window.
John Caruso
>>>>>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>>>>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>>>>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>>>>a comparison.
>>>.
>>>>There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>>>>before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>>>>'Greek lobby' in the U.S.
>>
>>The article you've found (http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html),
>>though committed to paper by one Brad Blitz, is attributed to:
>>
>> Students Against GEnocide (SAGE)--Project Bosnia is a national
>> student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate
>> of the American Committee to Save Bosnia.
>>
>>This is an enormous flashing red light, particularly because this is
>>not simply cited material, but is an original text. Personally, I
>>never trust such documents from EITHER side;
>
>Another attempt to discredit a document with referring to any of its
>contents, and one that I don't accept.
"Another" qualifies only if you're referring to Alan's attacks on the
Harff interview. That was a simple transcript of a French TV interview,
presented by non-participants, and highly verifiable; the SAGE report,
on the other hand, is an ORIGINAL document, generated by a partisan
group with very direct connections to the issue, and filled with claims
which are attributed to (among other things) "personal correspondence"
and "private meetings and forums"...all unverifiable. If you choose to
get your "facts" from places like this, you're asking to be misinformed.
In any case, I addressed the contents at length, as you know. I do
not accept original documents of this type from Serb sources as being
in any way unbiased, or a basis for debate; neither will I accept those
from such clearly biased sources as the "Students Against GEnocide--
Project Bosnia" or "American Committee to Save Bosnia". It would be
foolish to do otherwise.
(I may be more inclined to do so, BTW, if the document itself did not
exhibit such obvious bias, as I've already pointed out.)
>>(I should also note that the documents regarding Ruder Finn's
>>activities do not suffer from these deficiencies. The Harff interview
>>in particular is so notable because it's IN HIS OWN WORDS; and the
>>CIPRA site is just a factual description of the nature of the campaign.)
>
>Harff also had an agenda and the agenda was self-aggrandisement.
Harff clearly had reason to brag; the very fact that Ruder Finn's PR
campaign was recognized by CIPRA attests to that fact.
>>Setting this aside for the moment, though, the first question is
>>impact: what impact have the efforts by Serb groups had in affecting
>>media coverage and/or public opinion?
>
>I believe the challenge originally posed was to produce evidence of
>organised lobbying efforts on behalf of the Serbs on a scale
>comparable to those of Ruder Finn. I have done that. You are now
>attempting to change the terms of the challenge to one of the
>'success' of those efforts.
You've *quoted* what I actually said, above, and then misrepresented
it here. To wit:
Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
a comparison.
You've found documentation; now we're comparing the nature and extent.
"Extent" in particular means "success", since the success of such a
campaign is measured by how widely it is disseminated and how well
the chosen frame of reference penetrates the popular mindset. Ruder
Finn's chosen frame clearly reigns supreme in this comparison.
>As I have observed, the success can never
>be measured because we cannot know how things would have developed if
>the propaganda efforts had not been made.
Yes, but by this criterion we can never know anything, and hence should
stop discussing any of these issues. Ruder Finn's efforts, along with
Harff's comments, speak for themselves, and their success is evidenced
by the character of public opinion and certainly by the fact that they
were *rewarded* by a PR organization for the efficacy of their campaign.
>The Blitz document lists
>access gained through P.R. companies to both media and political
>organisations. This was one aspect of what you found so sinister in
>the case of Ruder Finn.
The access listed is paltry by comparison, and does not reflect the
type of manipulation put forward by Harff. And you continue to
misunderstand me; simple efforts at access are not in themselves
nefarious. Ruder Finn's specific tactics, however, WERE--as was their
extremely high level of penetration, which dwarfs anything listed in
this document (which continually overstates the impact of the SUC et
al's efforts, as I already said).
>Quote:
>The SUC has used public relations firms (Manatos and Manatos,
>McDermott O'Neill and Associates, David Keene and Associates), in
>order to grant their leaders and paid representatives access to
>television and radio interviews, congressional sub-committee hearings
>and U.N. sponsored commissions.
First of all, every "fact" in this document is suspect because of the
source, and this applies to every statement you've cited. I won't
repeat this throughout, but consider it read.
Harff's statements are creditable precisely because they come from the
horse's mouth, and NOT from those with a vested stake. What you've
quoted is not independently verifiable, unlike the case of Ruder Finn
where we have direct verification from CIPRA, a third party with no
stake in the Balkans. We also have no indication of the nature or
extent of these actions; attending a public sub-committee hearing is
meaningless in and of itself, unlike the case of Ruder Finn where we
can read that they actually *organized* such hearings. The one thing
we do know is that--assuming the SUC efforts described here actually
occurred--they were spectacularly unsuccessful, as evidenced by the
international stance against the Serbs.
>The other aspect of Ruder Finn's work which you took objection to was
>their attempt to win Jewish opinion to their side. The Blitz document
>describes identical efforts made on behalf of the Serbs.
>
>I quote:
>
>The organized Jewish community has been particularly critical of the
>Serbian regime and the violence inflicted on the Bosnian people.
>However, there is a clear counter- offensive being launched by the SUC
>and Serbnet to co-opt Jewish public opinion. This involves a
>propaganda campaign which recalls the role of the Ustashe and certain
>Muslim contingents who supported by the Mufti of Jerusalem during the
>Second World War. Their main attack is in the form of articles written
>by Alfred Lipson, a leader of the community of Holocaust survivors36
>and Sir Alfred Sherman37 . Through the Serbian Jewish Friendship
>Society and direct meetings with Jewish organizations, the SUC has
>conducted an energetic campaign to win over Jewish and Israeli
>support. 38This has included efforts to overturn the position adopted
>by the National Organization of Jewish Community Relation
>Councils (NJCRAC), which endorsed a call for air strikes and the
>lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government.
Regarding what you've cited: this is a perfect example of the paranoia
and bias inherent in the document. They try to identify articles by
Lipson and Sherman as evidence of some grand conspiracy by the SUC,
concluding without a shred of genuine proof that these articles were
not independently generated by the people in question.
Throughout the document, they make the same assumption and the same
sort of categorical accusation: anyone writing an article which does
not fit their predetermined version of reality is obviously a tool of
the sinister machinations of the SUC. The establishment of actual
ties is unnecessary, and is rarely (if ever) achieved; the simple fact
of espousing the wrong view is evidence that the source is contaminated
by the SUC. This is typical of a totalitarian mindset.
By the way, courting Jewish (or any other) groups is not in and of
itself alarming. What is disgusting about Ruder Finn's position is
the outright manipulation and attempt to impose a Holocaust framework
on events, as outlined by Harff, and especially when considered in
conjunction with Harff's acknowledgement that they were knowingly
convincing Jewish groups to support anti-Semites.
>>Setting even that aside, the bias inherent in the report is evident
>>throughout. The author(s) base their worldview on several points:
>>that the Serbs were unilaterally to blame for events in the Balkans;
>>that they are genocidal monsters on the level of the Nazis; that all
>>allegations of "concentration camps" or "rape camps" must be taken as
>>gospel truth; and so on. These assumptions are presented without
>>proof, and their attacks on Serbian "revisionists" are based on the
>>disputing of precisely these assumed truths, thus begging the very
>>question at hand. In other words, anyone who does not fully endorse
>>the genocide/Nazi frame, championed by Ruder Finn and wholeheartedly
>>accepted by SAGE, is a "revisionist". Here's just one telling example
>>of their bias:
>>
>> A frequent tactic of the Serbian lobby is to begin public debates by
>> arguing that critically-minded people should recognize the existence
>> of political interests behind the production of information and thus
>> should be aware that 'truth' and 'objectivity' lie 'somewhere in the
>> middle.'
>
>Judgements made in the article about events in the recent wars are not
>particularly noteworthy.
They are the crux, plain and simple. The entire report is based on
the dynamic I've identified here, as I've shown with the section you
cited above as well. Concrete evidence of real connections or influence
is completely lacking.
>What is noteworthy is the description of
>organised lobbying on behalf of the Serbs, something whose existence
>you originally disputed.
No, I didn't dispute it. You need to read more closely and carefully.
No--has yours? It would seem so, since you're misrepresenting my
point so thoroughly yet again. The entire point is that SAGE did not
establish any such action on the part of the SUC; they merely ASSUME
that the SUC is responsible if a journalist, or anyone, espouses the
"wrong" opinion. No real evidence of a link is given. By contrast,
in the case of Ruder Finn, we have direct evidence of intervention--
in government, in the media, and elsewhere. And not just minor
intervention, but massive intervention.
The evidence of "healthy criticality" you're citing is the call for people
to consider both sides of the argument. I do indeed wholeheartedly and
unreservedly agree with this sentiment; and I would do so whether it was
proferred by the SUC, Ruder Finn, or Satan himself. You're conflating
this with my condemnation of Ruder Finn's attempts to SUPPRESS critical
thought by imposing an artificial Good Guys/Bad Guys framework, based
on the Holocaust. This is patently ridiculous, and your attempt to
equate these two positions is pure manipulation.
>>This also calls to mind the actions of the British government after
>>the Kosovo bombing, when it viciously attacked the British press with
>>accusations that the press had somehow supported the Serbs(!). That
>>such an accusation could be levelled with a straight face is nothing
>>short of comical, given the extraordinarily high level of fealty of
>>all the major British media I saw to the official line, but again, the
>>standard applied is one of TOTAL obedience.
>
>Not really. The Western press obsessed about civilian casualties.
>There would be a big fuss the next day following even the slightest
>incident in which a civilian was killed.
You're overstating this greatly; it certainly didn't upset the overall
propaganda frame. In any case, what you've said completely fails to
address the point I was raising, which was the nature of the British
government's attacks on the press for even the slight deviation from
the official line and claims that these deviations were motivated by
some desire to further Belgrade's cause (and the comparison to SAGE's
attacks, which follow the same pattern).
We don't need to make such radical inferences with regard to Ruder
Finn. We don't need to believe some marginal Serb source for our
facts. The evidence of their manipulation is direct, in the form of
confession, and verified, in the form of a third-party description
of their activities.
>>I've already given this tract far more attention than it deserves, so
>>I'll stop. The fact is that it goes nowhere near proving that Serb
>>efforts to put forward some (imagined) "revisionist" agenda are on a
>>par with Ruder Finn's efforts, described by Ruder Finn's own top
>>executive...as we can see ourselves by the paradigm which dominates
>>the media these days.
>
>I disagree. You have again adopted 'success' as the criterion of
>comparability. Success cannot be measured. In scale and in nature, the
>only true measures of comparability, the efforts on behalf of the
>Serbs were no different.
The handful of articles cited--most of which show no clear connection
to the SUC at all, as I've observed--do not come anywhere near comparing
to Ruder Finn's access to major media, including the Washington Post,
New York Times, CNN, AP, Reuters, the BBC, and so on, and so on, and
so on. Not to mention their placement of op-eds. Not to mention
their extraordinary involvement in organizing Congressional trips and
inquiries and affecting legislation. Efforts which earned them
recognition by CIPRA in the first place, a very direct and concrete
measure of success.
>>>>If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
>>>>by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
>>
>>I recall that as well. The fact that Alan would endorse a report which
>>is so biased, and which comes from such a clearly biased source--and
>>that he'd ally himself with a zealot of Barry's ilk--are among the reasons
>>that I feel he has lost almost any shred of objectivity.
>
>More personal attacks which completely ignore the content.
A simple statement of my opinion, actually.
>The fact that someone holds passionate views does not automatically
>invalidate their contributions.
Which is, yet again, not what I said nor what I meant. Should I assume
that your continual misrepresentation/misapprehension of my own views
should also be applied to other facts you cite?
A blindness to such obvious bias DOES invalidate someone's views, and
Alan's support of this document--especially coupled with his repeated
attacks on the transcript of Harff's DIRECT TESTIMONY--show me that he
lacks objectivity. I did not reach this conclusion because of this one
incident, but over lengthy observation. If Alan were truly objective,
his reaction to the Ruder Finn info presented here, which is far more
inclusive, damning, and reliable, should have matched (actually, far
outstripped) his reaction to the SAGE report we're discussing.
>I suggest you take a step back and look at
>yourself. You have complained about sinister efforts being made behind
>the scenes to thwart Serbian interests. When I have demonstrated to
>you exactly the same efforts being made behind the scenes to advance
>Serbian interests, you have casually dismissed it.
Ridiculous, unless you consider my extensive discussion of the
shortcomings of this propagandistic, biased, overstated, and
unverified report to be "casual".
- John
John Caruso
>>>It was something often cited by those opposed to the military action
>>>against Serbia. Whether they were swayed by it or not is another
>>>matter, though actually I believe many people were influenced by it
>>>initially.
>>
>>"Many people"? You mean generally, as in large populations?
>
>Yes, I think the idea of the Croats as fascists and Serbs as heroic
>warriors against fascism was one of those vague historical notions
>which lurked somewhere within the popular consciousness, influencing
>many people.
This is tremendously overstated. I won't speak for Britain, but in
the US the dominant framework in discussing the Balkans is and always
has been the Holocaust, with the Serbs the Nazis and everyone else the
innocent victims. Certainly the British press doesn't represent it
otherwise.
You're in the awkward position of simultaneously trying to argue that
Serbs-as-Nazis was NOT the dominant frame, as you are here, and arguing
that it was not only the dominant frame but was plainly obvious to
everyone, as you do later when you want to downplay Ruder Finn's efforts
to establish it. So tell me, which one is it? Or does your assessment
of the issue change depending on the utility of the interpretation for
whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment?
>>>However, so
>>>cold-bloodedly singling out a distinct ethnic and religious group for
>>>atrocity is not something that has occurred in Europe, on this scale,
>>>since the Second World War.
>>
>>The Turkish repression of Kurds dwarfs anything in Kosovo, actually...
>>yet the Turkish government is a member of NATO and is supported quite
>>directly by the US, militarily and otherwise.
>
>I haven't looked into this issue in detail so I'll refrain from
>comment except to say that whether Turkey is really part of Europe or
>not is at least a moot point.
