Croatia
NEW LAW
ON HRT
I. Forum 21 criticizes HRT law.
The new Law on Croatian Radio-Television
(HRT) has made a minimal step forward in relation to the previous one,
Damir Matkovic, president of Forum 21, a group of independent electronic
media journalists, said on [30th October].
The new law, adopted by
parliament on [29th October], does not include most of the Council of Europe’s
key suggestions which, thus Matkovic [as received], are customary mechanisms
in democracy. The law does not include suggestions that the dismissals
and appointments of HRT directors be carried out by the HRT Council, or
that the Supervisory Board cannot include members who are MPs.
Also discarded was the suggestion
that the parliament or government should not have the right of electoral
veto in non-government institutions which, according to Matkovic, leaves
the possibility of retaining “suitable” and eliminating “unsuitable” parties.
He added the first reactions
from the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe indicate dissatisfaction with the changes to the former HRT law.
Forum 21 believes some more
steps should have been taken to stop public television being an obstacle
to Croatia’s more expeditious integration with Europe.
According to the new law,
HRT retains three airing channels, which Matkovic interprets as fear of
competition and poorer ratings.
He believes television market
fragmentation is unavoidable, and that television monopoly was history.
Matkovic also pointed out
that Croatian Television (HTV) employees had not demanded less channels,
but privatization.
Launching a fourth channel
is a “financial and technical adventure,” he said. It calls for a
DM25m investment, and the whole project could be realized only in a few
years, which he believes would help HTV retain monopoly.
Forum 21 believes the deliberate
game surrounding the bid for tenders for concession for a fourth channel
on national level belied the intention of granting the concession to a
precisely chosen candidate close to actual authorities.
The group believes the current
composition of the Telecommunications Council is not competent to grant
the concession, and suggests changes to the Law on Telecommunications,
the establishment of new criteria and the election of new Council members.
HINA news agency, Zagreb, October 30, 1998
II. Independent TV channel to be licensed.
The ruling Croatian Democratic
Union (HDZ) believes that the adopted amendments to the law on Croatian
Radio-Television (HRT) are a significant step in the further democratization
of public media, particularly Croatian Television.
The amendments meet the
achievements and standards of European countries, the vice-president of
the Croatian National Sabor (parliament), Jadranka Kosor, told [the 29th
October] press conference in the HDZ headquarters in Zagreb.
Kosor regretted the assessments
of the law made by the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE).
The OSCE mission to Croatia
believes that by adopting the amendments, Croatia missed a vital opportunity
for the democratic reform of HRT.
Kosor believes the changes
adopted by the Sabor [on 23rd October] are a positive step and pointed
out the depoliticization of HRT’s Council as an example.
Deputy Transport and Communications
Minister Dominik Filipovic announced that one or two days after the law
was to come into effect, a bid for tenders for the concession of a fourth
national television station would be published.
The amendments, which will
be enforced eight days after an announcement in ‘Narodne Novine,’ an official
gazette, determine that HRT will continue airing on three channels, while
a bid for the concession for the fourth channel will be on a national level,
which provoked the most questions from reporters.
Filipovic stressed that
the ministry had already laid the grounds for the fourth net, and that
the persons granted the concession will also have the obligation of building
the net.
The building and completion
of the necessary 120 transmitters, Filipovic estimates, will cost about
DM20-25m. The building may be divided into phases and according to
Filipovic, it will most likely last three years.
HINA news agency, Zagreb, October 29, 1998
III. OSCE critical of Croatian law on HRT.
[The] Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) missions to Croatia [has] asserted that by supporting last week’s
amendment to the law on Croatian Radio-Television (HRT), proposed by the
ruling Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) bench to the Croatian National Sabor’s
(parliament) House of Counties, an excellent opportunity for the democratic
reform of Croatia was missed.
At a press conference, held
on [28th October], representatives of both missions expressed their satisfaction
about the international community’s decision to participate [in] the donors’
conference on the reconstruction of Croatia.
The amendment to the law
on HRT contains only a minor number of references delivered in the past
six months by the Council of Europe and the OSCE mission to Croatia, said
OSCE mission’s spokesman, Mark Thompson. Thompson posted only minor
touch-ups to the law on HRT, and the television is to remain under the
Croatian National Sabor’s control.
He said that because of
the insistence to adopt the law in short procedure, representatives did
not have enough time to become familiar with the remarks to the HDZ’s proposal
by the Council of Europe’s media experts.
The HDZ itself asked for
the Council’s opinion, i.e. Sabor’s vice-president, Vladimir Seks,
said Thompson.
The remarks will be delivered
to the Croatian government and Sabor on [28th October], and OSCE believes
these will be useful during the next discussion on media reform, Thompson
said.
[The] UNHCR mission to Croatia’s
spokesman, Andrej Mahecic, read a section of the Article 11 Commission
(of which the UNHCR is a full member) statement, to reporters. The
statement expresses support to the reconstruction plan, made by the Croatian
government.
The statement, however reads
that the implementation of the return’s programme is irregular, and that
it was necessary to abolish any discrimination which is slowing down the
process of return of refugees and property return.
The statement reads that
the mission is aware of the Croatian prime minister’s persuasiveness, that
the Croatian government mission’s assertion, and that he will take necessary
steps so the implementation of the return plan would be more successful.
On the basis of that belief the commission welcomes the government’s proposal
that the Reconstruction and Development Conference schedules for 4th and
5th December in Zagreb, said Mahecic.
HINA news agency, Zagreb, October 28, 1998
IV. MPs adopt HRT law, opposition walk-out.
On 23rd October the Croatian
parliament’s Lower House adopted amendments and supplements to the Law
on Croatian Radio-Television (HRT) by a majority vote, the Croatian news
agency HINA reported. While the vote on the proposed amendments was
being taken, a majority of opposition MPs walked out, in protest against
what one of them called a “vile violation” of the chamber’s procedural
rules. The protesters objected to the fact that last-minute
amendments to the law, submitted after the debate had already taken place,
had been included in the voting process.
HINA said: “According
to the amendments, the HRT Council would consist of 23 members, of whom
10 would be members of parliament while the remaining members would be
renowned people from the fields of public life, cultural circles and science
institutes. All members would be nominated and dismissed by the Sabor’s
[parliament] Lower House. The Law gives the Council more authority,
giving it the power to nominate and dismiss chief editors on radio and
television following recommendations by the director of HRT and based on
public concessions. Chief editors will in future not, however, be
allowed to at the same time be party officials. Broadcasting will
continue via three channels while a public concession will be advertised
for the issuing of a licence of a fourth channel.”
HINA news agency, Zagreb, October 23, 1998
V. Disagreements over HRT bill persist.
Although all parliamentary
parties agree that a new law on Croatian Radio- Television [HRT] is necessary,
after almost a year of discussion, their attitudes on what the law should
look like still vary.
