LKS on Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:37:46 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> The Best Radio in the Worst System in Europe


Below is a complete text of Zoran Djukanovic' interview with Radio B2-92's
Veran Matic, which has been published in De Groene Amsterdam
http://www.groene.nl/2000/2/zd_matic.html (condensed version in Dutch) and
on the Press Now Site http://www.dds.nl/pressnow/about/press/00jan12.html.

Aleks



Zoran Djukanovic

The Best Radio in the Worst System in Europe - Interview with Veran Matic

Radio B92 was founded several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Over ten years of rapid development, and after founding the ANEM network,
B92 became accessible to listeners in the greater part of Serbia and has
become the symbol of independent media there. It has brought together in
its work rebellion, rock'n'roll, the Internet and its own sense of humour.
It has awoken the dangerous ambition of being a stronger opponent to the
Milosevic regime than the fractured political opposition. During the NATO
bombing, the regime seized its offices and facilities. The station's tenth
anniversary seems like an appropriate occasion, not for celebration, but
for a candid discussion with Editor-in-Chief Veran Matic about the hopes,
disappointments and problems facing B92 in "the worst system in Europe".

At its foundation, ten years ago, B92 was not what it has grown up to be in
the meantime. Can you tell us what Radio B92 was like in its early years
without loading in what was to follow? Can you recall your plans, remember
yourself as editor-in-chief at the end of the 'eighties?

It was a completely different time. It seemed that we were on the threshold
of true change. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the crisis of the Communist
system throughout the world, even in Yugoslavia, led to the awakening of
great hope. At that time even Dom Omladine, where we had begun work in a
twenty square metre room, was a lively and attractive place, fall of young
people, real and fake dissidents, intellectuals. We believed that change
would happen relatively rapidly and that we would be able to develop a
completely new concept, primarily a youth concept, for a free radio. The
breadth of the concept we set out with is confirmed by the fact that we
took the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as our basic platform,
realising that we could not limit our fight only to Article 19 (freedom of
speech) without fighting for other freedoms at the same time. This is why
the radio was formed partly as a movement which at the same time was a
professional journalism operation and a struggle for the freedom of
information. This dual role has remained constant, because nothing has
changed in the repressive apparatus.

The brain drain from Belgrade began in the early nineties and has continued
to this very day. What's your opinion of this? Has it changed throughout
the year? In the mid-nineties there emerged the sentiment that those who
had left had no chance and no right to judge those who stayed. Is it
possible to stay clear-headed watching friends and colleagues depart? In
your eyes, what is the relation between the Diaspora and those who have
stayed?

Of course it's very difficult to get over this. It's not only the cold
analysis that each capable and valuable man who leaves weakens the
resistance. It's also a highly emotional experience when somebody who has
been your friend or close acquaintance for years suddenly leaves. I have
never condemned anyone or had regrets that they have left. I have never had
what is usually known as the Sarajevo syndrome. But problems do arise when
someone who has left, sooner or later, it doesn't matter which, asks you
"What are you people doing there? Are you insane?" And then you feel that
something has seriously changed that your friend of yesterday has begun to
see you as an insect. And you become angry and sad because of that. However
there is an infinitely larger number of them who still take quite a normal
position of what's happening here. Many of them are prepared to actually do
something.

We've tried through frequent contact in radio programs to build bridges and
eliminate the animosity to those who have left which emerges from time to
time. I think this is a very important task for our radio. The values these
people can bring to us when we have gone through some serious changes are
very broad, not only the experience of "living under democracy", but
concrete skills and knowledge they have acquired.

Nobody has the right to judge anything except oneself. And even that is
arguable. If we immerse ourselves in those kind of judgements it will never
end. And it will become much more important than the changes themselves and
the decent life we'd like to live. Trials are something I don't want to
take part in. If somebody thinks that trials are to follow, trials in which
one group of people will try others because they left or stayed, because
they read "Politika" or "Danas", because they are christened or not,
natives or colonists, and that it is going to be wrapped up in something
some call denazification, then this is complete foolishness. We can
certainly re-examine and assess our actions. But forcing this kind of trial
would only diver attention from the real problems once more.

In the beginning, and later on, the concept of B92 was accused of being too
urban, even alternative. Who could have imagined that the "urban
alternative" would give birth to the idea of the ANEM radio and television
networks, capable of covering the greater part of Serbia? Of reaching where
print media can not?

>From as far back as 1991, when the war began, I have been convinced that
urban energy and youth subculture would be part of the front which would of
necessity, if we're not all locked up or executed, triumph in the end. Of
course our triumph is not political in nature, nor did we strive for that.
It's a consciousness which has spread naturally, simply because the spirit
of the times is similar in Serbia and the Netherlands. It's a spirit of the
city, not the village of village tradition. We've awoken the genuine energy
which is present in cities of two million and cities of fifty thousand.
This kind of "city patriotism", which it is very important to understand,
is no longer a generation thing. That's how we've managed to stop being
solely youth media, through this energy.

I think that one of the more important keys to our success was the fact
that we've never ignored the values in the provinces and ANEM, in practice,
began as a normal result of the strategy built over years, as well as a
predecessor to the civil moments which have emerged in the provinces almost
every day since the bombing. So, regarding the spirit we are promoting,
this was most prominently picked up during the protests of 1996 and 1997.

You have the image of an ordinary man. However, they say that B92 would
never have made progress had it not been for an applied visionary approach
- being strategically ready for progress, not limiting the horizon with one
fixed idea.

That determination emerged from a combination of various motives. The first
was completely personal, because people from the radio, including me, were
always interested in many more things than the radio itself. Culture and
everything around it, >from the Internet to the theatre, music and
publishing, visual arts and so on, were something of a safe island at the
time, our choice of kinship. On the other hand this was also a defensive
measure. We thought that if we broadened our activities from the radio
itself, this would automatically have a certain protective role. Also this
mobilised and motivated a far greater number of people than would happen
with classical media.

Many people from the outside world contributed to this development with
their experience, strength of personality and creativity. Their presence
has helped us as a correcting factor as well. Our people don't have the
habit of listening to those with greater knowledge, different experiences,
different energy and so on. The arrival of Adrienne van Haeteren in
Belgrade and our decision that she should, as well as other functions, head
our cultural centre, Cinema Rex, also caused a lot of controversy. (Why do
we need a foreigner to run our cultural centre when we have plenty of our
own people, and so on). However this turned out to be great step forward,
and she stayed in Belgrade for more than three years. After that, Julia
Glyn-Picket came from London to help us, and the whole team which works in
jobs related to the English language services (news, Web site and so on).

Through the strength and potential of their influence, ANEM and B92 have
grown to be a symbol of independent media in the Balkans. You have written
several impressive pieces on media strategies for opposing the regime.
You're probably the only representative of the independent media who has
been received at one time or another by Madeleine Albright, Al Gore, Hilary
Clinton, Robin Cook and so forth.

My meetings with important politicians, even Madeleine Albright, have had
only one motive: the protection and development of the radio as well as the
global development of peace, democracy and stability in this region. I
don't attach too much importance to these meetings, at least not in a
personal way. After all, they've only made me problems on the local scene.
After each of these meetings I have been largely Satanised by the
government-controlled media. When the radio was seized by the police, I
heard they had a lot of fun looking at photos of me with various
international politicians. They used them later in a campaign against me,
along with the fact that they found a complete set of "Koha ditore" (daily
newspaper published by independent Albanian journalists in Kosovo).

What is much more important is that I have always been critical of the
policy of these people. This is why it is important to get an opportunity
to tell them that and this is what I see as the most valuable thing, that I
have managed to tell them that in direct contact as well, not only through
the media. Some of them have been offended (Mr Holbrooke, for example),
some of them used it clumsily, with potentially lethal consequences: during
the bombing, Robin Cook mentioned my name twice, talking about the ban or
the radio as an argument for bombing a country in which such people and
such media are persecuted. This was reported here in Yugoslavia and could
have had fatal consequences.

Have you ever been interested in pure politics?

No. Dealing with so-called pure politics demands completely different kinds
of activity. Of course I'm very aware that the way I work has a lot to do
with politics. But if pure politics means party work, and that IS politics,
then I'm pretty restrained. This doesn't mean that I think party work is
something bad or unnecessary, on the contrary, but I'm simply not the man
for something like that.

During the NATO bombing, it seemed that the Serbian independent media lost
their ironic edge and any kind of comedic distance from the gravity of the
situation.

During the bombing we were banned, and it's questionable whether any kind
domestically directed sarcasm could have functioned. On our site we had
contributions in the spirit, but it's true that the intensity of the
intervention made the situation more serious, and made it too miserable to
be able to function as before. This is also the explanation for the lack of
subversion of state repression, censorship etc. Anger at the intervention
itself and the inability to do anything about it impelled people to take
care of themselves until the intervention was over, so that they would be
able later more easily to continue where they had left off.

There was censorship, but no censorship could block the ironic signals
which seemed to have quietened down. During the siege of Sarajevo, along
with the ideological glorification of victimhood, the media occasionally
showed an amazing capacity for ironic perception of the war. What's the
difference?

There was irony here as well, although more in ordinary private life than
in the media. The reason is very simple: the danger of being banned,
arrested, expelled or going missing was, at least in the first few weeks of
the war, very real. Later, it began to disappear. It was enough to see the
messages that went through the Internet. Commentaries, fantasies,
metaphors, all of that, permeated with facts, give a completely different
picture of the war and the media in it. A much richer and more varied
picture than some are willing to admit. This kind of content has moved more
into the cybersphere than being part of what the everyday media offer.