Which could apply to Serbia just as well. I replied to this statement,
BTW, because it's almost a set piece of NATO propaganda, repeated in
many articles during NATO's bombing campaign--despite the fact that
it's completely inaccurate, as I noted below. Your version of it is
a virtual quote from articles I read during the bombing.
>Certainly most Europeans don't consider
>it to be such, and its culture is alien to most other European
>countries. In any case, the holocaust analogy is applied most
>vigorously in the case of Bosnia, not Kosova, and it was there that it
>evolved originally.
Your statement appeared to be directed at Kosovo because you specified
"group", singular, and for the reasons mentioned above; in any case,
that's how I read it. And the Holocaust frame was certainly applied
quite vigorously in the case of Kosovo, in the press, on TV, on Usenet,
and so on. It still is. The fact is that Turkish repression of Kurds
far outstrips the actions of Yugoslavia in Kosovo. I encourage you to
read this brief summary, which lays bare some of the extraordinary
hypocrisy of the Kosovo intervention:
http://www.fair.org/activism/kosovars-kurds.html
Then you and I have little common moral ground. I consider your
refusal to condemn Harff's comments, whatever their "triviality", to
be a poor reflection on your values, and evidence that you're too
married to your position to say anything which might damage it. This
is no different in principle from those Serbian apologists who claim
there were no atrocities by Serbian forces in Kosovo, or who try to
justify it.
>The analogy with the
>holocaust was obvious - people selected for their ethnicity and herded
>into prison camps (I mean how much more similar does it have to be
>before the use of the analogy is justified? Gas Showers?)
Prison camps are not concentration camps, or this analogy would apply
to every nation on earth. The defining element of the Holocaust was
the planned and coordinated attempt to exterminate all Jews, along with
other minorities and marginal populations. "Gas showers", or more
specifically acts of wholesale killing on a massive scale, are most
certainly required before the analogy is justified. Application of
the analogy before that point is nothing more than propaganda, and
the most potent form currently available (which is precisely why it's
so often employed).
>The difference between the holocaust and what the Serbs did was one of
>scale only, not of intent.
This is ludicrous. There was no coordinated Serb effort to exterminate
all other races in the Balkans, and saying that the "intent" was identical
indicates a striking lack of perspective. Why aren't you including the
Croatians and Bosnians in this sweeping judgement, for their own atrocities,
actions against civilians, prison camps, etc?
>As regards Ruder Finn, you are attempting
>to apportion moral blame on the basis of how successful someone was in
>achieving their intent. This is absurd.
No surprise that you'd say that, since as usual you're completely
misrepresenting what I've said. I specifically said that we could
"put aside all questions of effectiveness" in assessing the morality
of Harff's statements. You either missed that (despite the fact that
you QUOTED it in your reply), or you find this straw man a much easier
target than my actual comments.
>I have
>demonstrated to you that organised lobbying efforts were being made on
>behalf of the Serbs also.
You've presented an unconvincing propaganda tract from a Bosnia-related
group, which shows nowhere near the level of activity or pervasiveness,
and which is is filled with bias-driven judgements and unverified
assertions. The information cited regarding Ruder Finn is firsthand,
or provided by independent third parties.
>The intent behind those efforts was no
>different from the intent behind Ruder Finn's, therefore any moral
>culpability must be the same.
You've not in any way demonstrated the "intent", even if we consider
the SAGE report to be wholly accurate. Nothing attributed to the SUC
in that document comes anywhere near matching the cynical manipulation
represented in Harff's DIRECT statements.
>>>Even according to the text that you quote, the
>>>articles about the camps in Newsday appeared spontaneously. Ruder Finn
>>>did not create them. It simply took advantage of them afterwards.
>>
>>Point taken. However, their success in doing so, and in using those
>>stories to co-opt Jewish groups to support their position, is the crucial
>>issue.
>
>Their success in co-opting Jewish groups has yet to be demonstrated.
>Harff says he 'outwitted' them. What that means has not been
>explained.
It's quite clear from the interview, unless you're intentionally shutting
your eyes to it.
>I think these Jewish groups probably know a lot more about
>the holocaust than either you or I do so, if they decided the analogy
>was appropriate in relation to Bosnia,
....based on unverified news reports which asserted (falsely, it turns
out) the existence of Serb "concentration camps"--stories which were
immediately noticed and capitalized upon by Ruder Finn as they worked
to persuade those Jewish groups to organize demonstrations and place
advertisements condemning the Serbs. Followed then by Ruder Finn
disseminating the new "Holocaust" framework, and achieving penetration
in the press. The types of efforts which earned them an award from CIPRA.
>that's good enough for me.
I choose to think for myself. You can choose to shut your eyes to the
words on the page; I do not, and I trust that others reading Harff's
statements with an open mind will be as disgusted as I was.
>>I imagine, BTW, that Hill and Knowlton might have made a similar argument
>>about the Iraqi "incubator babies" story--i.e. they didn't create it,
>>they just distributed it. That doesn't take away from their spectacular
>>success at placing this ridiculous and fraudulent story so prominently,
>>to the point that it was endorsed by Amnesty International and was
>>mentioned in several speeches by Bush.
>
>This is a good point. Given what you have said about the holocaust
>metaphor and related demonisation of the Serbs propelling the entire
>Western crusade against them
Where do you get your supply of straw? You misrepresent my statements
almost faster than I can type them. I've specifically been showing
how one PR firm (and there may have been others) affected the nature
of public debate. I said nothing about them "propelling the entire
Western crusade", which is a ludicrous overstatement on your part.
It's important for people to see how pervasive, manipulative, cynical,
and concerted Ruder Finn's efforts were.
>would you seriously argue that this
>fabricated story about the incubators was what propelled the Western
>action againt Iraq?
No, but it was featured prominently, having been pointed out by Amnesty
International and mentioned in (reportedly) six speeches by George Bush.
Details like this are indeed crucial to demonizing an enemy and thereby
gaining public support for military intervention.
>That without it Saddam Hussein and Iraq would not
>have been 'demonised' in the way that they were and the war would not
>have taken place? Clearly not.
Clearly; other ridiculous stories would have been found, or manufactured.
In fact, part of Ruder Finn's success in disseminating the Holocaust
frame was undoubtedly because such a frame was useful to Western governments
(specifically the US). It probably wouldn't have gone far otherwise. This
is also a large part of why the ridiculous "incubator babies" story was so
successful--it suited US propaganda needs.
>Clearly, in the great scheme of things,
>it was nothing but a passing triviality, as was anything that Ruder
>Finn did in relation to the Serbs.
Nice try, but the fact that these stories could have been replaced
by others does not diminish the fact that they were NOT. These were
the stories used to sway public opinion, and they featured in debate
throughout the war. In the same way (more so, in fact), the faked
photos of Serb "concentration camps", staged to bring to mind images
of the Holocaust, were instrumental. The claims of "rape camps" were
instrumental, and the subsequent lack of evidence for them has had no
effect on their CONTINUED presence in news stories.
You want to dismiss Ruder Finn's activities because they damage your
position, but the documents speak for themselves. Ruder Finn had
extensive access at all levels of government, as well as to the global
media. We can't say with precision what the effect was, but even if
we look only at the explicit facts listed in the CIPRA citation, the
actions were far from "trivial".
- John
John Caruso
>>>>The article you've found (http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html),
>>>>though committed to paper by one Brad Blitz, is attributed to:
>>>>
>>>> Students Against GEnocide (SAGE)--Project Bosnia is a national
>>>> student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate
>>>> of the American Committee to Save Bosnia.
>>>>
>>>>This is an enormous flashing red light, particularly because this is
>>>>not simply cited material, but is an original text. Personally, I
>>>>never trust such documents from EITHER side;
>>>
>>>Another attempt to discredit a document with referring to any of its
>>>contents, and one that I don't accept.
>>
>>"Another" qualifies only if you're referring to Alan's attacks on the
>>Harff interview.
>
>that a document is invalid because it was written by a Croat, an
>Albanian, an American, someone who doesn't like Serbs, etc., seen
>already in Damian Martinovich's response to the same article in this
>thread.
So I take it you always believe everything you read from Tanjug, for
example? (I certainly don't, but apparently you'd consider anyone who
failed to do so an "apologist" of some stripe for questioning the
source....)
If you don't recognize the inherent bias of a group like SAGE, you're
asking to be misled. I recognize such bias in documents from both sides,
as I've already said. It does not dictate throwing out the documents
unread, but it dictates extreme caution; and as I already made clear,
the SAGE document falls down completely on its own merits. The source
simply explains why it fell down.
>I make my judgement of an article's credibility based on its contents
>not on some a priori rule about what is a respectable source and what
>isn't.
As do I--but you're a fool to ignore the source. I discussed the
contents, and have already clearly stated why they support the initial
suspicion of bias. Throughout the document, SAGE/Blitz fail to show
any causal connection between the SUC and the writings of people like
Phillips, Sherman, Brock, Lipton, et al. Their criteria for assuming
the connection is straightforward: they contradicted SAGE's party line,
so they must be "Serbian apologists" or tools of the SUC. This is a
ridiculous criterion to anyone with a shred of objectivity.
>Apparently the only standard of proof a Serbian apologist is willing
>to accept is a smoking gun with greasy fingerprints on it with a
>bloodstained shirt hanging in the wardrobe.
No surprise that you've descended to this level. Now I'm a "Serbian
apologist" because I refuse to accept such an unsupported, poorly
argued, and obviously biased report as gospel truth...you and the
SAGE people would get along famously.
>>>I believe the challenge originally posed was to produce evidence of
>>>organised lobbying efforts on behalf of the Serbs on a scale
>>>comparable to those of Ruder Finn. I have done that. You are now
>>>attempting to change the terms of the challenge to one of the
>>>'success' of those efforts.
>>
>>You've *quoted* what I actually said, above, and then misrepresented
>>it here. To wit:
>>
>> Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>> the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>> to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>> a comparison.
>>
>>You've found documentation; now we're comparing the nature and extent.
>>"Extent" in particular means "success",
>
>Absolute rubbish. No reasonable person would be this interpretation
>upon the word 'extent' as used in the original context. The 'success'
>is not a property of the effort but of the result of the effort. You
>are resorting to chicanery as the fact of your having been utterly
>refuted dawns increasingly upon you.
When all else fails, declare victory. You're obviously well-versed
in the more pathetic tactics of Usenet argument.
>>By the way, courting Jewish (or any other) groups is not in and of
>>itself alarming. What is disgusting about Ruder Finn's position is
>>the outright manipulation and attempt to impose a Holocaust framework
>>on events, as outlined by Harff, and especially when considered in
>>conjunction with Harff's acknowledgement that they were knowingly
>>convincing Jewish groups to support anti-Semites.
>
>You're misrepresenting what was said. He said of Tudjman "Reading his
>writings one could accuse him on anti-semitism". That is not the same
>thing as saying he was an anti-semite.
Let's see what you're conveniently leaving out: "Besides, the Croatian
and Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of
thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps, so there was every reason
for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile toward the
Croats and the Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude and
we succeeded masterfully."
>>The evidence of "healthy criticality" you're citing is the call for people
>>to consider both sides of the argument. I do indeed wholeheartedly and
>>unreservedly agree with this sentiment; and I would do so whether it was
>>proferred by the SUC, Ruder Finn, or Satan himself. You're conflating
>>this with my condemnation of Ruder Finn's attempts to SUPPRESS critical
>>thought by imposing an artificial Good Guys/Bad Guys framework, based
>>on the Holocaust. This is patently ridiculous, and your attempt to
>>equate these two positions is pure manipulation.
>
>What is ridiculous is your belief that good guy/bad guy framework was
>created by Ruder Finn and that it was intimately associated with the
>holocaust metaphor.
Yes, whenever you're cornered in a distortion you just change the
subject--yet another standard Usenet tactic.
>There are three parts to your argument:
>1/ Serbs were portrayed as the baddies.
>2/ They were portrayed as the baddies because the holocaust metaphor
>was used against them.
>3/ The holocaust metaphor was foisted upon the public mind by Ruder
>Finn.
>
>Rational people might accept part 1.
Only irrational people would argue it, actually.
>Parts 2 and 3 are simply preposterous.
Part 2 makes no sense, thanks to your poor wording; the only remotely
reasonable alternative I can come up with is "The Holocaust metaphor
was used to skew the terms of debate", which is explicitly described
by Harff and is plainly obvious to an open-minded person. Part 3 is
your typical over/misstatement of what I've said; Ruder Finn doesn't
necessarily get complete credit, but clearly the actions described
contributed to the acceptance of that propaganda frame--particularly
Ruder Finn's coopting of Jewish groups, as described by Harff.
>>The handful of articles cited--most of which show no clear connection
>>to the SUC at all, as I've observed--do not come anywhere near comparing
>>to Ruder Finn's access to major media, including the Washington Post,
>>New York Times, CNN, AP, Reuters, the BBC, and so on, and so on, and
>>so on. Not to mention their placement of op-eds. Not to mention
>>their extraordinary involvement in organizing Congressional trips and
>>inquiries and affecting legislation. Efforts which earned them
>>recognition by CIPRA in the first place, a very direct and concrete
>>measure of success.
>
>The two documents cited show comparable efforts made on behalf of the
>Serbs.
Not by any stretch. The SAGE document would only be alarming, and not
the laughable piece of pseudo-journalism that it is, to someone who's
predisposed to believe its overblown assertions. That's you, apparently.
Most of the activities described are decidedly underwhelming and typical
of advocacy groups, and it's only SAGE's hysterical attribution of an
SUC hand in everything which gives it any drama.
- John
John Caruso
>>You're in the awkward position of simultaneously trying to argue that
>>Serbs-as-Nazis was NOT the dominant frame, as you are here, and arguing
>>that it was not only the dominant frame but was plainly obvious to
>>everyone, as you do later when you want to downplay Ruder Finn's efforts
>>to establish it. So tell me, which one is it? Or does your assessment
>>of the issue change depending on the utility of the interpretation for
>>whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment?
>
>'frame'.
ROFL. You just asserted that "large populations" accepted the opposite
frame (Serbs as heroes, Croats as fascists); I went so far as to verify
it directly, since I couldn't believe you'd assert such a thing. Your
retreat now is noted.
