Media coverage of Albanians deceives public

  Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi is a
third-year history and American literature and culture student.
Speak your mind and e-mail her at [email protected].

Only two years ago, the U.S. media rallied support for ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo and against the “repressive” regime
of Slobodan Milosevic. Today, the same ethnic Albanians that gained
our empathy and U.S. arms are targeted and demonized by the media.
It seems that amid political strategy and warfare, unnoticed by the
U.S. public, there’s a little something that’s been
lost. It’s called the truth.

In 1999, newspapers all over the United States talked of
“ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo, trumpeting the need to
intervene and help end violence toward ethnic Albanians. U.S.
“peacekeepers” showered Yugoslavia with bombs for 78
days to bring down a government they called
“repressive” and “undemocratic.”

Pick up any newspaper today and you will see a dramatically
different story. The Kosovo Liberation Army, trained and supported
in 1999 by the U.S.-backed NATO to fight then president Slobodan
Milosevic, has suddenly morphed into a group of “extreme
guerrillas” and “terrorists” leading the public
to believe that any violence against Albanian “rebels”
is just, and in fact, necessary.

The Kosovo Liberation Army in 1999 was struggling against
discrimination, racism and religious repression, aiming to gain
equal rights for the ethnic Albanian community in Yugoslavia. What
has changed?

Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin Today, after the United
States succeeded in destroying the infrastructure of Yugoslavia and
killing thousands of civilians, ethnic Albanians continue to
struggle for equal rights. The difference is that the government
they are now fighting against supports the United States, leading
NATO forces to demonize and attack the same people they so
valiantly protected just two years ago.

The U.S. mantra becomes clear: violence is just when used to
protect U.S. interests, but when used against any group or
government backed by the United States, it’s unacceptable and
labeled as “terrorist.”

Before 1999, President Milosevic committed the greatest crime in
Washington’s eyes: his refusal to join NATO or privatize
state-run industry and rejection of International Monetary Fund
dictated economic restructuring. In essence, he would not allow the
United States to run the economy. The New World Order defines such
preposterous notions of independence and self-determination as the
greatest sin. Thus, the United States not only took devastating
military action, but according to the International Action Center,
gave $200 million to current president Vojislav Kostunica and his
“Democratic Opposition.” Sounds like democracy to
me.

While I am not asking you to love Milosevic, I am asking you to
be critical of the U.S. media’s depiction of the Yugoslavian
leader. It is necessary for the government to demonize him in order
to justify their violent reaction toward a country that refused
U.S. domination. If Milosevic has truly committed ethnic cleansing
and other crimes of war, he should pay the price.

But when our government threatens to cut off $100 million in aid
to Yugoslavia if Milosevic is not arrested, how are we to know the
truth? And what about the crimes that dirty the hands of a
U.S.-supported NATO against the very same people our troops are
supposedly there to protect?

Today, ethnic Albanians continue to experience discrimination in
the Balkans. Albanian language schools are shut down, they are
discriminated against on the job, and underrepresented in the
police force. While the media claims that so-called rebels are set
on slicing off a piece of Macedonia and creating a “greater
Albania,” many members of the ethnic minority simply want
equality and peace.

But Macedonian forces, backed by NATO and the United States,
appear bent on war. While Albanian “rebel” leaders
continually express their desire for peace-talks and recently
called a unilateral cease-fire, officials insist they do not
negotiate with terrorists, preferring the use of violence to combat
such “extremism.”

Three weeks ago, security forces in Tetovo, Macedonia ended a
24-hour cease-fire, placing the army in charge of the
anti-insurgency campaign. Instead of engaging in peace-talks to end
the conflict, Macedonian officials might in fact exacerbate it. As
Arben Rakipi, a 17-year-old Albanian stated, “Right now, we
have a better idea than war: peaceful dialogue. There’s still
time for a peaceful solution, but if time runs out, we’ll all
have to go to the mountains.” (“For ethnic Albanians, 2
slain by police rise to martyrdom,” L.A. times, March 24,
2001).

Western governments, in an attempt to secure a Yugoslavian
leadership that cozies up more to the West, insist that ethnic
Albanians should express their grievances democratically. Many
claim, however, that Albanian representation in the government is
merely a facade. Arben Xhaferi, a leading moderate, ethnic Albanian
politician complains that he and his ministers are being shut out
of crucial decisions on “guerrilla” issues.
(“Macedonia issues ultimatum to rebels,” L.A. Times,
Mar. 21, 2001)

To see how well the U.S. media works to rally support for the
government’s role in the Balkans, just read any newspaper
article. Not only are Albanians demonized as
“extremists” and violent “rebels,” but
Macedonian soldiers are empathized with, described as
“untrained, undisciplined and just plain scared soldiers sent
out to wrest the country back to stability.” (Seattle Times,
March 25, 2001).

Two weeks ago, when an Albanian son and father were killed by
security forces in Tetovo, the Albanian community was outraged. But
the media accused the community of victimizing the two, suggesting
that “every insurgency thrives on martyrs” (L.A. Times,
Mar. 24, 2001) and belittling the impact of such obvious systemic
discrimination. One Yugoslav specialist openly attacked the
intelligence of the Albanians, stating, “It’s obvious
to anyone with half a brain that this time NATO is not going to
intervene and the diplomatic tables are turned. The difficulty is,
the Albanian extremists don’t realize it.”
(“Ethnic Albanian rebels step up attacks on Balkans,”
L.A. Times, March 10, 2001).

Many such individuals would have us believe that NATO should get
involved in the Balkans again. As columnist Jeremy Barnicle asked,
“Over the past decade, the international community, led by
the United States, has spent billions of dollars on military
operations, reconstruction and democracy-building in the Balkans.
So why sit back and allow the ethnic Albanian insurgency in
Macedonia to escalate and threaten the progress we have worked
for?” (Seattle Times, March 27, 2001)

In other words, why let the people of a nation determine their
own fate when the United States has spent billions to do it for
them? The role the media plays in public opinion is a powerful
one.

While many continue to suggest the autonomy of the press,
Secretary of State Collin Powell recently debunked such a pretense.
Meeting with the largest U.S. newspaper association, which consists
of 3,600 owners, publishers and editors of community newspapers,
Powell urged journalists to paint a pretty picture of U.S.
diplomacy so that Americans will support their foreign policy. As
he told the crowd, “You will always have an important role to
play, no matter how this world changes, and I will use you to
spread the message of U.S. foreign policy.” (L.A. Times, Mar.
24, 2001)

Counter insurgency and the repression of minority groups are no
new stories in U.S. history. But the ease with which the media can
now explain such operations as the repression of
“rebels” in the Balkans is terrifying. The next time
you read an article labeling any group or individual
“extremists” think about what the writers want and need
you to believe. Last time I checked, struggling for fundamental
human rights is not so extreme.