Since its beginnings in February, the crisis in Macedonia has presented the pro-interventionist Western media with a significant challenge: that is, how to justify acting against a democratic and peaceful country, one that had neither a malevolent dictator nor any serious oppression to recommend it for opprobrium. When Albanian terrorism started up last winter, it caught the press by surprise, and for a few weeks no one knew how to handle it except by treating it as what it was: unprovoked violence from a destabilizing and terroristic source.
Yet as time went on, some parallels were observed (or rather, were forcibly constructed) between Macedonia and Kosovo, and the various experiences of the victims and oppressors there. As everybody knows, in Kosovo the Albanians were the good guys, and the Serbs the bad guys, and so the chief bad guy of them all was the leader of the Serbs, Slobodan Milosevic. This handy model has been reapplied, and the tragicomic opera of Macedonia has been recast; Ali Ahmeti is the new Ibrahim Rugova, and Slobodan Milosevic has been replaced by two men -- Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski and Interior Minister Ljube Boskovski.
As it becomes harder for NATO to conceal its support for the NLA, the quest of the media is to reconstruct the Kosovo scenario, utilizing the same descriptive terms that were widely used to win popular acceptance of the legitimacy and the urgency of NATO's mission on behalf of the Albanians.
The slogan of Macedonia's favorite beer, Skopsko, proclaims, "with Skopsko, anything is possible." Reviewing the media's dictionary of control will show how indeed anything -- and everything -- has become possible for the Western media.
Dual-Carriageways and Dreadful Sounds
The controversy continues over the death of British soldier Ian Collins. Was he, as the British press claims, victim of a malicious Macedonian "gang," gunning for NATO soldiers? Or is there reason for the Macedonians to be suspicious that they were not allowed to see the wreckage of Collins' vehicle, and that the reports of different witnesses do not match up? We may never know the whole truth, but there already seems to be one outrageous misdeed committed by the British press.
The alleged "eyewitness," Sima Stojic, is suing the Times of London, claiming that they put false words in his mouth, and offered him large sums of money not to speak to other media.
The Times article claims that Stojic spoke "broken English," learned over two years in Detroit. Yet the reporter, Michael Evans, records him as speaking flawless British English. He supposedly quotes Mr. Stojic as speaking of a "dual-carriageway" in reference to the road that the perpetrators crossed to escape. No American would refer to a "highway" as a "dual-carriageway." Further, the Times article quotes Mr. Stojic as saying the NATO car made a "dreadful sound." This also raises suspicions. The word "dreadful" is particularly British in tone; no American would use it in this context. If Mr. Stojic really used these words, he didn't learn them in Detroit.
This troublesome discrepancy supports Mr. Stojic's claims of tampering and indicates that the Times is guilty of a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Yet why would they sink so low? And why does the British press have such a stake in this?
The answer lies in the general ambivalence of the British people, who are confused and misinformed over why their soldiers are in Macedonia in the first place. The fact that the British military presence was forced through while most of the government was on holiday inspired some objections from Conservatives and criticism has come from the region most weary of violence, Northern Ireland.
During the Kosovo bombardment I was living in England, and I can testify to the incredible impact that the press had on the British people. Headlines every day screamed of Serbian "atrocities," "genocide," and "death camps" -- and, in general, sought to justify Britain's intervention on behalf of the KLA.
Since the situation in Macedonia is so different than in Kosovo, the British press is left with a conundrum: either don't advocate sending British troops, or else find a way, and fast, of making the Macedonian crisis into another Kosovo -- that is, another humanitarian crusade for Mr. Blair.
Those Slavs Are Angry, Angry, Angry!
They have chosen the latter. The first step in transforming the Macedonians into those "murderous" Serbs is to describe them by the blanket term "Slavs."
The word "Slav" is a blanket term which lumps together all of the nationalities which separated off after the Slavic invasions of the Balkans during the 7th century. As such, it is a perfectly legitimate descriptor, in the same way that the word "Celts" is used to describe the ancient settlers of Ireland, Scotland and parts of France, or that the term "Native Americans" is used to describe the hundreds of different tribes that covered North America before the arrival of the European colonists.
As for "Slavs," this extended ethnic family includes, but is not limited to, the Russians, Serbians, Ukrainians and Macedonians. The Bulgarians, who have their origins in ancient Turkic tribes, were Slavicized culturally and by intermarriage with the invaders. The Macedonians are proud of their Slavic heritage, but resent that the Western media will not call them what they believe themselves to be -- Macedonians.
The second problem with the name "Slavs," is that it feeds into a chain of associations which link the Macedonians to the Serbians, and eventually, back to the Russians -- and therefore implies that the Macedonians are just the latest strain of the virulent Slavic plague on humanity. Inaccuracy and implication wed here to create an unflattering portrayal of the Macedonians, who are always described as being "angry" and "rampaging."
The combination of the inaccuracy of nomenclature and the sordid implication of irrational anger masks the fact that, yes, the Macedonians have quite a lot to be angry about -- and that, all things considered, they have been remarkably docile so far.
The Terrible Scouge of 'Hardline Nationalism'
The media's most insidious manipulation of the Macedonian crisis has to be the continued use of the term "hardline nationalist" to denote anyone who has not automatically caved in to the demands of the NLA. The term "nationalist" connotes, by association, images of recalcitrant Balkan thugs inflicting genocidal campaigns of terror against defenseless ethnic minorities. The term "hardline" is used to describe someone who is unyielding and who will not compromise in any negotiations. Taken together, the phrase "hardline nationalist" just seems to cry out for intervention against said boorish thugs.
Macedonian Prime Minister Georgievski and Interior Minister Boskovski have especially been singled out as "hardline nationalists," as they have consistently stood up for their country in the face of extreme Western pressure to cave in to the demands of the NLA.
Further damning them, in the eyes of the pro-intervention media, has been their stated desire to use all necessary force to remove the terrorists from their positions, and so eliminate the threat to Macedonia's stability.
Yet it is hard to imagine that Tony Blair would be decried as a "hardline nationalist" if the IRA attacked London, and he tried to stop them by force. And say that the IRA then demanded a rewrite of British laws to win "more rights," such as a veto power over Parliament -- would the press condemn Tony as a "hardline nationalist" for refusing them? And what about if they demanded that Gaelic be made an official language?
The Benevolence of the 'International Community'
In matters of intervention, the media often makes reference to an enlightened and benign body, known as the "international community." This group is never defined by name; there is nowhere to place blame or attach responsibility, although reporters always seem to find "high-ranking diplomats" or "international monitors," or, even more suspicious, "sources" who are glad to share their "concern" over such things as the "peace process" and "human rights."
In the case of Macedonia, the "international community" is really quite homogenous: it is the NATO governments, under the rule of the U.S., and to a lesser extent, Britain. Words used in the context of the "international community" include "support," "cooperate," "agreement," "confidence-building," "foster," "deploy," and "secure." These are all very benign and laudable terms -- but they are seldom accurate in the case of Macedonia.
Christopher Deliso
Antiwar.com
NSP Lista isprobava demokratiju u praksi
==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrBE8.bVKZIq Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