>>Your statement appeared to be directed at Kosovo because you specified
>>"group", singular, and for the reasons mentioned above; in any case,
>>that's how I read it. And the Holocaust frame was certainly applied
>>quite vigorously in the case of Kosovo, in the press, on TV, on Usenet,
>>and so on. It still is. The fact is that Turkish repression of Kurds
>>far outstrips the actions of Yugoslavia in Kosovo. I encourage you to
>>read this brief summary, which lays bare some of the extraordinary
>>hypocrisy of the Kosovo intervention:
>>
>> http://www.fair.org/activism/kosovars-kurds.html
>
>The argument that we have not righted all the wrongs of the world
>therefore we cannot right this one is absurd.
Yes, just as your other straw men have been. So much easer to knock
down an argument after you distort it, isn't it?
The actual argument is that if the US or other governments actively
support ethnic cleansing and racial repression in one area, while
claiming to have a deep moral outrage about it elsewhere, we can
disregard these claimed noble motives as the manipulative BS that they
are. So the hypocrisy revealed by the Turkish example allows us to
discard the pretense of moral outrage used by NATO leaders, and look
instead for more likely motivations for intervention in Kosovo.
>>>>>>>>The URLs, again, are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/euro.htm#casting
>>>>>>>> http://www.prcentral.com/cipra/cipra96/c96kosova.htm
[...]
>>>>Again, I encourage everyone to visit the above URLs and judge for
>>>>themselves. I also ask you if you honestly believe Ruder Finn had
>>>>*no* effect, which is where you seem to be headed now. Assuming that's
>>>>not the case, we're just disagreeing about how much of an effect it was.
>>>>
>>>>And regarding what drew you into this thread initially: putting aside
>>>>all questions of effectiveness, I reiterate my feeling that any truly
>>>>moral person would not hesitate to condemn Harff's statements and the
>>>>tactics he describes. Anyone who cannot do that, or who avoids doing
>>>>so simply because they feel it would hurt their "position", is in my
>>>>view a moral coward. I don't feel the need to deny Yugoslav atrocities
>>>>in Kosovo to make my points, and I have no respect for anyone who does.
>>>>I consider this analogous, and a good litmus test of the objectivity
>>>>of those involved in the debate. Alan's refusal to respond to my direct
>>>>challenge on this point speaks volumes.
>>>
>>>It speaks volumes about your own flawed judgement on this matter. I
>>>also refuse to condemn it. There was nothing wrong with what Ruder
>>>Finn did and, in any case, it was a triviality.
>>
>>Then you and I have little common moral ground. I consider your
>>refusal to condemn Harff's comments, whatever their "triviality", to
>>be a poor reflection on your values, and evidence that you're too
>>married to your position to say anything which might damage it. This
>>is no different in principle from those Serbian apologists who claim
>>there were no atrocities by Serbian forces in Kosovo, or who try to
>>justify it.
>
>Total mince, my friend. You are the odd one out here. No one else
>agrees with the exaggerated importance you attribute to this alleged
>manipulation by Harff.
That's twice you've used the classic Usenet "when all else fails,
declare victory" tactic. And how quick you are to speak for everyone
else...mind reader, perhaps? Several posters have already agreed with
what I've said--more, I'd say, than have chimed in on your behalf. In
any case, my judgement stands. Your refusal to condemn the tactics
Harff describes shows that your moral outrage is highly selective, and
therefore invalid, in my view.
>>This is ludicrous. There was no coordinated Serb effort to exterminate
>>all other races in the Balkans, and saying that the "intent" was identical
>>indicates a striking lack of perspective.
>
>There was no co-ordinated Serb effort because the Serbs are too stupid
>to co-ordinate anything. The fact that their racial atrocites were,
>for the most part, unsystematic in nature, does not make them any less
>evil.
Oh...oh, ok. I hadn't realized you were so overtly racist, though
in retrospect it does explain a lot (your raving in your other posting
about me being a "Serbian apologist", for one thing). There's no need
for further discussion, though I'll answer your one direct question,
since it may have actually been sincere:
>>....based on unverified news reports which asserted (falsely, it turns
>>out)
>
>So you deny that there were concentration camps? The famous photograph
>from one of the camps has been shown to have been used misleadingly on
>occasion but there is surely no doubt that concentration camps did
>exist elsewhere. Several Serbs have been convicted at the ICTY for
>their actions in these camps.
"Concentration camps" is a highly emotive term, associated directly
with "death camps" in public discourse, and typically used to evoke
Holocaust connections. So to answer your question: concentration
camps in the Nazi sense? Absolutely not. I've seen no evidence that
such camps existed. Detention camps, especially ones like Trnopolje,
do not come near to fitting the description, and they're an almost
inevitable feature of civil wars. As far as I know, all sides in the
Balkan wars had such camps, yet it's the Serbs who are particularly
singled out as having run "concentration camps"...and this is a perfect
example of the pervasiveness of the ABUSE of Holocaust terminology and
imagery which has dominated the debate over Yugoslavia, and which has
been championed by firms like Ruder Finn.
- John
R.V. Gronoff
"Darko Peric" <dpe...@sprint.ca> a écrit dans le message news:
YCbj4.11066$MI4.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
> R.V. Gronoff wrote in message <86iskm$2q2p$1...@news4.isdnet.net>...
> >
> >"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> >388a255b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
> >> esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip evil lies>
> >>
> >> >"GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out). We look at the
> >> >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
> >> >forget to question the input, the reality.
> >> >
> >> The reality is Srebenica you sick little fuck. The input is
> >> systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
> >>
> >
> >There was another ethnic cleansing happening in Croatia too.
> >Of course, mediatic Croatia couldn't afford mass-murdering all their
> Serbs.
> >They just brutalized them enough to have them want to escape to Serbia.
> >I don't know when the world will realize that ALL the sides in this
> f*@$%
> >war have their butchers and their good people.
> >
>
>
> Darko: When did he say this?
>
Did Tudjman chase more Croatian Serbs away than Pavelic murdered ?
Yes or no, it's simple.
>
> >
> >And Republika Srpska (with Montenegro and Macedonia) is, today, the
> ONLY
> >place in former-Yugoslavia that is fully multi-ethnic.
>
>
> Darko: Republika Srpska? What are you smoking? Do you know the
> population stats?
>
>
And what about FYROM and Montenegro, that belong to Serbia ?
>
> >All the others (except Slovenia maybe) are based on a tribal, ethnic
> and
> >FASCIST idea of the nation.
>
>
>
> Darko: Why is Croatia full of Italians, Czechs, Slovaks,
> Ukrainians, Slovenes, Magyars, Germans, etc.?
>
Because, 50 years ago, all of these nations were fascist...
Tell me about the Jews, Gypsies and Serbs of Croatia. Where are they ?
esrevnI eilrahC
> 388a255b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
> > esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip evil lies>
> >
> > >"GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out). We look at the
> > >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
> > >forget to question the input, the reality.
> > >
> > The reality is Srebenica you sick little fuck. The input is
> > systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
> >
>
> There was another ethnic cleansing happening in Croatia too.
> Of course, mediatic Croatia couldn't afford mass-murdering all their
Serbs.
> They just brutalized them enough to have them want to escape to
Serbia.
> I don't know when the world will realize that ALL the sides in this
f*@$%
> war have their butchers and their good people.
>
> Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than
Pavelic !
>
> and Macedonia) is, today, the ONLY
> place in former-Yugoslavia that is
> fully multi-ethnic.
> are based on a tribal, ethnic and
> FASCIST idea of the nation.
>
of "Western Civilization" -- aligns itself
with the fascists and the tribalists. Once I
might have found this extremely odd -- that
the civilization of Washington and Jefferson
and Thomas Paine and John Locke and Montesquieu
and Voltaire could so debase itself. Now, it
no longer surprises me -- simply put, our mass
apathy has enabled the gangsters to take over
and steal our patrimony.
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <m5nu8sopf0cfvvi6t...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>>>>Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>>>>>the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>>>>>to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>>>>>a comparison.
>>>>.
>>>>>There was a very long article posted here [soc.culture.yugoslavia]
>>>>>before about the activities of the Serbian Unity Congress and the
>>>>>'Greek lobby' in the U.S.
>>>
>>>The article you've found (http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html),
>>>though committed to paper by one Brad Blitz, is attributed to:
>>>
>>> Students Against GEnocide (SAGE)--Project Bosnia is a national
>>> student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate
>>> of the American Committee to Save Bosnia.
>>>
>>>This is an enormous flashing red light, particularly because this is
>>>not simply cited material, but is an original text. Personally, I
>>>never trust such documents from EITHER side;
>>
>>Another attempt to discredit a document with referring to any of its
>>contents, and one that I don't accept.
>
>"Another" qualifies only if you're referring to Alan's attacks on the
>Harff interview.
No, it refers to a typical tactic of the Serbian apologist: saying
that a document is invalid because it was written by a Croat, an
Albanian, an American, someone who doesn't like Serbs, etc., seen
already in Damian Martinovich's response to the same article in this
thread.
> That was a simple transcript of a French TV interview,
>presented by non-participants, and highly verifiable; the SAGE report,
>on the other hand, is an ORIGINAL document, generated by a partisan
>group with very direct connections to the issue, and filled with claims
>which are attributed to (among other things) "personal correspondence"
>and "private meetings and forums"...all unverifiable. If you choose to
>get your "facts" from places like this, you're asking to be misinformed.
I make my judgement of an article's credibility based on its contents
not on some a priori rule about what is a respectable source and what
isn't. I find much of the SAGE document's content compelling and
credible and I am confident that most rational people will do the
same. Usually, Serbian apologists like to discredit personal testimony
as a credible source, particularly when it comes from the victims of
Serbian atrocities. Now you have elevated it to highest degree of
respectability. Most of us will be somewhat sceptical when a man
tells us how great he is at doing his job. He has a direct, personal
interest in doing so while the authors of the SAGE document do not.
>
>In any case, I addressed the contents at length, as you know.
No, you didn't. You casually dismissed them, referring mainly to the
moral and historical judgements made in the document rather than its
description of organised lobbying on behalf of the Serbs.
> I do
>not accept original documents of this type from Serb sources as being
>in any way unbiased, or a basis for debate; neither will I accept those
>from such clearly biased sources as the "Students Against GEnocide--
>Project Bosnia" or "American Committee to Save Bosnia". It would be
>foolish to do otherwise.
Apparently the only standard of proof a Serbian apologist is willing
to accept is a smoking gun with greasy fingerprints on it with a
bloodstained shirt hanging in the wardrobe. The rest of us know that
such rigorous proof is rarely available. Each of us is exposed to
innumerable sources of information from people and organisations each
with innumerable hidden agendas and ulterior interests and
motivations. Most of us are content to navigate this info-ocean using
our judgement alone, not setting cast-iron criteria which, if not met,
must mean that a source forfeits all claim to credibility.
Absolute rubbish. No reasonable person would be this interpretation
upon the word 'extent' as used in the original context. The 'success'
is not a property of the effort but of the result of the effort. You
are resorting to chicanery as the fact of your having been utterly
refuted dawns increasingly upon you.
>since the success of such a
>campaign is measured by how widely it is disseminated and how well
>the chosen frame of reference penetrates the popular mindset. Ruder
>Finn's chosen frame clearly reigns supreme in this comparison.
>
>>As I have observed, the success can never
>>be measured because we cannot know how things would have developed if
>>the propaganda efforts had not been made.
>
>Yes, but by this criterion we can never know anything, and hence should
>stop discussing any of these issues.
Good idea.
> Ruder Finn's efforts, along with
>Harff's comments, speak for themselves, and their success is evidenced
>by the character of public opinion and certainly by the fact that they
>were *rewarded* by a PR organization for the efficacy of their campaign.
>
>>The Blitz document lists
>>access gained through P.R. companies to both media and political
>>organisations. This was one aspect of what you found so sinister in
>>the case of Ruder Finn.
>
>The access listed is paltry by comparison, and does not reflect the
>type of manipulation put forward by Harff. And you continue to
>misunderstand me; simple efforts at access are not in themselves
>nefarious. Ruder Finn's specific tactics, however, WERE--as was their
>extremely high level of penetration, which dwarfs anything listed in
>this document (which continually overstates the impact of the SUC et
>al's efforts, as I already said).
I am confident that no rational and objective person examining all of
the documents cited will support this conclusion.
>
>>Quote:
>>The SUC has used public relations firms (Manatos and Manatos,
>>McDermott O'Neill and Associates, David Keene and Associates), in
>>order to grant their leaders and paid representatives access to
>>television and radio interviews, congressional sub-committee hearings
>>and U.N. sponsored commissions.
>
>First of all, every "fact" in this document is suspect because of the
>source, and this applies to every statement you've cited. I won't
>repeat this throughout, but consider it read.
>
>Harff's statements are creditable precisely because they come from the
>horse's mouth, and NOT from those with a vested stake.
A man telling us how great he is at his job and how great his company
is at getting results has a vested stake. An American writing about a
conflict thousands of miles away has none.
> What you've
>quoted is not independently verifiable, unlike the case of Ruder Finn
>where we have direct verification from CIPRA, a third party with no
>stake in the Balkans.
In my view the Ruder Finn efforts were less sinister for being above
board and reported on freely, while the SUC manipulations were clearly
more furtive in nature.
> We also have no indication of the nature or
>extent of these actions; attending a public sub-committee hearing is
>meaningless in and of itself, unlike the case of Ruder Finn where we
>can read that they actually *organized* such hearings. The one thing
>we do know is that--assuming the SUC efforts described here actually
>occurred--they were spectacularly unsuccessful, as evidenced by the
>international stance against the Serbs.
They were unsuccessful because their point of view bore so little
relation to truth.
You're misrepresenting what was said. He said of Tudjman "Reading his
writings one could accuse him on anti-semitism". That is not the same
thing as saying he was an anti-semite.
>
We have reports of meetings and interviews with journalists and
politicians. Big deal. There is nothing sinister in this.
>
>The evidence of "healthy criticality" you're citing is the call for people
>to consider both sides of the argument. I do indeed wholeheartedly and
>unreservedly agree with this sentiment; and I would do so whether it was
>proferred by the SUC, Ruder Finn, or Satan himself. You're conflating
>this with my condemnation of Ruder Finn's attempts to SUPPRESS critical
>thought by imposing an artificial Good Guys/Bad Guys framework, based
>on the Holocaust. This is patently ridiculous, and your attempt to
>equate these two positions is pure manipulation.
What is ridiculous is your belief that good guy/bad guy framework was
created by Ruder Finn and that it was intimately associated with the
holocaust metaphor. There are three parts to your argument:
1/ Serbs were portrayed as the baddies.
2/ They were portrayed as the baddies because the holocaust metaphor
was used against them.
3/ The holocaust metaphor was foisted upon the public mind by Ruder
Finn.
Rational people might accept part 1. Parts 2 and 3 are simply
preposterous.
>
The two documents cited show comparable efforts made on behalf of the
Serbs. Your access to major media is really just booking some Albanian
representative for an interview slot on CNN. There is nothing sinister
in this.
>
>>>>>If I remember correctly it was posted here originally
>>>>>by Barry Marjanovich and I believe Alan replied, thanking him for it.
>>>
>>>I recall that as well. The fact that Alan would endorse a report which
>>>is so biased, and which comes from such a clearly biased source--and
>>>that he'd ally himself with a zealot of Barry's ilk--are among the reasons
>>>that I feel he has lost almost any shred of objectivity.
>>
>>More personal attacks which completely ignore the content.
>
>A simple statement of my opinion, actually.
>
>>The fact that someone holds passionate views does not automatically
>>invalidate their contributions.
>
>Which is, yet again, not what I said nor what I meant. Should I assume
>that your continual misrepresentation/misapprehension of my own views
>should also be applied to other facts you cite?
You can assume whatever you like.
>
>A blindness to such obvious bias DOES invalidate someone's views, and
>Alan's support of this document--especially coupled with his repeated
>attacks on the transcript of Harff's DIRECT TESTIMONY--show me that he
>lacks objectivity. I did not reach this conclusion because of this one
>incident, but over lengthy observation. If Alan were truly objective,
>his reaction to the Ruder Finn info presented here, which is far more
>inclusive, damning, and reliable, should have matched (actually, far
>outstripped) his reaction to the SAGE report we're discussing.
No doubt it would have if he were a blind fool who cast aside his own
critical faculties in favour of rule-of-thumb measures about which
sources were credible and which were not.
>
>>I suggest you take a step back and look at
>>yourself. You have complained about sinister efforts being made behind
>>the scenes to thwart Serbian interests. When I have demonstrated to
>>you exactly the same efforts being made behind the scenes to advance
>>Serbian interests, you have casually dismissed it.
>
>Ridiculous, unless you consider my extensive discussion of the
>shortcomings of this propagandistic, biased, overstated, and
>unverified report to be "casual".
I do.
>
>- John
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <pmlu8s80pk7tdmu04...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>>It was something often cited by those opposed to the military action
>>>>against Serbia. Whether they were swayed by it or not is another
>>>>matter, though actually I believe many people were influenced by it
>>>>initially.
>>>
>>>"Many people"? You mean generally, as in large populations?
>>
>>Yes, I think the idea of the Croats as fascists and Serbs as heroic
>>warriors against fascism was one of those vague historical notions
>>which lurked somewhere within the popular consciousness, influencing
>>many people.
>
>This is tremendously overstated. I won't speak for Britain, but in
>the US the dominant framework in discussing the Balkans is and always
>has been the Holocaust, with the Serbs the Nazis and everyone else the
>innocent victims. Certainly the British press doesn't represent it
>otherwise.
>
>You're in the awkward position of simultaneously trying to argue that
>Serbs-as-Nazis was NOT the dominant frame, as you are here, and arguing
>that it was not only the dominant frame but was plainly obvious to
>everyone, as you do later when you want to downplay Ruder Finn's efforts
>to establish it. So tell me, which one is it? Or does your assessment
>of the issue change depending on the utility of the interpretation for
>whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment?
First of all I haven't argued that Serbs-as-Nazis wasn't the dominant
'frame'. Second, I think your whole theme about 'dominant frames' is
ridiculous and overblown. If you are telling me that Serbs were
portrayed as the bad guys I will accept that. There is no need to
over-elaborate and talk constantly about the 'holocaust metaphor'.
Third, in my view, the competing 'reference frames', if we are to use
this terminology, co-existed. The one featuring the Serbs as baddies
clearly came to dominate but the other still exists nonetheless.
Fourth, the statement above about the dominant popular view of the
Serbs as being anti-fascist heroes was meant to refer only to the
period before the recent wars really got going and during their early
stages. The course of events changed peoples' minds.
The argument that we have not righted all the wrongs of the world
therefore we cannot right this one is absurd.
>
The evidence of manipulation is not there. You have a report of people
being placed for interviews, a few op-ed articles appearing in the
press (in other words something that quite openly comes from a
partisan source), attending government meetings, etc. . There is
nothing sinister here except to the mind of a fantasist. If there was
anything sinister in it, it would not have been reported in public.
Most of the activities reported correspond to the role a personal
assistant would play for an actor or musician, booking their hotels
and so forth.
>>>
>>>Again, I encourage everyone to visit the above URLs and judge for
>>>themselves. I also ask you if you honestly believe Ruder Finn had
>>>*no* effect, which is where you seem to be headed now. Assuming that's
>>>not the case, we're just disagreeing about how much of an effect it was.
>>>
>>>And regarding what drew you into this thread initially: putting aside
>>>all questions of effectiveness, I reiterate my feeling that any truly
>>>moral person would not hesitate to condemn Harff's statements and the
>>>tactics he describes. Anyone who cannot do that, or who avoids doing
>>>so simply because they feel it would hurt their "position", is in my
>>>view a moral coward. I don't feel the need to deny Yugoslav atrocities
>>>in Kosovo to make my points, and I have no respect for anyone who does.
>>>I consider this analogous, and a good litmus test of the objectivity
>>>of those involved in the debate. Alan's refusal to respond to my direct
>>>challenge on this point speaks volumes.
>>
>>It speaks volumes about your own flawed judgement on this matter. I
>>also refuse to condemn it. There was nothing wrong with what Ruder
>>Finn did and, in any case, it was a triviality.
>
>Then you and I have little common moral ground. I consider your
>refusal to condemn Harff's comments, whatever their "triviality", to
>be a poor reflection on your values, and evidence that you're too
>married to your position to say anything which might damage it. This
>is no different in principle from those Serbian apologists who claim
>there were no atrocities by Serbian forces in Kosovo, or who try to
>justify it.
Total mince, my friend. You are the odd one out here. No one else
agrees with the exaggerated importance you attribute to this alleged
manipulation by Harff.
>
>>The analogy with the
>>holocaust was obvious - people selected for their ethnicity and herded
>>into prison camps (I mean how much more similar does it have to be
>>before the use of the analogy is justified? Gas Showers?)
>
>Prison camps are not concentration camps, or this analogy would apply
>to every nation on earth.
That depends on the definition.
>The defining element of the Holocaust was
>the planned and coordinated attempt to exterminate all Jews, along with
>other minorities and marginal populations.
And the extermination was preceded by the victims being selected
because of their religion or ethnicity and herded into camps, where
they were often subjected to atrocities. All of this happened in
Bosnia.
> "Gas showers", or more
>specifically acts of wholesale killing on a massive scale, are most
>certainly required before the analogy is justified. Application of
>the analogy before that point is nothing more than propaganda, and
>the most potent form currently available (which is precisely why it's
>so often employed).
>
>>The difference between the holocaust and what the Serbs did was one of
>>scale only, not of intent.
>
>This is ludicrous. There was no coordinated Serb effort to exterminate
>all other races in the Balkans, and saying that the "intent" was identical
>indicates a striking lack of perspective.
There was no co-ordinated Serb effort because the Serbs are too stupid
to co-ordinate anything. The fact that their racial atrocites were,
for the most part, unsystematic in nature, does not make them any less
evil.
> Why aren't you including the
>Croatians and Bosnians in this sweeping judgement, for their own atrocities,
>actions against civilians, prison camps, etc?
>
>>As regards Ruder Finn, you are attempting
>>to apportion moral blame on the basis of how successful someone was in
>>achieving their intent. This is absurd.
>
>No surprise that you'd say that, since as usual you're completely
>misrepresenting what I've said. I specifically said that we could
>"put aside all questions of effectiveness" in assessing the morality
>of Harff's statements.
You described Harff's actions as despicable.
I demonstrated similar actions on the part of the Serbian lobbyists.
You did not condemn these latter actions in a similar way, apparently
because they were not as successful in having their 'reference frame'
accepted.
>You either missed that (despite the fact that
>you QUOTED it in your reply), or you find this straw man a much easier
>target than my actual comments.
>
>>I have
>>demonstrated to you that organised lobbying efforts were being made on
>>behalf of the Serbs also.
>
>You've presented an unconvincing propaganda tract from a Bosnia-related
>group, which shows nowhere near the level of activity or pervasiveness,
>and which is is filled with bias-driven judgements and unverified
>assertions. The information cited regarding Ruder Finn is firsthand,
>or provided by independent third parties.
I disagree but I believe we have fully stated our differences on the
matter and there is no point in continuing to do so. I am content to
leave the matter to be judged by other objective readers of the
thread, if there are any.
>
>>The intent behind those efforts was no
>>different from the intent behind Ruder Finn's, therefore any moral
>>culpability must be the same.
>
>You've not in any way demonstrated the "intent", even if we consider
>the SAGE report to be wholly accurate. Nothing attributed to the SUC
>in that document comes anywhere near matching the cynical manipulation
>represented in Harff's DIRECT statements.
>
>>>>Even according to the text that you quote, the
>>>>articles about the camps in Newsday appeared spontaneously. Ruder Finn
>>>>did not create them. It simply took advantage of them afterwards.
>>>
>>>Point taken. However, their success in doing so, and in using those
>>>stories to co-opt Jewish groups to support their position, is the crucial
>>>issue.
>>
>>Their success in co-opting Jewish groups has yet to be demonstrated.
>>Harff says he 'outwitted' them. What that means has not been
>>explained.
>
>It's quite clear from the interview, unless you're intentionally shutting
>your eyes to it.
>
>>I think these Jewish groups probably know a lot more about
>>the holocaust than either you or I do so, if they decided the analogy
>>was appropriate in relation to Bosnia,
>
>....based on unverified news reports which asserted (falsely, it turns
>out)
So you deny that there were concentration camps? The famous photograph
from one of the camps has been shown to have been used misleadingly on
occasion but there is surely no doubt that concentration camps did
exist elsewhere. Several Serbs have been convicted at the ICTY for
their actions in these camps.
>the existence of Serb "concentration camps"--stories which were
>immediately noticed and capitalized upon by Ruder Finn as they worked
>to persuade those Jewish groups to organize demonstrations and place
>advertisements condemning the Serbs. Followed then by Ruder Finn
>disseminating the new "Holocaust" framework, and achieving penetration
>in the press. The types of efforts which earned them an award from CIPRA.
The award from CIPRA was for Kosova, not Bosnia.
>
>>that's good enough for me.
>
>I choose to think for myself. You can choose to shut your eyes to the
>words on the page; I do not, and I trust that others reading Harff's
>statements with an open mind will be as disgusted as I was.
I trust that others reading your words with an open mind will be as
amused as I am by your absurd indignation.
>
>>>I imagine, BTW, that Hill and Knowlton might have made a similar argument
>>>about the Iraqi "incubator babies" story--i.e. they didn't create it,
>>>they just distributed it. That doesn't take away from their spectacular
>>>success at placing this ridiculous and fraudulent story so prominently,
>>>to the point that it was endorsed by Amnesty International and was
>>>mentioned in several speeches by Bush.
>>
>>This is a good point. Given what you have said about the holocaust
>>metaphor and related demonisation of the Serbs propelling the entire
>>Western crusade against them
>
>Where do you get your supply of straw? You misrepresent my statements
>almost faster than I can type them. I've specifically been showing
>how one PR firm (and there may have been others) affected the nature
>of public debate. I said nothing about them "propelling the entire
>Western crusade", which is a ludicrous overstatement on your part.
>It's important for people to see how pervasive, manipulative, cynical,
>and concerted Ruder Finn's efforts were.
If they were so pervasive, manipulative, cynical, etc. they must have
had a significant effect on Western public opinion and consequently
led to the actions the West subsequently took agains the Serbs so I do
not believe 'propelling the entire Western crusade' is a significant
misrepresentation of your meaning.
Undocumented. The only thing documented is that President and Prime
Minister of Kosova had interviews with journalists from these media
organisations while they were visiting the United States. Big deal.
Most Presidents and Prime Ministers can get similar 'access'. Ruder
Finn were the people who ordered the limousines to drive them to the
studio. Nothing sinister here, except to a fantasist.
>We can't say with precision what the effect was, but even if
>we look only at the explicit facts listed in the CIPRA citation, the
>actions were far from "trivial".
Sure. And how many Americans had heard of Kosova in 1996, when the
award was given?
>
>- John
Milan Budimirovic
> >>I haven't looked into this issue in detail so I'll refrain from
> >>comment except to say that whether Turkey is really part of Europe or
> >>not is at least a moot point.
> >
The point is that Yugoslavia got bombed for making war on its ethnic
Albanians while Turkey is doing exactly the same thing to its Kurds on a
much more massive scale, and yet it is being armed to the teeth by the
US and is being admitted to the EU. The only thing absurd is the level
of hypocrisy to which the US and the EU (and you for that matter) have
stooped.
> The evidence of manipulation is not there. You have a report of people
> being placed for interviews, a few op-ed articles appearing in the
> press (in other words something that quite openly comes from a
> partisan source), attending government meetings, etc. . There is
> nothing sinister here except to the mind of a fantasist. If there was
> anything sinister in it, it would not have been reported in public.
> Most of the activities reported correspond to the role a personal
> assistant would play for an actor or musician, booking their hotels
> and so forth.
