Alan Davis on Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:23:55 +0200 (MET DST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Albanian Media Monitor 15 |
Albanian Media Monitor Vol. 2 No. 7 6 April 1998 Welcome to the 15th issue of the "Albanian Media Monitor," a bi-weekly newsletter produced in Tirana by the Institute for Journalism in Transition (IJT). The "Monitor" provides media-related news and analysis in English and Albanian. In this issue: - Albanian politicians discuss Kosovo on television - Preparing for the new broadcasting law - Private news agency and radio station protest interruption of telephone lines ALBANIA DEBATES KOSOVO Kosovo has remained dominant in Albanian media coverage ever since the Drenica events (see Albanian Media Monitor 20 March 1998). The 29 March edition of the Sunday television debate, run by the journalist Blendi Fevziu, was no exception. The program was devoted to the events in Kosovo and Albania's policy toward that neighboring region. The panel consisted of Foreign Minister Paskal Milo (Social Democratic Party); the head of the parliamentary foreign-policy commission Sabri Godo (Republican Party); Vladimir Prela (Socialist Party), foreign-policy adviser to Prime Minister Fatos Nano; and Besnik Mustafaj (Democratic Party), former ambassador to Paris. At the beginning of the discussion, Fevziu compared the current situation of the Albanian people with that in 1913, following the Second Balkan War, when the ambassadors' conference in London decided that Kosovo would remain outside the borders of the newly created Albanian state. Foreign Minister Paskal Milo rejected the comparison, stressing that today great powers lean more toward cooperation and that they are fully aware of the scope of the Kosovo problem, which was not the case in the aftermath of the Balkan wars. He also stressed that, unlike in 1913, Albania is now closely cooperating with the international community. Other participants suggested comparisons with the recent war in Bosnia but concluded that the situation in Kosovo was different. Mustafaj said that, unlike in Bosnia, where the ethnic composition of the population was more balanced, there is a clear ethnic majority in Kosovo (Albanians make up 90 percent of the population). He also claimed that another difference is that the Kosovo population is, generally speaking, not armed. Vladimir Prela warned that in case of an outbreak of war in Kosovo, the conflict would not remain local as in Bosnia but would spread to the whole Balkan region. All panelists agreed that the first countries at risk of being drawn in would be Albania and Macedonia. Kosovo shadow-state Prime Minister Bujar Bukoshi joined the debate by telephone, calling from Germany. He warned that any further delays in solving the Kosovo conflict would not only threaten to involve other Balkan countries but also create unforeseeable dangers. Another point raised by Fevziu concerned the Kosovo parallel elections of 22 March and the policy of shadow-state President Ibrahim Rugova. Milo said that the election results prove that the Kosovo Albanians support Rugova and that he is the most convincing political leader both inside and outside Kosovo. Furthermore, the foreign minister stressed that Rugova enjoys outspoken support from the Albanian government for his nonviolent "Gandhian" policy. Sabri Godo, however, criticized Rugova's past policy saying that it did not represent "'Ghandianism' but passivism." Godo pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi had brought millions of people to the streets to protest against the British colonial policy, while Rugova has so far hesitated to take a more active stand. He nonetheless admitted that due to the circumstances in Kosovo this year Rugova did move on to a more active "Gandhianism." For his part, Mustafaj stressed that Rugova is not in a position to turn his back to the demand for state independence. The former ambassador pointed out that such a policy change would throw Rugova out of the political game in Kosovo and increase the risk of radicalization. He, however, said that the current policy of the Kosovo leaders has failed, reminding that they were not able to make their demands heard at the Dayton conference. When the discussion came to the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK), all sides maintained that they had no clear information about the organization. Milo said that, given the scarce information at its disposal, the Albanian government is in no position to pass a judgment on the UCK. The head of the Tirana office of the "Republic of Kosovo," Ilaz Ramajli, joined the discussion by telephone. He claimed that the Kosovo shadow-state government had no contact with the UCK. Ramajli, however, said that UCK's impact and its further development will mainly "depend on the behavior of the international community and of the Serbian regime." The panel also discussed the education agreement signed by then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Rugova on 1 September 1996. The agreement has yet to be put into effect. The Serbian and Kosovo Albanian representatives signed a further implementation agreement following the meeting of the Contact Group on the former Yugoslavia on 25 March 1998. Mustafaj argued that the implementation accord was by no means different from the original education agreement itself and that it was a mere political manoeuvre by the Serbian government to influence the decisions of the Contact Group. He added that it was more of a defeat than a victory for the Albanian side. Prela countered that the agreement was a positive step and part of the process of dialogue that the international community wants to initiate between Belgrade and Pristina. Milo opined that the education agreement was a step in the right direction, but that it didn't go far enough. He stressed that the implementation agreement must be followed by practical steps. Godo reacted sharply, arguing that the agreement was a challenge for the international