The HDZ’s [Croatian Democratic
Union] amendments and addenda, which have just been discussed in the assembly
for the second time (although they have been considerably diluted over
the past few months and adjusted to comply to some extent with the requests
of the opposition) have been subject to all kinds of criticism. After
the HNS’s [Croatian National Party] bill, drawn up at the request of Forum
21, had failed to pass the first reading, the opposition six came up with
their own bill on the national radio and television. Their objections,
however, have taken the form of an amendment to the bill introduced by
the HDZ.
Although there does not
seem to be much difference between the bills of the ruling party and the
opposition, because they both want the HRT Council to exercise a more open
approach, the discussion has revealed that there were many details on which
the two sides insisted.
Their attitudes are also
diametrically opposed on certain essential issues, such as how many channels
Croatian Television should have. The HDZ’s bill wants the HTV [Croatian
Television] to keep all three networks and to have its new frequency privatized.
The opposition, on the other hand, seeing all this as an illusion and as
an attempt to continue with the monopoly of national television, fears
that there is not enough private capital or technical resources to open
a new television frequency.
Furthermore, what we euphemistically
call another point of disagreement among members of parliament on the new
HRT law relates to the HRT Council. How members of that council are
elected is more problematic than who they are and how many of them should
be elected.
Although both sides agree that most of council members
should be appointed by cultural, religious and other public institutions,
the bone of contention is who will ratify their appointment: the
assembly or those same institutions?
Accordingly, apart from some other minor differences
(the question of subscription, the need to separate the transmitters and
communications departments from the HRT and so on), there are major differences
between the originators of the bills. As the matter is exceptionally
sensitive and can eventually affect the normal operation of the national
television (which has been exposed to all kinds of pressure for months,
anyway), it would be good if members of parliament could at least agree
on the most important parts of the bill.
‘Vjesnik,’ Zagreb, October 23, 1998
VI. Commercial TVs complain of unfair competition.
Following the adoption of
amendments to the Law on Croatian Radio and Television [HRT], the Commercial
Televisions Association issued a statement on [22nd October] stressing
that, despite awarded concessions, the match between the HRT and commercial
televisions is unequal in the present circumstances, so commercial televisions
do not have a chance to survive.
Stating that the way in
which the HRT carries out its business does not exist in any other country
in the world, the Commercial Televisions Association stressed on [22nd
October] that the HRT was the only television collecting subscriptions
and transmitting advertisements without any limits and at prices it itself
sets, without public control.
The association also warned
that in certain programme segments (such as sports programmes, foreign
films and series), the HRT is exclusively a commercial television and acts
inappropriately by broadcasting the logo of sponsors in the screen corner
and transmits 15-minute blocks of advertisements before series and films,
while the law only allows up to nine minutes of advertisements.
Every television must broadcast
its programme—commercial televisions commercial programme, and the HRT
public programme, the association stressed, suggesting that clear rules
of the game be established.
The HRT must organize itself
according to one of two models—the German, which broadcasts 10-minute advertisement
blocks between 1800 and 2000 hours during the week, except for weekends,
or the Czech, which broadcasts two minutes of advertisements per hour.
It is necessary, the commercial
televisions stressed, to establish a subcommission of the HRT Council,
which will carry out an inquiry about the illegal commercialization and
prevent it in the future.
The association called on
political parties, the Council for Telecommunications and the public to
voice their opinions on the above mentioned comments.
HINA news agency, Zagreb, October 22, 1998
Serbia-Montenegro
NEW SERBIAN INFORMATION
LAW
I. Minister says media law “bans censorship.”
Serbian Information Minister
Aleksandar Vucic has said that the media law “bans censorship” and contains
fundamental regulations for running absolutely free and open information.
Vucic said in an interview
with the private Kanal 9 Kragujevac television station last night [1st
November] that the new law “punishes the forcible destruction of the constitutional
order, secures the protection of all legal norms, prohibits censorship
and protects the privacy of every citizen.”
Vucic said that “a real
witch-hunt” was being conducted against the government and its members
by certain people and minor parties that have no influence among the electorate.
He added that no-one who
had given it any thought could find anything wrong with the provisions
of the law.
Speaking about the activities
of the UN Human Rights rapporteur, Jiri Dienstbier, Vucic said that “the
so-called independent media are under pressure from abroad to defend themselves,”
adding that this was an attempt to “destroy Serbia and bring it to its
knees.”
“Under the pretext of defending
democracy, human rights and liberties, they (international players) are
trying to set up their television and media network in order to tell us
that democracy is when they bomb us,” Vucic said.
Commenting on Article 27
of the media law, which bans the rebroadcast of foreign programmes, Vucic
said that “the programmes in question are financed by these countries with
the aim of influencing the citizens of foreign countries, something that
our government will no longer allow.”
Commenting on the fines
envisaged by the law, Vucic said that they are “optimal and that their
role is primarily one of general prevention.”
Vucic assessed the demands
of the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia for the withdrawal
of the law as a democratic right of every citizen, adding that he “doubted
that the initiative will yield results because the law was passed by a
majority vote and with the support of the strongest parties in the republican
assembly.”
Asked by a viewer about
the enforcement of the press law in Kosovo, Vucic said that “this was a
heinous trick aimed at implying that the government was allegedly closing
down Serbian papers, but not papers in Kosovo.”
Vucic said that “texts in
‘Nasa Borba’ [Serbian independent paper] were very often much worse than
texts in ‘Koha Ditore’ or in ‘Bujku’ and that there was no great difference
between the editorial policies of these newspapers.”
Beta news agency, Belgrade, November 2, 1998
II. Constitutional Court asked to rule on media law.
The independent association
of Serbian journalists [on 29th October] proposed to the Serbian Constitutional
Court to set in motion a procedure for the assessment of constitutional
and legal status of certain provisions of the Serbian Public Information
Law.
The Constitutional Court
has been asked to pass a temporary measure preventing the implementation
of all decisions based on this controversial law until the final decision
is made.
Radio B92, Belgrade, October 29, 1998
III. Getting around Serbia’s media ban.
Two international initiatives
were launched on 26th October to counteract the effects of Serbia’s recent
law banning relays of broadcasts by foreign radio and TV stations.
Serbia’s independent media, meanwhile, are coordinating their own fight
against the new law.
Jiri Dienstbier, the United
Nations special rapporteur on human rights in former Yugoslavia, said he
would propose that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) should set up its own TV network as part of the planned international
verification mission in Kosovo. “There is one-sided information on
both sides, and independent media are needed to help resolve this,” he
said after meeting in Belgrade on the 26th with editors of three banned
independent Serbian dailies. The aim of the network would be to promote
communication not only with ethnic Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, but all
the population of Serbia.
And the international radio
network in Bosnia—Free Elections Radio Network, FERN—said that it would
make available to its affiliate local stations near the border with Serbia
programmes in Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian from the Voice of America,
Deutsche Welle and Radio Free Europe, the Prague-based US surrogate broadcaster.
This would give some listeners in neighbouring Serbia the option of again
hearing programmes from these foreign broadcasters, which can no longer
be rebroadcast legally by independent stations in Serbia.
FERN is a radio network
financed by the Swiss government and supported by the OSCE. It began
operating in Bosnia in July 1996 to provide balanced coverage for the subsequent
elections in that country. It is one of a series of international
efforts to promote pluralism in the Bosnian media. Other projects
there include the Open Broadcasting Network, OBN, which has operated for
just over two years, and receives finance from various Western organizations,
including the OSCE and NATO. This year Radio Free Europe also announced
plans for joint broadcasts with over 20 radio stations in Bosnia-Hercegovina,
to whom it would provide satellite facilities.
The initiative to reach
listeners in Serbia using FERN stations in Bosnia introduces an element
of internationalization which the authorities in Belgrade are likely to
seize on to accuse Western organizations of infringing Serbia’s territorial
integrity. The broadcasts from the network in Bosnia are mostly likely
to be on FM transmitters. They are intended more as a symbolic gesture
of support from the West for Serbia’s independent stations and extending
the programming choice available to their listeners.
There is a history of similar
previous broadcasting initiatives to former Yugoslavia. From 1993
to 1994, Radio Brod, a radio ship transmitting news on mediumwave to the
former Yugoslav republics, operated from the Adriatic Sea. It was
run by the French group “Droit de Parole” [Freedom of Speech] and funded
by the European Union and UNESCO, among others. Those broadcasts
ended after the EU withdrew financial support.
In Serbia itself, editors
of the remaining independent broadcasters and newspapers have launched
a campaign to collect signatures in support of revoking the media law,
and plan legal action to challenge whether the new law is constitutional.
Representatives of the Belgrade
radio stations B92 and Studio B, together with the Association of Independent
Electronic Media in Serbia and Montenegro, will also produce a joint programme
for simultaneous transmission by all the independent radio stations.
As B-92 reported, the whole campaign to oppose the media law is being coordinated
under the joint slogan: “Remaining silent is not the Serb way.”
BBC Monitoring Research, October 28, 1998
IV. Independent media to demand revoking of law.
The heads of independent
newspapers and representatives of the association of private and independent
media in Serbia have decided to launch an initiative to revoke the new
media law.
At a meeting [on 26th October],
it was decided, as part of this initiative, to collect signatures so as
to get the Serbian Assembly to revoke the controversial law.
The media representatives
also agreed that each one of them would separately appeal to the Constitutional
Court to get it to investigate the constitutionality of the new law.
At the same time, representatives
of Studio B [managed by people supporting the Serbian Renewal Movement,
SPO, led by Vuk Draskovic], Radio B92 and ANEM [Association of Independent
Electronic Media] agreed to start a joint programme to be broadcast simultaneously
by all radio stations.
The ‘Vreme’ and ‘Nin’ weeklies
will devise a joint advertisement to draw the attention of readers to the
threat that the new law poses to the freedom of information.
The surviving print and
electronic media would also carry the advertisement.
All the independent media
would act under a joint slogan “Remaining silent is not the Serb way.”
The heads of ‘NT Plus,’
‘Nasa Borba,’ ‘Blic,’ ‘Danas,’ ‘Demokratija,,’ ‘Svedok,’ ‘Nedeljni Telegraf’
[independent newspapers], the [independent] news agencies Fonet and Beta
and [private] Radio Index also attended the meeting.
Radio B92, Belgrade, October 26, 1998
V. Information minister defends new media law.
Our public has been a victim
of media manipulation and half-truths. Certain foreign states have
condemned us in what I can only describe as a hypocritical manner, just
because we want our ministry to be a place where journalists can obtain
truthful, objective and correct information as well as facts about certain
events, particularly, in Kosovo and other parts of our country, Serbian
Information Minister Aleksandar Vucic has said.
Vucic said in an interview,
published in [the 24th October] edition of the Kragujevac-based daily ‘Lid,’
the Serbian government believes that the new Serbian media law is modern
and civilized in that it bans censorship and strikes a balance between
public media freedom and responsibility.
Vucic recalled that the
law was adopted unanimously—something which showed that the accusations
were unfounded. He believes that at present many fear the punitive
measures stipulated by the new law, despite the fact that these measures
are much tougher in other states.
“No-one who does his job
in a professional manner should be afraid. We in the government believe
that the law will contribute to a more successful and faster flow of information
from both domestic and foreign sources,” Vucic said in conclusion.
Tanjug news agency, Belgrade, October 24, 1998
VI. Implications of Serbian media law.
On 20th October, in urgent
procedure, the Serbian Legislature adopted a new Law on Information, which
prohibits re-broadcasting of foreign radio and television programmes and
introduces high fines for editors of those media who fail to abide by the
law’s highly restrictive provisions. Legal experts and owners of
private and independent media are unanimous in assessing that the new law
enables the authorities—by arbitrarily interpreting the law’s rather vague
provisions and prescribing high fines—to practically ban any media not
to their liking.
If they venture to publish
a piece of information which is estimated as “undermining the constitutional
order,” the owner or the publisher of a public media might be required
to pay from 400,000 to 800,000 dinars (DM50,000-117,000) in fines, and
the journalist who wrote it and the editor who approved of its publication
might be declared liable to pay from 100,000 to 400,000 [dinars] in fines.
For rebroadcasting “propaganda-political programmes” of foreign radio stations
in Serbian, media can be fined to pay from 50,000 to 150,000 dinars in
penalties, while publication of false information damaging a person’s dignity
might “cost” a media founder or a published somewhere from 100,000 to 300,000
dinars, and a reporter and his/her editor from 50,000 to 150,000 dinars.
The fines specified for editors surpass by several times their annual income.
Thus, the fined media owners would have to sell all their property to meet
their legal obligations.
All the provisions from
the government’s regulation on special measures under the conditions of
NATO intervention threats brought in the night between 13th and 14th October
have found their place in the new law. On the basis of this regulation,
several independent dailies, ‘Danas,’ ‘Nasa Borba’ and ‘Dnevni Telegraf’
have been banned, because it was estimated that they had been spreading
panic and defeatism. True, the spreading of panic and defeatism was
not mentioned in the new law but the law does say that media and their
editors will be fined “for publishing information calling for a violent
overthrow of the constitutional order, undermining of the territorial integrity
and independence of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, violation of guaranteed freedoms and rights of man and citizen,
that is, for inciting national, racial, or religious intolerance and hatred.”
Having in view experiences from the past, the authorities can successfully
use such provisions against all positions and views diverging from official
stands. . . .
The new law on information
replaced the one adopted in March of 1991, before the dissolution of the
former Yugoslavia. Depending on the estimate by the authorities and
judges, the new law says that a call for demonstrations against a government
decision might be interpreted as a call for the overthrow of the constitutional
order. Owners and media editors fear that, practically, anything
they publish and that is not to the government’s liking, might be interpreted
as a hostile act, and, as such, subject to sanctions.
By the publication of the
law on information in the Official Gazette on 21st October, the regulation
that was earlier used to ban the three dailies ceased to be effective.
This means that these dailies can once again start coming out. However,
it is very likely that the authorities will closely monitor their content
and will not hesitate to implement the provisions of the new information
law if they see such action fit.
The pressure
Responding to the provisions
of the new law on information, legal and media experts, journalists and
representatives of political parties have almost unanimously assessed that
with the adoption of the new law, censorship has been introduced.
They pointed out the law was in opposition with the constitution, which
guarantees the freedom of information and prohibits censorship. . . .
The law has made provisions
for appeals if the owner or the editor in chief of the media facing misdemeanour
charges does not have the money to pay the fine within three days, all
his/her property is subject to confiscation regardless of the results of
the appeal. According to the law, the author of the text, the editor
and the publisher are responsible to make sure that the information they
publish is true and not the person who gave it, whether under his/her full
name or anonymously. A journalist has to make sure that the information
he writes is true even if he is citing a person enjoying official immunity.
. . .
Self-censorship
Private media and the Independent
Association of Journalists have announced they will continue to fight the
new law. To begin with, as a sign of protest once a week, they will
either not appear on the newsstands or will publish texts protesting against
the media-aimed repression. Also, these newspapers will ask the independent
electronic media also affected by the new law to support their action.
The Serbian government regulation
and the new law on information which replaced it have already affected
the attitude of certain media. In fear that they might be banned
or subject to draconian sentences, many editors in chief and media owners
have resorted to self-censorship and are reluctant to publish news items
and articles that can provoke the authorities.
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 22, 1998
VII. Independent media mull response to new curbs.
The Serbian government
on 21st October lifted a decree that had shut down some independent newspapers
and radio stations, but at the same time it rushed through parliament a
new media law which makes it illegal for the media to question Yugoslavia’s
territorial integrity and publish reports which may stir up fear and defeatism.
The following is an editorial analysis by BBC Monitoring’s Foreign Media
Unit:
Serbia’s new media
law also bans the rebroadcasting of programmes from—among others—the BBC,
the Voice of America, CNN, Deutsche Welle and Radio Free Europe.
Independent broadcasters and newspaper editors criticized the
law as “scandalous” and “unbearable,” and said they would fight the new
press curbs tooth and nail.
The Association of Independent
Electronic Media in Serbia and Montenegro (ANEM) dismissed the law as “the
most restrictive and shameful,” but advised its radio and TV stations to
abide by the rebroadcast ban. The ANEM president and editor in chief
of the independent Belgrade station Radio B92, Veran Matic, told fellow
broadcasters not to broadcast foreign programmes until further notice,
especially those of the BBC, VOA, Radio Free Europe and Deutsche Welle,
“as the fines are draconian.”
The independent Montenegrin
newspaper ‘Vijesti’ attacked “the draconian penalties for publishers and
editors.” The editors of the independent newspapers earlier banned
by the government decree—‘ Danas,’ ‘Dnevni Telegraf’ and ‘Nasa Borba’—said
that they would fight for the abolition of the media law, but because of
the fear of fines and reprisals, they would not resume publishing their
papers for a few days.
The editor in chief of ‘Danas,’
Grujica Spasovic, told Radio B92: “We’ll have to think of some action,
together with the other media which are in a similar situation. Not
so much out of solidarity, but because it’s truly difficult to work in
the media while living in fear.”
The editor of the ‘Dnevni
Telgraf,’ Slavko Curuvija, protested to the same radio station: “We
shall use all ways to try to abolish this law. . . . I refuse to
publish a newspaper under this law. Not only on principle, but also
for practical reasons. Some friends of mine among ministers and the
government have told me that it would not be wise to resume publication
immediately because, allegedly there are certain people who are very keen
to try out the effectiveness of the new law on the first copies of my paper.”
According to a special edition
of ‘Nasa Borba,’ the paper’s editor, Mihal Ramac, “singled out as particular
nonsense in the new law the obligation of the media to check their reports
against news agencies.” The owner of ‘Nasa Borba,’ Dusan Majic, said
he would resume the publication of the newspaper on 26th or 27th October.
It will be printed in Podgorica in Montenegro.
BBC Monitoring Research, October 21-22, 1998
VIII. Media law covers papers printed in Montenegro.
Serbian Deputy Prime Minister
Vojislav Seselj announced this evening that the new Serbian Information
Law will also affect the newspapers registered in Montenegro and distributed
in Serbia.
“We do not mind that at
all. They can go and register themselves on Mars, since the law says
that the courts are authorized to act based on the domicile of the founder
and the domicile of the printing house and based on the location of distribution,”
Seselj said in a Radio-Television of Serbia (RTS) programme dedicated to
the new information law.
He said that not a single
criminal court in Serbia could have jurisdiction in this if the newspapers
are printed in Podgorica and not distributed in Serbia, but he said that
the newspapers distributed in Serbia would be affected.
“Now, for example, when
a court comes up with a fine, and [‘Dnevni Telegraf’ owner Slavko] Curuvija
or [‘Danas’ commentator Aleksandar] Tijanic move to Podgorica, where their
companies are registered, to where they have taken all their money in suitcases,
where they print their papers and send them to Serbia, well, if they do
what they have been doing, and the court fines them, then we will confiscate
their property here in Serbia, in Belgrade,” the deputy prime minister
said.
Seselj said that an order for confiscation in Montenegro
would also be sent to Podgorica, but he said that “how cooperative the
Montenegrin authorities would be” was another matter. “If they have
no property here, we will confiscate their bank accounts. We will
confiscate their newspapers when they send them from Montenegro until we
get enough paper to be able to recycle it to the amount of the fine,” he
added.
“So, once they have been
charged, our state bodies will hang around somewhere near Prijepolje and
collect their papers, truckloads and truckloads and truckloads of their
papers. You can imagine how many truckloads it would take to come
up with the amount of one of these fines, unless they are paid some other
way,” Seselj stressed.
“All their plans are in
vain. Nothing will come of them. This law is to be observed
strictly and to the letter, just like all other laws passed by the people’s
assembly, since laws express the will of the people,” Seselj said.
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 21, 1998
IX. Domestic reaction to new Serbian media law.
Media reaction to the information
law passed by the Serbian Assembly on 20th October has largely been predictable.
Broadcasters loyal to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have quoted
top Serbian officials as denying that the new law, which underpins the
government’ s decree restricting media practices, is intended to introduce
censorship or to limit in any way the freedom of the Serbian press.
The independent media, on the other hand, accused officials of introducing
censorship and further controls which will enable Milosevic to edit views
which criticize his policies, including his agreement on Kosovo.
Milosevic-controlled media
Radio-TV Serbia (RTS), Serbia’s
official TV channel, reported on the 20th that Serbian Information Minister
Aleksandar Vucic denied that the information law was intended to restrict
media freedom. The new law prohibits censorship, he said, while its
aim is to ban the rebroadcasting of any propaganda programmes produced
by a foreign broadcasting company. The media outlets “undermining
the territorial integrity and independence of Serbia” will be penalized
“most rigorously,” he added, according to the report.
A top Socialist Party of
Serbia official, Gorica Gajovic, told RTS that journalists would no longer
be able to bombard the public with “threats of attacks” in an attempt to
stir up “paranoia, panic and defeatism.” Speaking on RTS, a Serbian
Radical Party (SRS) official, Stevo Dragisic, also hailed the new law,
suggesting that it only affects the media which are in the service of Western
“military officials” and “those who were supposed to bomb Serbia.”
Serbian Deputy Prime Minister
and SRS leader Vojislav Seselj has defended the new media law as “good”
and “faultless,” Beta news agency reported on the 20th. “It unreservedly
asserts the freedom of the press” and “puts things back in their place,”
he told the Serbian parliament. He said to journalists after the
session of the Serbian Assembly which passed the law that “Voice of America
broadcasts will never again be allowed” in Serbia. He accused NATO
Secretary-General Javier Solana of trying to influence Serbia’s media and
dismissed those who “helped” Solana in Serbia as “domestic traitors.”
Independent media
Serbia’s surviving independent
media have published statements charging that the law is intended to extend
and strengthen the severe restrictions which Belgrade has recently imposed
on journalists.
According to a small party,
the Independent Democrats, the law leaves journalists “completely unprotected,”
the ‘Blic’ newspaper reported on the 21st. According to the report,
the mayor of Novi Sad warned that from now on, there will “only be one
truth,” the truth of the ruling party.
On the 18th, Radio B92’s
lawyer condemned the “draconian” fines for “political propaganda” stipulated
in the law.
A Montenegrin independent
newspaper, ‘Vijesti,’ mounted a hard-hitting attack on Slobodan Milosevic
on 20th October over the ban of four Serbian newspapers. The paper
accused the president of “intransigence, arrogance and brutality,” of using
“police” measures and of opportunism. The paper said that “the gross
suppression of the media” was a sign that things have not been going too
well for Milosevic in Serbia and that his main objective was to conceal
it.
The paper charged that Milosevic
hoped to “eliminate” from the media any indication that the accord with
Holbrooke was no victory for him. Rather it marks a defeat in that
he was finally forced to accept an “ultimatum” set by the international
community.
BBC Monitoring Research, October 17-21, 1998
X. New Serbian media law bans foreign relays.
The Serbian parliament
on 20th October approved a new information law that makes it illegal to
question the country’s territorial integrity and publish material that
is deemed to spread fear or defeatism. It also bans the rebroadcasting
of programmes made by news organizations outside the country. Serbian
Information Minister Aleksandar Vucic said the new law strikes the right
balance between freedom and responsibility. The following are excerpts
from a report on the Serbian assembly session on 20th October, broadcast
that day by Serbian TV:
[Reporter] Explaining the proposal for
the Law on Public Information, Information Minister Aleksandar Vucic said
that the law was created with the goal of striking the right balance between
freedom and responsibility. Each citizen is entitled to free and
objective information. A citizen’s right to participate in the creation
and dissemination of information represents a democratic achievement of
which few countries can boast. However, the changes that have taken
place over the past six years since the passage of the previous law on
public information warrant an adjustment of the law to the new circumstances
and trends suggesting future relations in society and in the realm of public
information. . . .
Public information is free
and censorship is prohibited. One new aspect of this law is that
a public medium cannot publish or rebroadcast in part or in full a radio
or television programme of a politically propagandistic nature in the Serbian
language or in the languages of ethnic minorities residing in the Republic
of Serbia that is generated by foreign radio broadcasting companies founded
by foreign governments or their agencies. This does not include programmes
that are broadcasts or rebroadcasts on the reciprocity basis agreed on
in a bilateral agreement. . . .
The punitive measures should
primarily be preventive, and only in extreme cases a means of repression.
Information calling for the violent overthrow of the political system,
undermining of the territorial integrity and independence of the Republic
of Serbia and the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia], violation of the
rights guaranteed to man and citizen, or instigation of ethnic, racial
or religious intolerance and hatred will be penalized the most rigorously.
. . .
Freedom of the media in
Serbia is guaranteed by the constitution and the laws, emphasized Gorica
Gajevic, chief of the club of deputies of the Socialist Party of Serbia
[SPS]. The true extent to which this freedom extends in Serbia is
illustrated by the fact that more than 2,500 dailies and weeklies, 86 radio
stations and 18 television stations are registered in our country, which
far exceeds the number of media in the developed countries that claim for
themselves that they are democratic and are also regarded as such.
Evidently, Gorica Gajevic said, our media space is taken up by the number
of media that exceeds the true requirements of this region. In the
past, unfortunately, this freedom often transgressed into excess because
the responsibility of protagonists in the information process were not
defined:
[Gajovic] This law, in short, protects
the freedom of media from the abuse of this freedom. The provisions
of this law do not stop anyone from writing and broadcasting whatever they
consider correct and true. However, it simultaneously clearly defines
the responsibilities and the professional and ethical standards and provides
protection against lies and misinformation. With these legal solutions,
we will no longer be in the situation in which we found ourselves a month
ago, when the media, in an attempt to create a psychosis of fear, panic
and defeatism, literally bombarded us with threats and announcements of
attacks. The penalties imposed on the media that issued alarming
threats to our nation and state, that employed technology to create a war
psychosis and to sow fear and defeatism, were the mildest and lightest
possible punishments. Their true punishment is that in the public
they will carry the stigma of having worked against the interests of their
country and their nation, a shameful brand that the nation will not forget.
The media that defended those who were poised to bomb the country and people
for whom they report and who in their respective countries enforce a vocabulary
of banned words as well as censorship deserve nothing but scorn. . . .
[Reporter] Pointing out the significance
that individual Western countries attach to the media propaganda, Stevo
Dragisic, president of the club of deputies of the Serbian Radical Party,
said:
[Dragisic] What business do the military
representatives have holding talks with those representing so-called independent
journalism unless they are in their service? What business does a
general have talking to the chief and managing editor of an insignificant
paper lacking noteworthy circulation here in Serbia? Here is the
truly logical question: Why would he be interested in talking to
him unless he is their soldier, unless he serves them? This is the
logical answer. Proof that these media serve those who were supposed
to bomb the Serbs lies in the fact that they met them after they had been
subjected to the authority of the decree which outlines the behaviour of
Serbian media in circumstances of a danger of war.
RTS SAT TV, Belgrade, October 20, 1998
XI. New law proposes “draconian” media curbs.
[Announcer] As we mentioned earlier,
Radio B92 has obtained information on the contents of the draft law on
information, which will be presented for the first time to deputies of
the Serbian parliament on [20th October].
We have found out that the law contains some logical but also
a significant number of quite repressive provisions. My colleague
Bojana Lekic and our lawyer, Milos Zivkovic, are here in the studio with
me.
[Lekic] According to the information
we have obtained, the draft law, which will be discussed by deputies on
[20th October], contains, on first examination, several contentious articles
or provisions. It appears that part of the previous ban [on rebroadcasting
foreign radio and TV programmes] has been incorporated into this law and,
according to our sources, has been formulated in Article 27, which states:
The media cannot broadcast
or make a delayed rebroadcast, in its entirety or in part, of a radio or
TV programme with political propaganda content, broadcast by a foreign
media organization whose founders are foreign governments or which is of
a non-commercial nature. This does not include programmes which are
broadcast or rebroadcast subsequently on the basis of an agreement that
has been reciprocally concluded between two states.
If the information is obtained
from a foreign media source, Article 27 says, according to our sources,
that the source of the information must be stated.
Milos, does any agreement currently exist
that foresees such reciprocity which has been determined by an agreement
between two states?
[Zivkovic] Only that which is
legal. It has to be said that it is extremely difficult to define
what comprises political propaganda content. What kind of programme
is that?
[Lekic] Does this mean that the
Ministry [of Information] is interfering with the content of programmes?
[Zivkovic] Yes, it is.
[Lekic] Is this known to happen
around the world?
[Zivkovic] When such a ban is
formally enshrined in law, it should be formulated extremely precisely,
so that is quite clear what is banned and what is not. That is because
those whom it is aimed at need to know what they can do and what they cannot.
That is one of the basic principles.
[Lekic] Our sources have also
pointed out the penalty clauses, above all Article 74. According
to the same sources, this article says that anyone rebroadcasting radio
and TV programmes by foreign broadcasting organizations, contrary to the
abovementioned Article 27, will be fined as follows: firstly, the
founder and the publisher will receive a fine of between 200,000 to 400,000
new dinars, and secondly, the editor in chief and the person representing
the founder and publisher will be fined between 50,000 and 100,000 new
dinars.
This article is controversial
because, according to our sources, Article 73 says that a court may make
such a decision. But a court is not mentioned in this part of the
text.
[Zivkovic] All I can say is that the
fines envisaged are extremely high. The new penal code would probably
allow such fines. As it is, they are not allowed in the current penal
code.
It looks as though the ministry itself is going to assess which
programmes have a political propaganda content.
[Lekic] At this moment even the
deputies do not have the text of the draft law, although it is being passed
using urgent procedures. But we can see that it will contain three
articles covering the implementation. We have the text of these three
articles.
I would like to tell our
listeners that these articles cover the implementation of these fines and
within 24 hours, at that.
[Zivkovic] A magistrate is obliged
to decide within 24 hours whether an offence has been committed.
Judging from your information, it seems that the accused are obliged to
prove that the published report is true. Such a procedure is highly
unusual. The usual procedure would be to apply the general practice
of the penal procedure whereby the accused must prove that they have acted
conscientiously when they published the report.
All in all, such a quick
procedure accompanied by such draconian fines—if this is what the government
is proposing—indicates that the intention is to curb all reporting by means
of heavy fines.
[On 17th October (1930 gmt)
Radio B92 broadcast the following interview with the head of the New Democracy
parliamentary floor group, Zarko Jokanovic, who said: “According
to the information I have, we shall be given the text of the law either
at the assembly session on 20th October or on 19th October at the earliest.
I have also been told that the law includes more than 80 articles and is
very restrictive towards the media, with drastic penalties of 200,000 to
400,000 dinars for various offences. I also know that the Serbian
government’s decree [banning Serbian media from relaying programmes from
foreign stations while the threat of NATO attacks continues] has been fully
incorporated in the law, and that the ban on rebroadcasts of programmes
made by the media based in foreign countries will remain in force permanently,
which means that Voice of America, the BBC, Deutsche Welle and all other
stations which have programmes in Serbian and which are not based in Yugoslavia
will be banned.” ]
Radio B92, Belgrade, October 18, 1998
XII. Serb emergency decree on media.
The Serbian government last
night [8th October] issued a decree on what it described as special measures
in a state of threat of NATO attacks against our country. Article
7 of this decree prescribes that the media are under the obligation to
operate in line with the rights and responsibilities of citizens and to
safeguard the integrity and sovereignty of Serbia and Yugoslavia.
Article 8 says that while
the country is under threat of armed attack, the media cannot rebroadcast
foreign media programmes, parts of programmes or texts, which, the government
said, are aimed against our country, which spread fear, panic and defeatism,
or which can have a negative effect on the readiness of citizens to safeguard
the integrity of Serbia and Yugoslavia.
Radio B92, Belgrade, October 9, 1998
XIII. Serbian radio stations comply with relay ban.
Serbia’s independent broadcasters
have decided to grin and bear it in bowing to the government’s decree to
stop airing foreign news programmes hostile to Yugoslavia, the Belgrade-based
news agency Beta reported on 8th October. The decree specifically
prohibits retransmissions of programmes from the BBC, CNN, Deutsche Welle
and Radio Free Europe.
Fearing reprisals, Radio
Pirot, Radio Kragujevac and Studio B announced on the 8th that they would
obey the order and would not rebroadcast any foreign programmes for at
least 48 hours.
Private Radio Pirot has
dropped its BBC rebroadcasts, Beta said on the 8th. The agency quoted
the radio’s editor in chief, Momcilo Djurisic, as saying that the station
would comply with “the request of the Serbian government” and cease rebroadcasting
BBC radio programmes in Serbian. “Regardless of what we think of
the government decision, we are going to respect the law and decisions
of the state institutions,” he told Beta, adding: “We are facing
a new era of censorship in the Serbian media.”
Radio Kragujevac also announced
its decision to observe the government’s rebroadcast ban for at least 48
hours. Beta news agency quoted Branko Vuckovic, senior editor of
Radio Kragujevac, as saying that one of the reasons was the government’s
threat to confiscate equipment and to punish those who refuse to heed the
ban.
Instead of rebroadcasting
programmes of the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and the BBC, Radio Kragujevac
will increase its coverage of Beta news agency reports and relay “appeals
to listeners of the ANEM [Association of Independent Electronic Media]
radio stations to prevent the darkness that is looming to descend on the
Serbian media,” Beta news agency said.
Radio Television Studio
B director Dragan Kojadinovic said that Studio B would respect the ban
but he condemned it as “counterproductive.” “There is concern that
the ban on certain independent media outlets in a situation when there
is no official information will result in a spread of inaccurate information.
The general feeling is that such inaccurate information will do more damage
than the broadcasting of programmes that contain elements of psychological
warfare,” Kojadinovic told Beta.
He said the government had
“underestimated Serbian citizens, believing them to be incompetent to judge
the quality of the media.”
On 7th and 8th October,
Belgrade-based independent B92, which normally rebroadcasts BBC programmes,
was observed by BBC Monitoring to have acceded to the government’s embargo
on foreign broadcasts. The radio carried its regular hourly news
bulletins and focused mainly on pop music. The station did not play
any patriotic songs.
On 8th October Aleksandra
Radulovic, editor of the Novi Sad-based Radio 021, said that the station
would cease rebroadcasting the programmes of foreign radio stations.
BBC Monitoring Research, October 8, 1998
XIV. Independent media condemn relay ban as “censorship.”
The Association of Independent
Electronic Media [ANEM] has concluded that the Serbian government ban on
rebroadcasting foreign programmes in Serbian is the crudest possible form
of state censorship and a direct interference in editorial policy.
However, because of threats
to use violence and retaliate, ANEM has called on its members to stop rebroadcasting
foreign programmes in Serbian for 48 hours.
Radio B92, Belgrade, October 8, 1998
MONTENEGRO’S REACTION TO NEW
SERBIAN MEDIA LAW
I. Montenegro rules on foreign media activity.
In a session next week the
Montenegrin government will adopt regulations on the conduct of foreign
media activities in that republic. This is what ‘Vesti’ learnt at
the Secretariat of Information of Montenegro. The regulations propose
that no one is entitled illegally to restrict the freedom of the foreign
media and that state bodies are obliged to allow them to work without hindrance.
According to the text of
the proposed regulations, the foreign media must respect the constitutional
order and the effective legal systems of both the Republic of Montenegro
and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and work in line with international
standards in the information sector. Their work in Montenegro may
be restricted only by a court’s decision, if it is established that activities
have been carried out that are incompatible with their powers and status
or with the principle of reciprocity.
The import and distribution
of foreign press and other foreign mass media materials are free, and the
legal persons registered for importing and distributing foreign press will
be entitled to distribute foreign mass media materials.
Radio and television stations
will be able to rebroadcast foreign media programmes, and the conditions
will be stipulated by contracts between the [Montenegrin] broadcasting
organization and the foreign medium in question. Before any measures
are taken against a foreign medium, the Montenegrin body in charge must
warn it in writing that it has violated the contract or regulations.
The [Montenegrin] state
body, the body of a local self-administrative unit, or another legal person
will have to pay a fine 20 to 50 times as high as the minimum income in
Montenegro if it illegally restricts the work of foreign media representatives.
A person in charge will have to pay a fine 5 to 10 times as high as the
minimum income in Montengro in such a case.
Every legal person will
have to pay a fine if it imports or distributes foreign press illegally
or if he reproduces it without the approval of the relevant authority.
Confiscation is not clever
Since the interest in the
registration of Serbian media organizations in Montenegro is growing, Abas-Beli
Cafic, the Montenegrin deputy information minister, has said that anyone
who meets legal standards is entitled to register an information company
with the same rights and duties as any Montenegrin company.
“The announcement that the
copies of Montenegrin papers in circulation in Serbia could be confiscated
there despite registration is not a clever move since this would ultimately
destroy the information system in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,”
Cafic said.
‘Vesti,’ Bad Vilbel, October 30, 1998
II. Montenegrin PM condemns Serbia’s media crackdown.
Montenegrin Prime Minister
Filip Vujanovic said [on 29th October] that Montenegro had “a highly negative
altitude” towards the suppression of the independent media in Serbia.
Vujanovic said in an interview
with Podgorica’s daily ‘Pobjeda’ that “the curtailing of the freedom of
information represents an attack on constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.”
The Montenegrin prime minister
also concluded that the actions taken by the Serbian authorities against
individual media illustrate “the state’s highly undemocratic attitude towards
freedom of information.”
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 29, 1998
III. Montenegro not to ban foreign relays.
Montenegrin Information Secretary
Bozidar Jaredic said [on 9th October] that Montenegro “has not the slightest
intention” of passing a special regulation which would prescribe the behaviour
of the media.
Jaredic told Beta that the
Serbian government’s regulation on special measures “in conditions of NATO
threats” represents “an attempt to control the media,” adding that he saw
no reason for passing such a decision.
“The Montenegrin Information
Law allows foreigners to set up media organizations . . . [agency
ellipsis] If we allow foreigners to do that, why should we not allow the
rebroadcast of certain (foreign) programmes,” Jaredic said.
“If these programmes do
not contain calls for bringing down the government, or spreading national,
religious and racial hatred, there is no reason for us to ban such media
simply because of their different view on a certain problem,” Jaredic said.
“Irrespective of the fact
that this is a serious political moment, when Yugoslavia is facing military
intervention because it has failed to implement the international community’s
demands, we have neither proclaimed martial law nor a state of war, so
I see no reason for the passage of such a decision,” Jaredic said.
Jaredic concluded that the
regulations contained in the latest Serbian government regulation can only
“be detrimental to Yugoslavia’ s reputation in the international community
and further complicate the current situation.”
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 9, 1998
OTHER MEDIA NEWS
I. Five private radios closed in Serbia since February.
Nenad Cekic, chief editor
of the [private] Belgrade-based Radio Index, stated [on 29th October] that
the charges filed against him for the illegal possession and use of a radio
station represented an attempt by the authorities to “involve the judiciary
in the stifling of the media in Serbia.”
The charges have been filed
against Cekic because of “a serious crime, for which the law does not anticipate
a fine, but only a prison sentence from three months to eight years,” Nebojsa
Samardzic, lawyer of the Association of Independent Electronic Media [ANEM],
told a news conference. . . .