Now it's you who is attacking the source of the argument instead of the
argument itself.
> Total mince, my friend. You are the odd one out here. No one else
> agrees with the exaggerated importance you attribute to this alleged
> manipulation by Harff.
> >
I agree with it. There goes your theory. In any case it's an argumentum
ad populum. How many people agree with him is immaterial to the truth of
his claim.
> And the extermination was preceded by the victims being selected
> because of their religion or ethnicity and herded into camps, where
> they were often subjected to atrocities. All of this happened in
> Bosnia.
It was an ethnic war. Ethnicity was what separated the three sides. Of
course most of the Serbs' prisoners were Muslims and Croats. What else
would you expect? It's hardly the same thing as the Nazi's singling out
the Jews for extermination.
> > "Gas showers", or more
> >specifically acts of wholesale killing on a massive scale, are most
> >certainly required before the analogy is justified. Application of
> >the analogy before that point is nothing more than propaganda, and
> >the most potent form currently available (which is precisely why it's
> >so often employed).
> >
> >>The difference between the holocaust and what the Serbs did was one of
> >>scale only, not of intent.
> >
> >This is ludicrous. There was no coordinated Serb effort to exterminate
> >all other races in the Balkans, and saying that the "intent" was identical
> >indicates a striking lack of perspective.
> There was no co-ordinated Serb effort because the Serbs are too stupid
> to co-ordinate anything. The fact that their racial atrocites were,
> for the most part, unsystematic in nature, does not make them any less
> evil.
Now you're stooping to racist ad hominem arguments. You're losing it
PacBoy.
PacMan
<milan.bu...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >This is ludicrous. There was no coordinated Serb effort to exterminate
>> >all other races in the Balkans, and saying that the "intent" was identical
>> >indicates a striking lack of perspective.
>> There was no co-ordinated Serb effort because the Serbs are too stupid
>> to co-ordinate anything. The fact that their racial atrocites were,
>> for the most part, unsystematic in nature, does not make them any less
>> evil.
>
>Now you're stooping to racist ad hominem arguments. You're losing it
>PacBoy.
You never had it to lose.
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <vd9v8s0trnok198kn...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>You're in the awkward position of simultaneously trying to argue that
>>>Serbs-as-Nazis was NOT the dominant frame, as you are here, and arguing
>>>that it was not only the dominant frame but was plainly obvious to
>>>everyone, as you do later when you want to downplay Ruder Finn's efforts
>>>to establish it. So tell me, which one is it? Or does your assessment
>>>of the issue change depending on the utility of the interpretation for
>>>whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment?
>>
>>First of all I haven't argued that Serbs-as-Nazis wasn't the dominant
>>'frame'.
>
>ROFL. You just asserted that "large populations" accepted the opposite
>frame (Serbs as heroes, Croats as fascists); I went so far as to verify
>it directly, since I couldn't believe you'd assert such a thing. Your
>retreat now is noted.
There is no retreat - only a misunderstanding on your part which has
now been clarified. The opposite view was the one generally held
before the recent conflicts established another.
I have not expressed moral outrage at the propaganda tactics of either
side so my moral outrage is not highly selective at all. It is
non-existent.
>
>>>This is ludicrous. There was no coordinated Serb effort to exterminate
>>>all other races in the Balkans, and saying that the "intent" was identical
>>>indicates a striking lack of perspective.
>>
>>There was no co-ordinated Serb effort because the Serbs are too stupid
>>to co-ordinate anything. The fact that their racial atrocites were,
>>for the most part, unsystematic in nature, does not make them any less
>>evil.
>
>Oh...oh, ok. I hadn't realized you were so overtly racist, though
>in retrospect it does explain a lot (your raving in your other posting
>about me being a "Serbian apologist"
You are arguing in defence of the Serbs. How can you possibly dispute
that you are a Serbian apologist?
>, for one thing). There's no need
>for further discussion, though I'll answer your one direct question,
>since it may have actually been sincere:
>
>>>....based on unverified news reports which asserted (falsely, it turns
>>>out)
>>
>>So you deny that there were concentration camps? The famous photograph
>>from one of the camps has been shown to have been used misleadingly on
>>occasion but there is surely no doubt that concentration camps did
>>exist elsewhere. Several Serbs have been convicted at the ICTY for
>>their actions in these camps.
>
>"Concentration camps" is a highly emotive term, associated directly
>with "death camps" in public discourse, and typically used to evoke
>Holocaust connections. So to answer your question: concentration
>camps in the Nazi sense?
>Absolutely not. I've seen no evidence that
>such camps existed. Detention camps, especially ones like Trnopolje,
Actually, from what I've read, Trnopolje wasn't even a detention camp
if you mean by that a place where people were held against their will.
>do not come near to fitting the description, and they're an almost
>inevitable feature of civil wars. As far as I know, all sides in the
>Balkan wars had such camps, yet it's the Serbs who are particularly
>singled out as having run "concentration camps"
Because they had more of them than anyone else.
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <k86v8s4890357fv76...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>>>The article you've found (http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html),
>>>>>though committed to paper by one Brad Blitz, is attributed to:
>>>>>
>>>>> Students Against GEnocide (SAGE)--Project Bosnia is a national
>>>>> student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate
>>>>> of the American Committee to Save Bosnia.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is an enormous flashing red light, particularly because this is
>>>>>not simply cited material, but is an original text. Personally, I
>>>>>never trust such documents from EITHER side;
>>>>
>>>>Another attempt to discredit a document with referring to any of its
>>>>contents, and one that I don't accept.
>>>
>>>"Another" qualifies only if you're referring to Alan's attacks on the
>>>Harff interview.
>>
>>No, it refers to a typical tactic of the Serbian apologist: saying
>>that a document is invalid because it was written by a Croat, an
>>Albanian, an American, someone who doesn't like Serbs, etc., seen
>>already in Damian Martinovich's response to the same article in this
>>thread.
>
>So I take it you always believe everything you read from Tanjug, for
>example?
No, but nor do I automatically dismiss it.
Anyone who argues in defence of the Serbs is a Serbian apologist.
The Croatian and Bosnian past? So Croats and Bosnians are anti-semites
because of the actions of their ancestors? And you accused me of
racism?
So you're a mind-reader too?
Darko Peric
R.V. Gronoff wrote in message <86o6o2$1pj0$1...@news6.isdnet.net>...
>
>"Darko Peric" <dpe...@sprint.ca> a écrit dans le message news:
>YCbj4.11066$MI4.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>>
>> R.V. Gronoff wrote in message <86iskm$2q2p$1...@news4.isdnet.net>...
>> >
>> >388a255b...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
>> >> esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip evil lies>
>> >>
>> >> >"GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out). We look at the
>> >> >"logic", which seems superficially convincing, and we
>> >> >forget to question the input, the reality.
>> >> >
>> >> The reality is Srebenica you sick little fuck. The input is
>> >> systematic ethnic cleansing. Documented. Cunt.
>> >>
>> >
>> >There was another ethnic cleansing happening in Croatia too.
>> >Of course, mediatic Croatia couldn't afford mass-murdering all their
>> Serbs.
>> >They just brutalized them enough to have them want to escape to
Serbia.
>> >I don't know when the world will realize that ALL the sides in this
>> f*@$%
>> >war have their butchers and their good people.
>> >
>> >Tudjman once said he was proud that he got rid of more Serbs than
>> Pavelic !
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Did Tudjman chase more Croatian Serbs away than Pavelic murdered ?
>Yes or no, it's simple.
Darko: You said he said it and now you're backtracking. You lied
Gronoff.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >And Republika Srpska (with Montenegro and Macedonia) is, today, the
>> ONLY
>> >place in former-Yugoslavia that is fully multi-ethnic.
>>
>>
>> Darko: Republika Srpska? What are you smoking? Do you know the
>> population stats?
>>
>>
>
>And what about FYROM and Montenegro, that belong to Serbia ?
Darko: You're not making sense. Republika Srpska is the Serb half
of BiH and it is a para-state founded on successful ethnic cleansing.
>
>>
>> >All the others (except Slovenia maybe) are based on a tribal, ethnic
>> and
>> >FASCIST idea of the nation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Darko: Why is Croatia full of Italians, Czechs, Slovaks,
>> Ukrainians, Slovenes, Magyars, Germans, etc.?
>>
>
>Because, 50 years ago, all of these nations were fascist...
Darko: Czechs fascist? No. Italians had a antifascist resistance
as did the Slovenes and Ukrainians....
>
>Tell me about the Jews, Gypsies and Serbs of Croatia. Where are they ?
Darko: There are 40,000 Jews in Croatia today. Davor Stern
(ex-minister of Finance with HDZ) and Ivo Goldstein (member of the LS)
are its most noted members. Both are firm supporters of Croatia's
independence.
There are some 20,000 Gypsies who are located in the major urban
centres. Go to I think Pescenice in Zagreb and you will see many. They
prefer to be called Romi (the leader of the Croatian Romi said that
Croatia has no Gypsies since all the Gypsies are in Belgrade).
Croatia has many Serbs, some 200,000. Many live in Zagreb, Rijeka,
Istra, and Eastern Slavonija. 65,000 have returned since the end of
Oluja.
Marko Njavro
----------
In article <aSRj4.14814$MI4.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Darko Peric"
<dpe...@sprint.ca> wrote:
<snip>
You're trying to talk sense into a Russkie dipshit? Can't be done.
>>Tell me about the Jews, Gypsies and Serbs of Croatia. Where are they ?
>
>
> Darko: There are 40,000 Jews in Croatia today.
I think that's probably a misprint. There are several thousand.
> Davor Stern
> (ex-minister of Finance with HDZ)
He's now the CEO of the biggest state owned company (petroleum giant INA).
> and Ivo Goldstein (member of the LS)
His father Slavko Goldstein formed the first party in Croatia to challenge
the communist monopoly to power in 1989. It was the HSLS (Croatian Social
Liberals).
Ivo is a historian, and thanks to him Serb Jasenovac myths have forever been
shattered.
Also, don't forget dr. Andrija Hebrang who was the Health and later Defence
Minister of Croatia. There's Slobodan Lang as well, who organised that
life-saving convoy laden with food and medicine for the surrounded Croats in
the Lasva Valley.
> Croatia has many Serbs, some 200,000. Many live in Zagreb, Rijeka,
> Istra, and Eastern Slavonija. 65,000 have returned since the end of
> Oluja.
All Serbs have been invited to return but I doubt that they can stomach the
fact that they will be living in the Republic of Croatia, and not Greater
Serbia.
John Caruso
>>>Apparently the only standard of proof a Serbian apologist is willing
>>>to accept is a smoking gun with greasy fingerprints on it with a
>>>bloodstained shirt hanging in the wardrobe.
>>
>>No surprise that you've descended to this level. Now I'm a "Serbian
>>apologist" because I refuse to accept such an unsupported, poorly
>>argued, and obviously biased report as gospel truth...you and the
>>SAGE people would get along famously.
>
>Anyone who argues in defence of the Serbs is a Serbian apologist.
Oh, that's hardly required. Anyone who refuses to accept your own
interpretation of events fits the bill. You and others on here who
have no better argument to offer regularly stoop to throwing out
such labels, whatever the facts may be. I'm just sorry to see that
you're part of that group.
>>>You're misrepresenting what was said. He said of Tudjman "Reading his
>>>writings one could accuse him on anti-semitism". That is not the same
>>>thing as saying he was an anti-semite.
>>
>>Let's see what you're conveniently leaving out: "Besides, the Croatian
>>and Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of
>>thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps, so there was every reason
>>for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile toward the
>>Croats and the Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude and
>>we succeeded masterfully."
>
>The Croatian and Bosnian past? So Croats and Bosnians are anti-semites
>because of the actions of their ancestors?
These are Harff's statements, not mine, oh perceptive one.
>And you accused me of racism?
Not an "accusation", a simple statement of fact based on your sweeping
statement about the stupidity of Serbs. If that's not racism, I don't
know what is. Try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" in place of "Serbs",
and even you should be able to see it.
- John
Darko Peric
Marko Njavro wrote in message <_KSj4.11802$3b6....@ozemail.com.au>...
>
>
>----------
>In article <aSRj4.14814$MI4.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Darko
Peric"
><dpe...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>You're trying to talk sense into a Russkie dipshit? Can't be done.
Darko: Futile, yes. But I'm bored and the targets are easy. You
don't see him denying the fact that Chetniks collaborated with the
Germans do you?
>
>
>>>Tell me about the Jews, Gypsies and Serbs of Croatia. Where are they
?
>>
>>
>> Darko: There are 40,000 Jews in Croatia today.
>
>I think that's probably a misprint. There are several thousand.
Darko: Missprint yes.
>
>
>> Davor Stern
>> (ex-minister of Finance with HDZ)
>
>He's now the CEO of the biggest state owned company (petroleum giant
INA).
>
>
>> and Ivo Goldstein (member of the LS)
>
>His father Slavko Goldstein formed the first party in Croatia to
challenge
>the communist monopoly to power in 1989. It was the HSLS (Croatian
Social
>Liberals).
Darko: I meant his father, but he will suffice.
>
>Ivo is a historian, and thanks to him Serb Jasenovac myths have forever
been
>shattered.
>
>Also, don't forget dr. Andrija Hebrang who was the Health and later
Defence
>Minister of Croatia.
Darko: Can't believe I forgot him. I thought he was being groomed
for the opposition?
There's Slobodan Lang as well, who organised that
>life-saving convoy laden with food and medicine for the surrounded
Croats in
>the Lasva Valley.
>
>
>> Croatia has many Serbs, some 200,000. Many live in Zagreb,
Rijeka,
>> Istra, and Eastern Slavonija. 65,000 have returned since the end of
>> Oluja.
>
>All Serbs have been invited to return but I doubt that they can stomach
the
>fact that they will be living in the Republic of Croatia, and not
Greater
>Serbia.
Darko: The Pribicevci have been buried as a political force
(represented today by Djukic). We have a smaller problem today, the Sta
nimirovici of Eastern Slavonija.