community. He said that "this is a mockery ... a bone that Milosevic threw into the trade." Then, a caller from the south of Kosovo (where it is possible to watch Albanian state-television programs), said that the agreement should not have been signed without prior specification of Kosovo's status. The panelists differed on options for third-party mediators in possible negotiations over Kosovo. The two government representatives had no clear preferences, saying that the most important question was whether the third party could successfully mediate between Pristina and Belgrade. The other two participants, particularly Sabri Godo, stressed that the United States should play that role, because it was the only player capable of exerting meaningful pressure on Milosevic. Godo added that he feared that former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales, the OSCE's proposed mediator, would probably fail, even if Belgrade eventually accepted his mediating role. The most controversial point of the discussion was Albania's position toward the conflict. Bujar Bukoshi once again joined the debate by telephone and said that he valued Albania's and particularly Paskal Milo's attitude toward Kosovo. He pointed out that it was clear to the Kosovars that Albania was in a particularly difficult position due to the unrest of March 1997 and expressed his appreciation for what the Albanian government has done for Kosovo despite all its domestic troubles. But Mustafaj criticized the government in sharp tones. He said that individual government structures had failed to harmonize their positions toward Kosovo and stressed that Prime Minister Fatos Nano has made a series of insensitive statements that the Albanian Foreign Ministry had to correct later. According to Mustafaj, the Albanian policy has lacked coherence and no Albanian really knows what solution to the Kosovo conflict is advocated by the Albanian prime minister. He criticized the November 1997 Crete meeting between Nano and Milosevic saying that Nano had delivered the wrong message to Milosevic at the meeting, which the latter interpreted as a free hand to act with brutal force in Kosovo a few months later. Mustafaj also stressed that Albania should have come out with a much clearer position before the Contact Group, a position closer to that of the United States. Prela, however, warned that "nobody should make theatre out of the Kosovo question. We all want independence for Kosovo and those who pretend to be better nationalists or better patriots do nothing else than try to score political points for themselves ... Kosovo has become an organic part of Albanian politics in recent times. Had the Albanian government gone to Bonn [to the Contact Group meeting] and demanded extreme solutions it would have blocked the process of dialogue." Prela concluded that the prime minister had already demanded an almost impossible and maximalist solution when he proposed that Kosovo be made the third republic within the Yugoslav federation. Milo backed Prela's view and pointed out that talking about Kosovo from the perspective of an independent analyst or political opposition and talking from the position of the state are two different things. He pointed out that Albania is obliged to respect international conventions it has signed, particularly those respecting the principle of not changing borders by violent means. But Godo countered that the prime minister shouldn't act on his own when addressing a question as important as Kosovo. He said that Nano should have discussed the Kosovo question in parliament before he went to Bonn and requested the parliament's blessing. Godo also said it was necessary that Nano accept more advice on foreign policy, and he opposed the government representatives in the panel by harshly criticizing the conclusions of the Contact Group meeting in Bonn. "A four-week deadline does nothing else to Milosevic but give him more time to use violence in Kosovo," Godo said. Milo argued "it is not for us to decide the fate of the region." Prela meantime stressed that the Contact Group's conclusions marked the first time that Milosevic was given a deadline regarding Kosovo. Both Prela and Milo also reminded that the differences within the Contact Group had made the acceptance of the U.S. proposal for harsher sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia impossible. Godo interrupted, stressing that he hoped "Albania was conducting its own foreign policy and did not only whine about its problems before the Contact Group." Milo countered that Albania was not in a position to solve the Kosovo problem without the support of the group. PREPARING FOR THE NEW BROADCASTING LAW. On 4 April, the Albanian Media Institute invited numerous organizations supporting media development; representatives of the parliamentary media commission and its working group on legal reform; the head of the board of directors of Albanian Radio and Television (RTSH); and foreign diplomats stationed in Albania, to an informal working dinner to discuss the new broadcasting legislation and the public debate that will preceed it. According to the current schedule, the draft law should be presented to the public around 15 April having first being approved by the parliament's media commission. The draft, which among other things sets the licensing standards for private stations, is to be published in newspapers and distributed to existing private broadcasters, non-governmental organizations, and media associations. The Soros Foundation is sponsoring the publication and printing of the draft text. Public discussions about the law are scheduled for late April and early May (see the Albanian Media Monitor Vol. 2 No. 4). A televised debate on private-broadcasting legislation will be sponsored by the Council of Europe and aired by a private television station. Another public debate, to be televised by RTSH, will focus on the legislation concerning the transformation of the station into a public broadcaster. As in