ANEM chairman Veran Matic
said that five radio stations that were members of this association had
been closed since February: Radio Index, Radio Senta, the Pristina-based
Radio Kontakt, Radio Television Pirot and the Nis-based Radio City.
He assessed this as “a serious attack on freedom of speech.”
The charges filed against
Cekic “only usher in further attacks on the media,” Matic said, adding
that the bids invited by the Federal Ministry for Telecommunications for
the allocation of frequencies to radio and television stations “were not
about the legalization of the media, but about their closure.”
“Obviously, Radio Index
and the daily ‘Dnevni Telegraf’ were picked to set an example for all other
media,” Cekic said, assessing that the charges had been filed against Radio
Index because the authorities “were not bold enough to attack Radio B92.”
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 29, 1998
II. Official warns Kosovo Albanian media.
Serbian Assistant Information
Minister Dusanka Djogo-Antonovic has said that the new media law is “liberal,
much more liberal than many laws in western Europe” and that “there is
no room for criticism purporting it to be undemocratic and restrictive.”
She told Jagodina Palma
Plus Television last night [22nd October] that the information law “does
not restrict or limit in any way the freedom to approach state policies
or politicians critically and constructively..”.
She announced that, in line
with the new law, the relevant bodies will have “to give their reaction
as regards the media in the Albanian language in Kosovo and Metohija.”
Djogo said that 64 newspapers
and magazines are published in Albanian in Kosovo, of which only 14 are
registered and that “only 14 newspapers” are published in Albania itself.
“Most of the papers published
in Albanian in Kosovo are against the state, and they seriously violate
the basic foundations of our state. They also violate the constitution,”
Djogo said.
She said that this meant
that “most of these papers are violating the new Serbian media law” and
that “the relevant bodies will state their reaction soon.”
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 23, 1998
III. Seselj cited on curbs on Albanian-language media.
Vojislav Seselj, deputy prime
minister of the Serbian government, has stated that the Serbian Information
Ministry has been “scrutinizing the Albanian-language media,” and has announced
“appropriate measures against the media” which have not been complying
with the decree on information.
“Our intention has been
to show to all the Serbian-language media how serious our decree is, and
to prevent anyone from saying that the goal of the decree is to deny the
freedom of press only to the members of the Shiptar [derogatory term for
Albanians] national minority,” Seselj said in last night’s programme of
TV Leskovac.
He pointed out that the
ministry’s job “has been made additionally difficult by the need to translate
from Albanian into Serbian.” Seselj said that “every article is translated
from Albanian into Serbian,” and that “this involves a lot of work, because
every translation must be professionally done to enable us to react.”
“You can be sure that we
will react,” Seselj said.
Beta news agency, Belgrade, October 16, 1998
IV. Serbia to tax satellite TV, internet users.
The Serbian government will
soon publish a new decree according to which all satellite dish users will
be obliged to pay a monthly tax of 100 dinars if they wish to watch and
listen to foreign television and radio programmes, ‘Dnevni telegraf’ has
learnt from a source close to Marjanovic’s cabinet. The explanation
is that the aim of the decree on satellite dishes, as well as the decree
on the media, is “to safeguard state interests.”
The source assumes that
the “satellite tax” will probably “be combined with payment for some regular
services, such as electricity, telephone or housing maintenance,” but declined
to specify how the state is going to compile a list of all satellite dish
owners in Serbia.
“There is a chance that
the Serbian government will introduce a similar tax for internet users,
who can easily get information from the foreign media and their state institutions
by surfing the net,” the ‘Dnevni Telegraf’ source explained.
‘Dnevni telegraf,’ Belgrade, October 10, 1998
V. Serbian independent stations fear crackdown.
Independent broadcasters
in Serbia say they fear a crackdown from the government as the country
prepares for the possibility of NATO intervention in the southern province
of Kosovo.
This week the Serbian Ministry
of Information threatened to close down independent broadcasters such as
Radio B-92 in Belgrade which relay programmes from foreign radio and television
stations.
The Association of Independent
Electronic Media (ANEM), a grouping of both licensed and unlicensed independent
broadcasters in Serbia and Montenegro, warned: “Most probably, a
massive closure and ban of these media and additional state censorship
will follow.” The 33 stations in the ANEM radio network provide independent
news to an estimated 80 per cent of the Yugoslav population.
This month week, as speculation
about possible NATO intervention has grown, Serbia’s official media have
carried a series of commentaries accusing the foreign media of waging a
propaganda war against Belgrade, and criticising some independent stations
in Serbia for rebroadcasting news reports from Western broadcasters such
as the BBC and CNN.
At a news conference on
2nd October, Serbian Deputy Premier Vojislav Seselj threatened foreign
nationals, foreign journalists and “our citizens who serve foreign powers,”
stating that they were not protected by the Geneva Conventions. He
specifically mentioned those working for the BBC, Voice of America, Deutsche
Welle, Radio Free Europe and Radio France Internationale.
Local radio stations which
do not normally carry news or political programmes have also jumped on
the anti-Western bandwagon. In the industrial town of Nis in southern
Serbia, a station called Fast Radio broadcast satirical slogans about possible
NATO military intervention: “Yellow bomb, green gas, NATO please,
not tonight!”
The chairman of ANEM and
editor in chief of the Belgrade-based Radio B92, Veran Matic, [on 7th October]
questioned the legality of the Serbian Information Ministry’s warning against
the rebroadcasting of foreign radio and TV programmes. He advised
Association members to carry on broadcasting, in line with current laws.
Far from backing military
action against Serbia by the West, ANEM has already said that NATO attacks
would be, in its words, wrong and politically damaging, because they would
give President Milosevic of Yugoslavia an excuse to silence his opponents
at home.
At the beginning of this
month, ANEM had to postpone a planned conference in Belgrade on the theme
of “Broadcasting for a Democratic Europe,” because the Yugoslav authorities
failed to give guarantees that visas would be issued to all delegates,
including senior representatives of the Council of Europe.
But ANEM members, as well
as worldwide journalists’ groups such as the International Federation of
Journalists, fear that Serbian authorities are laying the ground for the
closure of independent media and attacks on journalists.
Years of official pressure
on independent broadcasters in Serbia have failed to silence them.
In December 1996, when the authorities switched off transmissions from
Radio B92 and Radio Index, a Belgrade student station, B92 used the Internet
to continue reaching listeners inside and outside Yugoslavia. “We
please urge you all to use the Internet as much as possible and to keep
in contact with Radio B92,” was the message carried in English language
news placed on the station’s Web site.
If B-92 and its fellow independent
broadcasters should once more face the threat of local jamming or total
closure, they are likely again to use the Internet to transmit news, press
releases and other reports on their main and back-up Web sites in Serbian
and English.
BBC Monitoring Research, October 8, 1998 |