Relja the unready
>
>In article <86mc0d$soh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alan wrote:
>
>>I am happy to read that first sentence in this paragraph. But do not
>>agree with the following ones of course. The general frame you refer to
>>was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful and near unanimous civic
>>opposition only brought more repression, more harassment and more
>>humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
>
>This is a sweeping statement for which I've never seen real support.
>By all accounts, Albanians had significant rights in Kosovo--much
>greater than minorities in the US, for example--despite the restrictions
>on complete autonomy.
Most Albanians were against Milosevic. That's why they were often
beaten and imprisoned without any reason. They had all the rights on
the paper. But not in real life. In real life - Milosevic's police can make you
"disappear in the dark" if you get in Milosevic's way.
>If Serbs are such anti-Albanian racists, why is it that Albanians have
>full rights in Serbia? What differentiates Albanians in Kosovo?
There are no human rights in Serbia! Not for Serbs, nor the Albanians.
If you look at it that way, we all had equal "rights". :-(
>The answer is simply that full rights were not enough; they wanted complete
>control of their own territory, disregarding the needs of the other
>constituent minorities there.
I agree. Many Albanians were/are supporting secession and that was/is wrong.
>>Thanks to the
>>policies of Mr Milosevic, who had placed all his hopes on the
>>unwillingness of the international community to be seen as supporting
>>an "armed extremist" group (recognised as a terrorist group by the USA
>>in early 1998, BTW).
>
>It would have been extraordinarily naive of him to assume so, and no
>matter what we may think of his morals, he's not stupid. The fact is
>that the KLA put Yugoslavia in an untenable position; they couldn't
>allow the KLA to go unchecked,
I agree with this. But...
>yet NATO and NATO countries were
>demanding that they do just that. The standard Western propaganda
>frame completely ignores this element of the equation, and presents
>the conflict (specifically from late 1998 through the beginning of the
>NATO bombing) as an armed assault against a peaceful civilian population,
>motivated solely by ethnic and religious hatred. It's a fairy tale.
...Serbian police had been terrorising Albanians for 10 years before 1999.
And even in the 1999 intervention against the KLA, the police
killed some civilians. So western media didn't have to invent (m)any
fairy tales.
Had rapists and murderers from Serbian police been judged (in
Serbian courts), I'm sure that west would have supported our fight
against the KLA *terrorists*.
This way, with mistreatment of Albanian civilians supported from the
very top (Milosevic), we became the bad guys - in stead of the KLA.
>>Again with Milosevic/Seselj remaining in power and salivating at the
>>idea of a frontal conflict with Nato in June (a salivation that has
>>largely been induced by their Russian friends),
>
>The "frontal conflict" you refer to is the desire to see NATO follow
>the agreements which were signed, and which have already been roundly
>ignored in spirit by NATO.
I'm afraid it's not *only* that. Milosevic needs crises and wars to keep people
busy fighting for survival, and not trying to tear him down. It is much better
explained in Fidik's post of Jan 25, 2000 in the thread "Re: WAR" (in
soc.culture.yugoslavia).
>It's whistling in the wind; in my opinion,
>NATO never had any intention of following the agreements, as evidenced
>by their actions.
I'm not so sure. European politicians don't seem very happy with the
current situation in Kosovo.
About the situation in Croatia (that you commented):
it seems to me as if these elections are leading Croatia into (real) democracy.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote John, so I snipped those parts.
Regards
-------------------------------
Re...@mail.com
Relja the unready
>
>In article <86n0vv$sbi$4...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>,
> "Relja the unready" <rel...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore I see no point in accusing nationalists of one particular
>> nation as "the most responsible". They're all equally guilty.
>
>I sign that statement with both hands: nationalism is evil. It is evil
>in Serbia as it is evil in Kosovo or Croatia. It is also evil in Russia,
>in Belgium (Vlaams Blok), in France (Front National), in Austria or in
>Switserland.
>
>However, as evil as they are, all those nationalisms have not (yet)
>provoked war. Milosevic's brand of nationalism has been at the root of
>three very ugly wars within a decade. Each of those wars has ended in
>disaster for Serbia. This gives Serb nationalism a specificity.
I must "pursue" this a bit further. :-)
See, my point was that, without Albanian nationalism, there wouldn't
have been so much Serbian nationalism (and vice-versa). Don't you
think so? That's why I said: they're (nationalists) all equally guilty.
Milosevic won Serbian hearts back in 1988 when he said that legendary:
"No one can beat you!". And (as we both agreed) Serbs were beaten
(oppressed in many ways). It was nothing close to Milosevic's police
oppression against Albanians (that took place from 1990-1999), but
it was BAD. Bad enough to make Serbs choose Milosevic's militant policy.
I'm not saying that Serbian policy in the past 50 years was (always) right,
but many people blame Serbs (and Serbs only!) for every bloody crime
that ever took place in the Balkans. That's far from the truth.
>Right on. Good luck for the future !
Thanks. :-)
Regards
-------------------------------
Re...@mail.com
Relja the unready
>In article <86n0vv$sbi$4...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>
>"Relja the unready" <rel...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore I see no point in accusing nationalists of one particular
>> nation as "the most responsible". They're all equally guilty.
>
Read my reply to Alan's post.
-------------------------------
Re...@mail.com
PacMan
wrote:
>In article <asjv8s8kgh7gvtkc1...@4ax.com>, PacMan wrote:
>>>>Apparently the only standard of proof a Serbian apologist is willing
>>>>to accept is a smoking gun with greasy fingerprints on it with a
>>>>bloodstained shirt hanging in the wardrobe.
>>>
>>>No surprise that you've descended to this level. Now I'm a "Serbian
>>>apologist" because I refuse to accept such an unsupported, poorly
>>>argued, and obviously biased report as gospel truth...you and the
>>>SAGE people would get along famously.
>>
>>Anyone who argues in defence of the Serbs is a Serbian apologist.
>
>Oh, that's hardly required. Anyone who refuses to accept your own
>interpretation of events fits the bill.
Untrue. Very few people accept my interpretation of events.
>You and others on here who
>have no better argument to offer regularly stoop to throwing out
>such labels, whatever the facts may be. I'm just sorry to see that
>you're part of that group.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with being a Serbian apologist.
It's amusing that you take such exception to the term which, I think
most people would agree, would apply uncontroversially to you. It does
not mean that you are a blind propagandist. It does mean that you seek
to exculpate the Serbs from many of the wrongs attributed to them,
which is quite clearly the case.
>
>>>>You're misrepresenting what was said. He said of Tudjman "Reading his
>>>>writings one could accuse him on anti-semitism". That is not the same
>>>>thing as saying he was an anti-semite.
>>>
>>>Let's see what you're conveniently leaving out: "Besides, the Croatian
>>>and Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of
>>>thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps, so there was every reason
>>>for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile toward the
>>>Croats and the Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude and
>>>we succeeded masterfully."
>>
>>The Croatian and Bosnian past? So Croats and Bosnians are anti-semites
>>because of the actions of their ancestors?
>
>These are Harff's statements, not mine, oh perceptive one.
Which you undorsed by quoting them in defence of your statement that
"that they were knowingly convincing Jewish groups to support
anti-Semites.", oh unperceptive one.
>
>>And you accused me of racism?
>
>Not an "accusation", a simple statement of fact based on your sweeping
>statement about the stupidity of Serbs. If that's not racism, I don't
>know what is. Try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" in place of "Serbs",
>and even you should be able to see it.
Racism is the unwarranted attribution of distinct qualities or
behaviour to the members of a particular ethnic group. In the case of
the Serbs, the claim is amply warranted by the facts. People who stand
on known or suspected military targets, holding up target signs to the
bombers, qualify as 'stupid' in my book, to take just one example out
of many.
>
>- John
PacMan
wrote:
>>> Tell you what: you find documentation of the efforts to put forth
>>> the "Serbian point of view" and their extent, and we'll compare them
>>> to the nature and extent of Ruder Finn's efforts. *Then* we'll make
>>> a comparison.
>>>
>>>You've found documentation; now we're comparing the nature and extent.
>>>"Extent" in particular means "success",
>>
>>Absolute rubbish. No reasonable person would be this interpretation
>>upon the word 'extent' as used in the original context. The 'success'
>>is not a property of the effort but of the result of the effort. You
>>are resorting to chicanery as the fact of your having been utterly
>>refuted dawns increasingly upon you.
>
>When all else fails, declare victory.
Actually, your strident tone and irrational twisting declared it for
me long before.
Pieter Wenk
>> Again, you attempt to put all the blame on Milosevic. Why? Thaci
>> is surely to blame for his own actions...and if we're talking about
>> who brought him to prominence, surely NATO deserves a large share of
>> that credit, for giving him the LEADING role in the Albanian
> delegation
>> at Rambouillet, supporting him and the KLA throughout the bombing
>> campaign, and by marginzalizing Rugova (the elected president) in
>> favor of Thaci and his terrorist thugs.
> Facts have proven that the KLA strategy was more productive, in the
> Albanian Kosovar point of view, than the Rugova strategy. Thanks to the
> policies of Mr Milosevic, who had placed all his hopes on the
> unwillingness of the international community to be seen as supporting
> an "armed extremist" group (recognised as a terrorist group by the USA
> in early 1998, BTW). The KLA gained its hegemony at gun point. The
> composition of the Rambouillet delegation simply acknowledged a fact
> and was the only way of getting the KLA at the negociation table. UNMIK
> is doing everything possible to insure the presence of moderates in the
> administrative institutions that are currently being created. The
> coming elections in Kosovo will show if the Albanian population might
> prefer to give the dividends of victory to those moderates.
You must be obviously mislaid. There is presently no evidence in
the Kossovo of what your angelic allegations are trying to explain.
Presently there is absolute no civil infrastructure able to
create something similar to a civil organization of law and
order.
Today, the kossovo is in the hands of criminals, interested in
earning golden noses and having in mind creating Great Albania
on a longer term...Racket, rubbery, murder, drugs etc., is
the present standard in this province...
The kfor and the useless B. Kouchner are watching finger-crossed
to the presently ongoing ethnical cleansing operated by the KLA,
organized naturally by Tadci & Cie, for obvious reasons.
This does enhance the option, that all this is in fact happening
with the blessing of the US government/NATO and UN...
Regards
--
/ / (_)____ __ ____ __
Pieter Wenk / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / Vevey/Switzerland
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
Robert Jerin
Darko Peric <dpe...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:aSRj4.14814$MI4.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Darko: There are 40,000 Jews in Croatia today. Davor Stern
> (ex-minister of Finance with HDZ) and Ivo Goldstein (member of the LS)
> are its most noted members. Both are firm supporters of Croatia's
> independence.
As is Minister Nenad Porges
> There are some 20,000 Gypsies who are located in the major urban
> centres. Go to I think Pescenice in Zagreb and you will see many.
They can be seen in several areas.....on the street into Zagreb from the
airport, near the statue of Sv. Juraj (as you come down from the upper
town), etc., etc...
>They
> prefer to be called Romi (the leader of the Croatian Romi said that
> Croatia has no Gypsies since all the Gypsies are in Belgrade).
> Croatia has many Serbs, some 200,000. Many live in Zagreb, Rijeka,
> Istra, and Eastern Slavonija. 65,000 have returned since the end of
> Oluja.
Well, I don't know how many there are but you are correct in that 65,000 who
left with Martic have returned. And of course there are many in the cities
you mention, some of whom I met this past May.
Milan Budimirovic
> You are arguing in defence of the Serbs. How can you possibly dispute
> that you are a Serbian apologist?
Yet another ad hominem argument. You've more or less proven John's
point. The "Holocaust" metaphor had served to close the debate on what
actually happened to the point where anyone who disagreed with the
official version of events was labeled a "Serbian apologist".
> >"Concentration camps" is a highly emotive term, associated directly
> >with "death camps" in public discourse, and typically used to evoke
> >Holocaust connections. So to answer your question: concentration
> >camps in the Nazi sense?
> >Absolutely not. I've seen no evidence that
> >such camps existed. Detention camps, especially ones like Trnopolje,
> Actually, from what I've read, Trnopolje wasn't even a detention camp
> if you mean by that a place where people were held against their will.
> >do not come near to fitting the description, and they're an almost
> >inevitable feature of civil wars. As far as I know, all sides in the
> >Balkan wars had such camps, yet it's the Serbs who are particularly
> >singled out as having run "concentration camps"
> Because they had more of them than anyone else.
Doubletalk. You're saying that it was OK to compare the Serbs'
mistreatment of Muslims to the Holocaust, in spite of the differences in
scale (amongst other things), but we can't compare it with the Muslims'
mistreatment of Serbs because of differences in scale. Once again you've
unwittingly proven John's point.
esrevnI eilrahC
car...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
> In article <86mc0d$soh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alan wrote:
> >> >> Tudjman once said he was
> >> >> proud that he got rid of more Serbs than Pavelic!
> >> >
> >> >You are right: Tudjman could
> >> >easily be seen as a mirror image of
> >> >Milosevic. He was a creation of the
> >> >nationalist fury initiated by Mr
> >> >Milosevic back in 1989.
Alan seems inconsistent here. He virulently
opposes Serb nationalism, while turning a blind
eye towards Albanian nationalism. If he were
genuine in his opposition to nationalism, he
would oppose both.
What he really opposes, I think, is Milosevic
-- then he uses "nationalist fury" to justify
this animus towards Milosevic. I don't buy this
notion that wars are the result of "a lone
madman" or "lone dictator", anymore than I buy
the party-line in the U.S. that says that the JFK
assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing were
the result of lone nuts. The propaganda apparatus
is using these lone individuals as scapegoats.
Those of us who are already looking for scapegoats
are especially vulnerable to this sort of propaganda.
Nationalism is not "initiated" by one man, IMO.
It is the result of interactions by many people over
years or decades. Milosevic rode the rising tide --
he did not initiate the tide, anymore than King
Canute initiated the waves of the ocean.
One also needs to make distinctions between good
and bad forms of nationalism. This Alan fails to do
-- to him, it is all just "fury", and therefore, evil.
One needs to look at things in context: What is the
alternative to nationalism? If the alternative is
global fascism, then nationalism doesn't seem quite
so bad.