the case of the proposed private-broadcasting legislation, organisationsd and members of the public will be invited to propose changes prior to the draft becoming law. Experts predict that the slow pace of preparation of individual radio and television stations for the process of legalization and licensing, which is due to start in May, will be the main problem in implementing the new laws. The broadcasting law of 14 May 1997 had already given a one-year deadline to the unregistered private radio and television stations for bringing their operations and structures up to the standards required. The deadline however is unlikely to be met. First, the law is currently going through a review and several of the requirements for licensing will be softened in the new draft. Second, according to the current plan of the parliament's media commission, the changes in the legislation will be made public only in May. Moreover, it is unclear at the moment whether the licensing process is supposed to last three or six months following the adoption of the law. The parliamentary media commission is considering both options. The commission's head, Musa Ulqini, told IJT that private broadcasting stations should not neglect their responsibilities to reform their statutes and structures as stipulated by law. Failure to do so may prevent them from obtaining a license. Ulqini also said that the creation of the National Council of Radio and Television and the Regulatory Board of Telecommunication will be the first steps in the licensing process. The regulatory board will have the task of defining national and local frequencies in order to prevent mutual interference among different broadcasts. Then it will present the options before the National Council of Radio Television, which will then organize a public tender for the frequencies. Besides the licensing of private stations, the main problem in implementing the new legislation will be the transformation of RTSH from a state into a public broadcasting institution. Most international organizations and broadcasters have made their assistance to RTSH contingent on administrative reforms and improvements in professional standards. Ulqini told IJT that, after the law is adopted, RTSH will be given six months to familiarize itself with the new principles and reform its structure accordingly. And it is then that RTSH will need the most assistance. The BBC, Greek public television, and some other broadcasters are currently considering the ways to help RTSH in the restructuring process. PRIVATE NEWS AGENCY AND RADIO PROTEST INTERRUPTION OF TELEPHONE LINES. The independent news agency Enter has said that the Albanian TELECOM blocked its telephone lines for political reasons from 20 to 31 March and that in late February secret-police officers broke into their offices and stole a number of documents, including invoices from the Serbian independent news-agency BETA, Enter's partner. Enter also complained that it suffered frequent and repeated cases of power shortages throughout March. The news agency, which is nominally independent but politically close to the Democratic Party, says that complaints with the TELECOM have not helped getting the telephone lines back to work. Enter's director Mero Baze said that only after starting a campaign, in which the agency threatened to publish the telephone numbers of several high ranking government officials, did TELECOM give in and reconnect the lines. Radio Kontakt has also reported that its telephone lines have been dead since late February. The station says that the lines were interrupted shortly after an incident in which police was about to raid the station in late February but stepped back due to the presence of about 100 supporters of the station. That incident came at the time when Prime Minister Fatos Nano's office launched legal proceedings against the radio's journalist Vjollca Vokshi for "dissemination of false information....with the aim of creating a situation of insecurity or panic among the people," during unrest in Shkoder on 23 February (see Albanian Media Monitor Vol. 2 No. 5). *************************************************************************** Albanian Media Monitor Project Project Director: Fabian Schmidt Project Officer: Andi Bejtja The "Albanian Media Monitor" is produced in Tirana by the Institute for Journalism in Transition and funded by the Open Society Institute's Regional Media Program. It is available by e-mail in both English and Albanian. *************************************************************************** Institute for Journalism in Transition Co-Executive Directors: Jan Urban & Anthony Borden Programs Director: Alan Davis Electronic Publications Editor: Sava Tatic The Institute for Journalism in Transition, The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and "Transitions" monthly (Prague) are pleased to announce their merger into the Institute for Journalism in Transition (IJT), a new independent non-profit organization to support regional media and democratic change. The "Albanian Media Monitor" is available, with permission, for re-publication. IJT publishes Transitions magazine. It also also operates projects in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and The Hague. For details, please contact our London office. Editors welcome all correspondence. Please send your comments to Alan Davis, programs director, at alan@ijt.org London Office: Lancaster House 33 Islington High Street London N1 9LH, United Kingdom Tel: (44 171) 713 7130 Fax: (44 171) 713 7140 e-mail: info@ijt.org Prague Office: Seifertova 47 130 00 Praha 3, Czech Republic Tel: (420 2) 627-9445 Fax: (420 2) 627-9444 e-mail: transitions@ijt.cz WWW: http://www.ijt.cz/transitions Copyright (C) 1998 Institute for Journalism in Transition Sava Tatic, Associate Editor Transitions magazine Seifertova 47, 130 00 Prague 3, Czech Republic 420 2 627-9445 (reception) 420 2 627-9444 (fax) http://www.ijt.cz/transitions --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl