16 September 1997
The Ministry Of Truth And The Bosnian Elections
Dave Chandler exposes the distortion and manipulation of the Bosnian elections
As you would expect, the municipal elections in Bosnia have been
accompanied by distorted and prejudicial media coverage, where
unrepresentative minority opinions are given disproportionate amounts of
air-space through bullying and intimidation.
The international community's tight regulation of the Bosnian media has
included the military take-over of broadcast stations and TV transmitters
and the dispatch of three US air force planes equipped for psychological
warfare ready to jam radio and TV broadcasts and override channels with
other material. Any criticism of the actions of the international community
or questioning of the imposed Dayton framework is enough to have free
speech curbed and penalties imposed. Enforced election programming includes
broadcasts by Carlos Westendorp, the international community's High
Representative and the highest civilian authority in the neo-colonial
state.
Here are a couple of snippets from an enforced broadcast by Westendorp on
Republika Srpska channels, a few days before polling, explaining why
international censorship is necessary for democracy:
'We are your friends, and not your enemies. We are not an occupying force.
To compare SFOR [the NATO force in Bosnia] with an occupying army is
irresponsible. ... It is not just, we are here to help you, as I said; to
present us as your enemies, rather than friends, is not just and we cannot
accept that. ... I have the responsibility of restricting or suspending
those programmes which are contrary to the truth, impartiality and peace.'
Speaking in favour of democracy , Westendorp explained that the lack of aid
going to Republika Srpska was not the fault of the international community
but Bosnian elected representatives, and that the votes of the people will
not have great significance until their leaders agree to comply with
international community dictates. In a great example of George Orwell's
doublespeak he claims that 'neither I nor the international community will
stand on the side of any person or specific political opinion', and yet:
'I think most sincerely that we can look with hope towards the future in
this country only when you decide to replace these [current] leaders with
others.'
The intervention of the international community was not merely limited to
the tight regulation of the media. Similar censorship guidelines governed
the statements of election candidates and their supporters, being critical
of international regulation was enough to get leading candidates thrown off
party lists. In Republika Srpska international intervention has been
particularly intense in the run up to the polls. Under US pressure, SFOR
has intervened in internal political disputes in order to divide the
leading Serb party and undermine politicians hostile to Dayton. A populist
election rally in Banja Luka was broken up and many people prevented from
attending by SFOR troops while heavy-handed military interventions
elsewhere have provoked clashes with angry locals in several areas. The
Republika Srpska parliament has been dissolved and the Constitutional Court
ruling on the illegality of this has been ignored by the international
community which is urging new Parliamentary elections to try to break the
populist Serb leadership based in Pale.
It is likely that elections in Bosnia are to become more and more of a
farce. The current municipal elections demonstrate that the elections
merely serve to give the international community more control over the
political process. The wishes of the Bosnian people may be reflected in the
election results but, under international regulations, how many votes
candidates receive is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The OSCE,
(Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) tasked with
organising the elections, also has to ratify the results. The ratification
process is a new experiment in degrading Bosnian democracy. The OSCE will
not ratify the results until December 31, not because they need to check
the poll count or deal with irregularities, but because ratification now
depends on how the elected officials behave. A failure to share out
positions with minority parties or to implement international community
wishes will lead to financial penalties and the international instatement
of candidates with less votes.
While criticism of this blatant international manipulation of the elections
is prevented in Bosnia by the strong-arm tactics of NATO enforcers, the
British media seem equally reluctant to raise any defence of democracy in
the region. Austrian, Italian, German and French media have raised concerns
with the US government's sponsorship of direct political intervention in
the election process. The British media, in contrast, has accused the
international supervisors of the election process of being too soft.
Jonathon Steele, spokesperson for The Ministry of Truth at the Guardian,
complained that the OSCE head, US Ambassador Robert Frowick, was caving in
on basic principles of democracy (Guardian, 13 September). Steele's
complaint was that Frowick could be in danger of making too many
concessions to the nationalist majorities, in other words the Bosnian
electorate, by not stating clearly on exactly which grounds he will refuse
to certify elected councils.
In the uncritical world of British media doublespeak, democracy means
dictatorship and dictatorship stands for freedom. A new breed of democrats
are today arguing in support of foreign armies which prevent election
rallies, send snatch-squads to deal with opponents, control the media and
carry out psychological warfare against the electorate. These democrats see
nothing untoward about foreign administrators who encourage the dissolving
of Parliament, ignore the results of ballots and can veto candidates both
before and after the ballot.
Join a discussion on this commentary