> >> Funny, I thought Tudjman was
> >> older than that, and that his involvement
> >> with the Ustashe happened well before 1989.
> >> To say that he was somehow
> >> a "creation" of Milosevic is just
> >> needless piling on. In (correctly)
> >> condemning Milosevic, it's not necessary
> >> to try to shift the blame for
> >> every petty nationalist in the
> >> Balkans to him...and doing so reveals a
> >> lack of objectivity.
> >
> >I would not mind a little discussion
> >on the events between 1987 and
> >1991. I maintain my assertion:
> >Tudjman gained power on a nationalist
> >agenda in Croatia mainly thanks to
> >the ignition of the nationalist
> >powder keg by Milosevic in Serbia.
>
> Putting aside your assessment,
> Tudjman was still in a position to assume
> power--which was not due to Milosevic.
> And his nationalism and anti-
> Semitism were his own as well.
>
> >> >No Milosevic could have
> >> >meant no Tudjman and no KLA.
> >>
> >> Possibly no KLA (speaking very
> >> specifically), but you're deluding
> >> yourself about Tudjman.
> >
> >Not Tudjman as a person, but
> >Tudjman as the undisputed ruler of
> >Croatia. I am not deluding myself.
> >Again, BTW, if you want to discuss
> >with me, please refrain from adding
> >those personal diversions ("lack of
> >objectivity", "deluding yourself",
> >etc, etc) in your posts. Thank you.
>
> Have you had an epiphany since Friday?
> Try following your own advice,
> Alan, before you start lecturing
> me. You've made a start here.
>
> >> The current actions by KLA and
> >> ex-KLA in Kosovo cannot be laid at
> >> Milosevic's doorstep. In my
> >> opinion, they reveal what these extremists
> >> have wanted all along: an ethnically
> >> pure Albanian statelet.
> >
> >The very existence of the KLA,
> >and even more so its gain of hegemonious
> >control on the Kosovar political
> >playing field, are to be laid on
> >Milosevic's doorstep.
>
> Only if you halt your gaze in the
> mid-1990s. Albanian nationalism and
> violence were alive and well throughout
> the 1980s and earlier (i.e.
> before Milosevic's ascent), as documented
> here:
>
> http://www.fair.org/extra/9905/kosovo.html
> http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html
>
> I met a Serb at protests here
> who told me that it was common wisdom in
> Yugoslavia that you should stay away
> from Kosovo, since people would just
> "disappear" there. That kind of
> reputation doesn't grow out of nothing.
>
> >The current actions of the structures derived
> >from the KLA may reveal what you say they
> >reveal. The fact that those
> >objectives seem to have became hegemonious
> >is once more a direct
> >consequence of Serbia's policies in Kosovo.
>
> The actions of Albanian nationalists
> prior to Milosevic also show a
> desire for an independent Albanian
> Kosovo; it didn't suddenly spring
> into being because of Milosevic. And...
>
> >Elections will soon show if
> >the reasonable currents that
> >have supported leaders like Ibrahim Rugova
> >through the peaceful civic
> >desobedience movement between 1989 and 1998
> >have a chance to regain ground in the short term.
>
> ....the movement you're talking
> about, no matter how peaceful it may have
> been, was still directed at establishing
> independent Albanian structures.
> In fact the Albanian rejection of
> Yugoslav forums for making their power
> felt was in part responsible for Milosevic's
> continued grasp on power;
> had the Albanians participated in elections,
> their votes would likely
> have changed the results.
>
> >> This fact
> >> doesn't validate the Yugoslav
> >> response, which was repressive, over-
> >> inclusive, and far too violent;
> >> however, it does make it clear that
> >> the standard Western propaganda frame,
> >> of a civilian population under
> >> unprovoked (and inexplicable) attack
> >> by a brutally racist regime, was
> >> a farce. The situation was not nearly so black and white.
> >
> >I am happy to read that first sentence
> >in this paragraph. But do not
> >agree with the following ones of
> >course. The general frame you refer to
> >was not a farce. Nine years of peaceful
> >and near unanimous civic
> >opposition only brought more
> >repression, more harassment and more
> >humiliation to the vast majority of Kosovars.
>
> This is a sweeping statement for
> which I've never seen real support.
> By all accounts, Albanians had
> significant rights in Kosovo--much
> greater than minorities in the US,
> for example--despite the restrictions
> on complete autonomy. And had the
> possibilities for peace been allowed
> to come to fruition at Rambouillet,
> they would have had far more, but
> without the costs resulting from
> the military solution.
>
> If Serbs are such anti-Albanian
> racists, why is it that Albanians have
> full rights in Serbia? What differentiates
> Albanians in Kosovo? The
> answer is simply that full rights
> were not enough; they wanted complete
> control of their own territory,
> disregarding the needs of the other
> constituent minorities there.
>
> >> >Tudjman is dead, and the Croats
> >> >have finally put an end to the
> >> >rule of his party.
> >>
> >> (No thanks to the US, Germany,
> >> or NATO and NATO-country governments,
> >> who supported him despite his
> >> fascistic policies and background.)
> >
> >He was hardly supported,
>
> Not only was he supported--especially
> during the wars--the US went so
> far as to block attempts by the
> ICTY to investigate him and his generals.
>
> >and the main reason his party has been
> >rejected by Croat electors is precisely
> >the desire to get out of
> >isolation and join the movement of
> >neighbouring countries towards
> >closer ties with the EU.
>
> This is press release editorializing.
> Perhaps the Croats want to get
> out from under Tudjman's brand of
> authoritarianism? Or perhaps they're
> simply reacting to a sluggish economy,
> as voters everywhere do.
>
> However, consider this tidbit about
> the two contenders in the runoff:
>
> They were both jailed by communist
> authorities in early 1970s for
> taking part in the nationalist
> movement that wanted Croatia to be an
> independent state 20 years too early.
>
> [
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000125/wl/croatia_leadall_13.html ]
>
> In other words, they were both
> nationalists, though perhaps not as
> extreme as Tudjman. Time will tell.
>
> >> Again, you attempt to put all
> >> the blame on Milosevic. Why? Thaci
> >> is surely to blame for his own
> >> actions...and if we're talking about
> >> who brought him to prominence, surely
> >> NATO deserves a large share of
> >> that credit, for giving him the
> >> LEADING role in the Albanian delegation
> >> at Rambouillet, supporting him and the
> >> KLA throughout the bombing
> >> campaign, and by marginzalizing
> >> Rugova (the elected president) in
> >> favor of Thaci and his terrorist thugs.
> >
> >Facts have proven that the KLA
> >strategy was more productive, in the
> >Albanian Kosovar point of view, than
> >the Rugova strategy.
Only if you call devastation, war, and
future decades of ethnic hatred "productive"!
>
> The KLA strategy was more productive
> precisely because NATO backed it.
> The validation of that strategy, thanks
> to NATO, will fuel Albanian
> nationalism for years to come, and
> will act as a spur to other nationalist
> movements elsewhere.
>
> >Thanks to the
> >policies of Mr Milosevic, who had
> >placed all his hopes on the
> >unwillingness of the international
> >community to be seen as supporting
> >an "armed extremist" group (recognised
> >as a terrorist group by the USA
> >in early 1998, BTW).
>
> It would have been extraordinarily
> naive of him to assume so, and no
> matter what we may think of his
> morals, he's not stupid. The fact is
> that the KLA put Yugoslavia in an
> untenable position; they couldn't
> allow the KLA to go unchecked, yet
> NATO and NATO countries were
> demanding that they do just that.
> The standard Western propaganda
> frame completely ignores this
> element of the equation, and presents
> the conflict (specifically from
> late 1998 through the beginning of the
> NATO bombing) as an armed assault
> against a peaceful civilian population,
> motivated solely by ethnic and
> religious hatred. It's a fairy tale.
See
http://www.counterpunch.org/gowan.html
//// The Twilight of the European Project
//// By Peter Gowan
/// CounterPunch
/// edited by alexander cockburn
and jeffrey st. clair
/// _ Copyright: 1998-1999. All rights reserved.
....
But the signal for the Serbian government
to launch its counter-insurgency in Benistar
also, intriguingly, came from Albright's own
State Department. This signal was given by
the United States special envoy to the
region, Ambassador Gelbard. The BBC
correspondent in Belgrade reported that
Gelbard flew into Belgrade to brand the KLA
as a terrorist group.
' "I know a terrorist when I see one and
these men are terrorists," he said...At
the time, the KLA was believed to number
just a several hundred armed men. Mr.
Gelbard's words were interpreted in the
Yugoslav capital, Belgrade, as a green
light for a security forces operation
against the KLA and the special police
conducted two raids in the Benitsar region
in March.'
So the Clinton administration encouraged
the Serbian counter-insurgency in order to
liberate the Kosovo Albanians from it
through a NATO war. The Europeans on the
other hand, wanted the Serbian
counter-offensive against the KLA to result
in an internationally brokered compromise
peace granting Kosovo Autonomy within
Serbia.
In other words, it was a set up, similar to the
April Glaspie setup which provided the basis for
the war against Iraq.
> >The KLA gained its hegemony at gun point. The
> >composition of the Rambouillet delegation
> >simply acknowledged a fact
> >and was the only way of getting the
> >KLA at the negociation table.
>
> Exactly. It's the very "appeasement"
> which was bandied about in
> reference to Milosevic by those who
> were clamoring for bombing. Had
> the NATO strategy not been structured
> in this way, it's possible that
> a true compromise could have been
> worked out. IMO, NATO (as always,
> meaning primarily the US) backed the
> KLA precisely because they wanted
> a military solution.
Put "solution" in quotes. The NATzO
attack on Kosovo is no more a "solution"
than Hitler's attack on Poland "solved"
the "Polish problem".
>
> >Again with Milosevic/Seselj remaining
> >in power and salivating at the
> >idea of a frontal conflict with Nato
> >in June (a salivation that has
> >largely been induced by their
> >Russian friends),
>
> The "frontal conflict" you refer to
> is the desire to see NATO follow
> the agreements which were signed,
> and which have already been roundly
> ignored in spirit by NATO. It's
> whistling in the wind; in my opinion,
> NATO never had any intention of
> following the agreements, as evidenced
> by their actions.
>
> >such a moderate
> >scenario seems unlikely. If I
> >was an Albanian Kosovar, I would refuse
> >to turn my arms in till the parties
> >ruling Serbia stopped threatening me.
I would refuse to turn in my arms till
the KLA is no more -- since the KLA murders
not just Serbs and Roma, but also Albanians
who are deemed "too moderate".
>
> Sorry, but this is more piling on.
> You can't continue to blame the
> Serbs for Albanian nationalism,
> especially now that it's no threat. The
> fact is that if you were an Albanian
> Kosovar, you would likely refuse to
> turn in your arms until you'd
> finally established an independent Albanian
> state...and even then I doubt you'd
> be willing to hand them over.
>
> - John
Milan Budimirovic
> Racism is the unwarranted attribution of distinct qualities or
> behaviour to the members of a particular ethnic group. In the case of
> the Serbs, the claim is amply warranted by the facts. People who stand
> on known or suspected military targets, holding up target signs to the
> bombers, qualify as 'stupid' in my book, to take just one example out
> of many.
The mere fact that you have to qualify your definition with the word
"unwarranted" speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof.
lja...@my-deja.com
You must have been reading a lot of Serbian Unity Congress publications.
It is true that Bosnia and the Holocaust are not one and the same, but
it is also undeniable that the Serbian natinalists have killed 200000
civilians. This is a fact that will haunt the whole Serbian nation for
the rest of history. The Serbs need a catharsis badly, a Serbian Elie
Wiesel is a must for any kind of normalcy to return to Serbia. You are
living in mass denial today. The longer this goes on the more you will
suffer in the end, because think of the fact that every part of ex-yu
has been enflamed, except Serbia.
Ljaglje
PacMan
<milan.bu...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>PacMan wrote:
>
>> You are arguing in defence of the Serbs. How can you possibly dispute
>> that you are a Serbian apologist?
>
>Yet another ad hominem argument.
It's not an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. In any case,
the 'ad hominem' spiel applies only to people who refuse to consider
the merits of an article or an argument because of the person making
it. I have considered at length the points John has made. It doesn't
bother me one bit whether a person I am discussing things with, or the
author of an article I'm reading, is a Serb, a Serbian apologist, an
insane person, a racist, a Croat, etc. I am quite happy to consider
each contribution on its own merits. According to John's logic, your
contribution would be tainted because you have a Serb-sounding name.
You can see that I don't agree with this logic from the fact that I
have replied to you.
> You've more or less proven John's
>point. The "Holocaust" metaphor had served to close the debate on what
>actually happened to the point where anyone who disagreed with the
>official version of events was labeled a "Serbian apologist".
Rubbish. The weight of evidence was simply overwhelming. You two have
an enormously powerful belief in the power of metaphor.
>
>
>> >"Concentration camps" is a highly emotive term, associated directly
>> >with "death camps" in public discourse, and typically used to evoke
>> >Holocaust connections. So to answer your question: concentration
>> >camps in the Nazi sense?
>> >Absolutely not. I've seen no evidence that
>> >such camps existed. Detention camps, especially ones like Trnopolje,
>> Actually, from what I've read, Trnopolje wasn't even a detention camp
>> if you mean by that a place where people were held against their will.
>> >do not come near to fitting the description, and they're an almost
>> >inevitable feature of civil wars. As far as I know, all sides in the
>> >Balkan wars had such camps, yet it's the Serbs who are particularly
>> >singled out as having run "concentration camps"
>
>> Because they had more of them than anyone else.
>
>Doubletalk. You're saying that it was OK to compare the Serbs'
>mistreatment of Muslims to the Holocaust, in spite of the differences in
>scale (amongst other things), but we can't compare it with the Muslims'
>mistreatment of Serbs because of differences in scale.
No I'm not. I said that the Serbs were particularly singled out as
having run concentration camps because they had more of them than
anyone else. And you can compare the Muslims' mistreatment of the
Serbs to whatever you want. Whether people find your argument
compelling will depend, not on the power of metaphor, but on the power
of fact.
Alan
> >
> >In article <86n0vv$sbi$4...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>,
> >>
> >> Therefore I see no point in accusing nationalists of one particular
> >> nation as "the most responsible". They're all equally guilty.
> >
evil
> Russia,
> >in Belgium (Vlaams Blok), in France (Front National), in Austria or
in
> >Switserland.
> >
> >However, as evil as they are, all those nationalisms have not (yet)
> >provoked war. Milosevic's brand of nationalism has been at the root
of
> >three very ugly wars within a decade. Each of those wars has ended in
> >disaster for Serbia. This gives Serb nationalism a specificity.
>
> I must "pursue" this a bit further. :-)
> See, my point was that, without Albanian nationalism, there wouldn't
> have been so much Serbian nationalism (and vice-versa). Don't you
> think so? That's why I said: they're (nationalists) all equally
guilty.
OK. Another way of stating the same idea could be that "if Albanian
Kosovars had been gentle sheep accepting the Serbian rule, they would
not have been repressed in the same way, and would not have given
excuses for voting in favour of Milosevic."
I do not think this is your position, which relates more to a time when
Kosovo was administered by Albanian apparatchiks of the Communist
League, but the temptation of sending the opposing currents back to
back could lead to such a vision.
I believe that the right of people to self-determination is a basic
collective right, weither those people are "nice" people or "bad"
people. That right was refused to the population of Kosovo. Weither
I/you like it or not, it is therefore perfectly understandable that the
Kosovars, as they are today, struggled for it instead of kneeling down
to their masters. The Serbs take pride in their resistance against all
the powers that have ruled over their country. That pride is
legitimate. The pride of Albanians fighting for their rights is not
less legitimate. Patriotism and nationalism are two different political
attitudes, but there are direct bridges between both. As there are
direct bridges between legitimate national liberation movements and
demagogue nationalist parties. The balance is difficult to reach and to
maintain.
I am of course aware that all of this relates to a territory that has
historically been an intimate part of Serbia's heritage. I contend that
what counts are the people, not the ownership papers.
In this case, the legitimate Serb cause would have been to negociate in
1989 a settlement recognising the rights of the Kosovar population on
the territory of Kosovo as well as insuring guarantees for the Serb
minority living in Kosovo, if necessary with the help of the UN. That
was possible at the time.
> Milosevic won Serbian hearts back in 1988 when he said that legendary:
> "No one can beat you!". And (as we both agreed) Serbs were beaten
> (oppressed in many ways). It was nothing close to Milosevic's police
> oppression against Albanians (that took place from 1990-1999), but
> it was BAD. Bad enough to make Serbs choose Milosevic's militant
policy.
And I still agree with that point of view. It is a very messy
situation. Like many similar situations elsewhere. Again, I would refer
to the right of people to self-determination in order to sort out the
potential solutions. If independentist trends develop on a given
territory, elections and referendums are the best ways to determine the
will of the population living on that territory. Refusing such
democratic processes is the best way to start unsolvable armed
conflicts on a massive scale. Chechnya is yet another example.
Robert the 'erbert
Wenk) wrote:
>
>
> >> Again, you attempt to put all the blame on Milosevic. Why? Thaci
> >> is surely to blame for his own actions...and if we're talking about
> >> who brought him to prominence, surely NATO deserves a large share of
> >> that credit, for giving him the LEADING role in the Albanian
> > delegation
> >> at Rambouillet, supporting him and the KLA throughout the bombing
> >> campaign, and by marginzalizing Rugova (the elected president) in
> >> favor of Thaci and his terrorist thugs.
>
> > Facts have proven that the KLA strategy was more productive, in the
> > Albanian Kosovar point of view, than the Rugova strategy. Thanks to
> > the
> > policies of Mr Milosevic, who had placed all his hopes on the
> > unwillingness of the international community to be seen as supporting
> > an "armed extremist" group (recognised as a terrorist group by the USA
> > in early 1998, BTW). The KLA gained its hegemony at gun point. The
> > composition of the Rambouillet delegation simply acknowledged a fact
> > and was the only way of getting the KLA at the negociation table.
> > UNMIK
> > is doing everything possible to insure the presence of moderates in
> > the
> > administrative institutions that are currently being created. The
> > coming elections in Kosovo will show if the Albanian population might
> > prefer to give the dividends of victory to those moderates.
>
> You must be obviously mislaid. There is presently no evidence in
> the Kossovo of what your angelic allegations are trying to explain.
>
> Presently there is absolute no civil infrastructure able to
> create something similar to a civil organization of law and
> order.
How do you explain the police then?
The provisional government?
Civil institutions are being set up.
> Today, the kossovo is in the hands of criminals, interested in
> earning golden noses and having in mind creating Great Albania
> on a longer term...Racket, rubbery, murder, drugs etc., is
> the present standard in this province...
No, it's not. It's in the hands of the UN.
> The kfor and the useless B. Kouchner are watching finger-crossed
> to the presently ongoing ethnical cleansing operated by the KLA,
> organized naturally by Tadci & Cie, for obvious reasons.
No, they're not. They are protecting the minorities in Kosovo.
> This does enhance the option, that all this is in fact happening
> with the blessing of the US government/NATO and UN...
Rubbish.
________________________________________________________________
"Let today's arrest, the third in two months, serve as a warning
to those with guilty consciences. It's time to turn yourself in."
- NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, referring to the
arrest of Bosnian Serb Mitar Vasiljevic, indicted for crimes
against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war
during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict.
Robert the 'erbert
Milan Budimirovic
> It's not an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. In any case,
> the 'ad hominem' spiel applies only to people who refuse to consider
> the merits of an article or an argument because of the person making
> it. I have considered at length the points John has made. It doesn't
> bother me one bit whether a person I am discussing things with, or the
> author of an article I'm reading, is a Serb, a Serbian apologist, an
> insane person, a racist, a Croat, etc. I am quite happy to consider
> each contribution on its own merits. According to John's logic, your
> contribution would be tainted because you have a Serb-sounding name.
> You can see that I don't agree with this logic from the fact that I
> have replied to you.
Not quite. An argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to persuade by
attacking the person making the argument instead of attacking the
argument itself. The term "apologist" was at one time benign, but now
carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting that the person is
somehow attempting to defend the indefensible. It is similar to the word
"rhetoric", which at one time meant skillful use of language, but now is
taken to mean quite the opposite. Calling John a "Serb apologist" is a
rather flagrant attempt to cloud the issue by attaching a negative label
on him and is therefore an ad hominem argument.
> >
> >> >"Concentration camps" is a highly emotive term, associated directly
> >> >with "death camps" in public discourse, and typically used to evoke
> >> >Holocaust connections. So to answer your question: concentration
> >> >camps in the Nazi sense?
> >> >Absolutely not. I've seen no evidence that
> >> >such camps existed. Detention camps, especially ones like Trnopolje,
> >> Actually, from what I've read, Trnopolje wasn't even a detention camp
> >> if you mean by that a place where people were held against their will.
> >> >do not come near to fitting the description, and they're an almost
> >> >inevitable feature of civil wars. As far as I know, all sides in the
> >> >Balkan wars had such camps, yet it's the Serbs who are particularly
> >> >singled out as having run "concentration camps"
> >
> >> Because they had more of them than anyone else.
> >
> >Doubletalk. You're saying that it was OK to compare the Serbs'
> >mistreatment of Muslims to the Holocaust, in spite of the differences in
> >scale (amongst other things), but we can't compare it with the Muslims'
> >mistreatment of Serbs because of differences in scale.
> No I'm not. I said that the Serbs were particularly singled out as
> having run concentration camps because they had more of them than
> anyone else. And you can compare the Muslims' mistreatment of the
> Serbs to whatever you want. Whether people find your argument
> compelling will depend, not on the power of metaphor, but on the power
> of fact.
The problem is that the Holocaust metaphor became so strong that the
mainstream media ceased to bother with the facts. It's no good saying
that this metaphor was grounded in fact when the truth was, for the most
part, thrown out the window very early in the game. It became
politically correct to compare Serbian detention camps to Nazi death
camps, but unthinkable to even mention similar Muslim camps. You're
talking in circles and you have yet to produce anything remotely
resembling a sound argument that this was not the case.
PacMan
<milan.bu...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>PacMan wrote:
>
>> Racism is the unwarranted attribution of distinct qualities or
>> behaviour to the members of a particular ethnic group. In the case of
>> the Serbs, the claim is amply warranted by the facts. People who stand
>> on known or suspected military targets, holding up target signs to the
>> bombers, qualify as 'stupid' in my book, to take just one example out
>> of many.
>
>
>The mere fact that you have to qualify your definition with the word
>"unwarranted" speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof.
Your words would serve as warrant enough if nothing else sufficed.
Milan Budimirovic
> On the contrary, I assumed that the term was uncontroversial and used
> it without a second thought. It was invoked specifically to argue
> against the making of ad hominem arguments, since the making of such
> arguments is a common characteristic of Serb apologists.
Given some of the other comments you've made, I think you knew exactly
what you were doing. And yes, John did use a circumstantial ad hominem
argumant against the SAGE document, but he also showed that it did not
contain anything that exposed an effective or particularly sinister
Serbian lobby. I believe I made a strong case for that too.
> It's not for me to prove that it wasn't the case. It doesn't make
> sense to attempt to prove a negative. It is for you to prove that it
> was the case.
John did a pretty decent job of making his case and you have offered
nothing in your counterpoints that makes a significant dent in his
argument.
PacMan
<milan.bu...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>PacMan wrote:
>
>> It's not an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. In any case,
>> the 'ad hominem' spiel applies only to people who refuse to consider
>> the merits of an article or an argument because of the person making
>> it. I have considered at length the points John has made. It doesn't
>> bother me one bit whether a person I am discussing things with, or the
>> author of an article I'm reading, is a Serb, a Serbian apologist, an
>> insane person, a racist, a Croat, etc. I am quite happy to consider
>> each contribution on its own merits. According to John's logic, your
>> contribution would be tainted because you have a Serb-sounding name.
>> You can see that I don't agree with this logic from the fact that I
>> have replied to you.
>
>Not quite.
Yes, quite.
> An argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to persuade by
>attacking the person making the argument instead of attacking the
>argument itself.
I have discussed the arguments themselves. John deems the SAGE
document of very little worth because it was written by someone with a
'vested stake'. Apparently the arguments of people with vested stakes
are not worth very much. That is 'argumentum ad hominem'.
> The term "apologist" was at one time benign, but now
>carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting that the person is
>somehow attempting to defend the indefensible.
That's not what the word means. You don't get to decide on the meaning
of words. Live with the connotation. It suits you.
>It is similar to the word
>"rhetoric", which at one time meant skillful use of language, but now is
>taken to mean quite the opposite. Calling John a "Serb apologist" is a
>rather flagrant attempt to cloud the issue by attaching a negative label
>on him and is therefore an ad hominem argument.
On the contrary, I assumed that the term was uncontroversial and used
it without a second thought. It was invoked specifically to argue
against the making of ad hominem arguments, since the making of such
arguments is a common characteristic of Serb apologists.
>
>> >
>> >> >"Concentration camps" is a highly emotive term, associated directly
>> >> >with "death camps" in public discourse, and typically used to evoke
>> >> >Holocaust connections. So to answer your question: concentration
>> >> >camps in the Nazi sense?
>> >> >Absolutely not. I've seen no evidence that
>> >> >such camps existed. Detention camps, especially ones like Trnopolje,
>> >> Actually, from what I've read, Trnopolje wasn't even a detention camp
>> >> if you mean by that a place where people were held against their will.
>> >> >do not come near to fitting the description, and they're an almost
>> >> >inevitable feature of civil wars. As far as I know, all sides in the
>> >> >Balkan wars had such camps, yet it's the Serbs who are particularly
>> >> >singled out as having run "concentration camps"
>> >
>> >> Because they had more of them than anyone else.
>> >
>> >Doubletalk. You're saying that it was OK to compare the Serbs'
>> >mistreatment of Muslims to the Holocaust, in spite of the differences in
>> >scale (amongst other things), but we can't compare it with the Muslims'
>> >mistreatment of Serbs because of differences in scale.
>> No I'm not. I said that the Serbs were particularly singled out as
>> having run concentration camps because they had more of them than
>> anyone else. And you can compare the Muslims' mistreatment of the
>> Serbs to whatever you want. Whether people find your argument
>> compelling will depend, not on the power of metaphor, but on the power
>> of fact.
>
>The problem is that the Holocaust metaphor became so strong that the
>mainstream media ceased to bother with the facts. It's no good saying
>that this metaphor was grounded in fact when the truth was, for the most
>part, thrown out the window very early in the game. It became
>politically correct to compare Serbian detention camps to Nazi death
>camps, but unthinkable to even mention similar Muslim camps.
Which is just a long-winded way of saying that the Serbs were
portrayed unfavourably in the Western media. I accept this and I view
it as, in the main, justified. Comprehending complexity requires
devotion and effort, and the mainstream media aren't well-suited for
the task. There is no need to invoke your bizarre notion of the
holocaust metaphor being so overwhelmingly powerful that it simply
lodges in peoples' minds, rendering all further discussion impossible,
as if humans were automaton ants controlled by a scent signal from the
queen.
>You're
>talking in circles and you have yet to produce anything remotely
>resembling a sound argument that this was not the case.
PacMan
<milan.bu...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>PacMan wrote:
>
>
>> On the contrary, I assumed that the term was uncontroversial and used
>> it without a second thought. It was invoked specifically to argue
>> against the making of ad hominem arguments, since the making of such
>> arguments is a common characteristic of Serb apologists.
>
>what you were doing. And yes, John did use a circumstantial ad hominem
>argumant against the SAGE document, but he also showed that it did not
>contain anything that exposed an effective or particularly sinister
>Serbian lobby. I believe I made a strong case for that too.
hell didn't see that.
>
>
>> It's not for me to prove that it wasn't the case. It doesn't make
>> sense to attempt to prove a negative. It is for you to prove that it
>> was the case.
>
>nothing in your counterpoints that makes a significant dent in his
>argument.
argumentum ad hominem, sorry dude!