What if we were to compare the war experience of Sarajevo and Belgrade?

The war experience of Sarajevo was not only incomparably longer, but
incomparably harder. I think that these two experiences cannot be compared
in gravity. Apart from children, and people with nervous conditions,
Belgraders were all able to say to themselves "I'm not in direct danger
because I don't live near barracks, the state television or a police
centre. Although mistakes were, obviously, possible. And they certainly
happened, more out of Belgrade than in it. The people of Sarajevo lived in
hell for three years. What happened here, and the consequences of the
destruction on the souls of people, as well as the expulsions and the
crimes against Albanians and what happened after that and is still
happening to the Serbs, is yet to researched.

After the still unsolved murder of journalist and media proprietor Slavko
Curuvija, there were rumours around Belgrade of death lists with more
names. How did you feel in that situation? You were arrested but, after
all, they released you the next day. Can you talk about that?

I felt uncomfortable. I think that's the right word. And not just me. The
majority of my friends and associated had that feeling. It's not exactly
pleasant to know that they can simply abduct you or kill you anywhere and
at any time. Especially for your nearest and dearest. You think about them
most at those times. But there's a mechanism of self-protection in which
you try not to think about it while you try to resist every day. Later I
learned that this was not very wise because there were real threats to me
personally from the very highest level of the authorities. Finally in
mid-May I moved to Montenegro, when there was a real possibility of
physical danger.

What's the status of an independent journalist in Serbia today?

About five hundred journalists are out of work. This is something they're
not writing about much in the West. And they're out of work not because
they themselves have made that decision but because the regime has closed
down the media they work for.

I think that the situation is even more dangerous for journalists now
because the regime feels shaken. For the first time, personal sanctions
have begun to yield better results than the longstanding, indiscriminate
sanctions which have mostly been of assistance to Milosevic. The
destruction of the state radio and television infrastructure, despite the
rapid restoration, is a serious handicap for the regime. The daily jamming
of B2-92 and Studio B Television (since they began broadcasting our
programs and since Vuk Draskovic began to change his platform) testify to
an extremely high level of nervousness within the regime and a major focus
on independent media (much more than on the opposition), which announces
that the independent media are certainly in first place on the current list
of the dictatorship's enemies.

What's the position of the independent media on the issue of Serbian
nationalism?

The stand on the nationalist issue in Yugoslavia has usually only been
abused, manipulated in order to replace the earlier Communistic ideological
matrix with nationalism and later with elements of fascism within Serbian
society. This is something predominantly connected to the regime, the
dominant ideology, the dominant intellectual trend, the dominant stream of
social life. With the help of the media, particularly the electronic media,
it has been expanded to a much broader area. The independent media have
taken an approach to the national issue which is much more connected to the
profession: that the greatest good for the nation is provided by truth,
facts, not what the regime has been promoting: myths, legends, largely
distorted historic events, turbo-culture and so on. This is why we were all
being declared anti-national; by the mere fact of not glorifying our own
nation we had no right to existence. Thanks precisely to the independent
media, Belgrade was declared an entirely non-Serbian city. Remember the
statements of Dragos Katajic and, Dragoslav Bokan as well as the Serb
Chauvinist nationalist corps in Bosnia who once described Belgrade as a den
of iniquity, a multi-cultural core. The first time B92 encountered the
national issue in a more serious way was when Slobodan Milosevic decided to
introduce sanctions against the regime of Radovan Karadzic in the Bosnian
Serb republic. Up to that time our journalists had not been able to enter
Bosnia. They were forbidden entry; they weren't given accreditation because
the press office was run by Radovan Karadzic's daughter. The whole time
they were never off the air on state television in Serbia. The moment they
completely disappeared from the screens of the state television, we tried
to enter and we were welcome. Suddenly it was perfectly alright for
somebody from our radio to go to the Republic of Srpska. Of course even
then we continued to criticise both Radovan Karadzic and Milosevic for
everything they had done, both totalitarian nationalist regimes. In that
sense, we haven't changed, the political alignments of the politicians have
changed. The next, similar, example is connected to Operation Storm in
Croatia. This was the largest exodus in Europe since World War Two, until
the exodus of the Albanians in 1999. At the time it was completely obvious
that it was a political deal, that Milosevic consented to NATO proceeding
with that operation. That's why he tried to hide the refugees, who were
arriving for weeks in long convoys heading for Belgrade, and send them out
into the provinces. It was a catastrophe and it was not important that it
was a national catastrophe, Serbian this time. We reported on it. We had
our people in the convoy. We decided to launch a humanitarian project in
collaboration with our listeners. It had an enormous response and was an
example of civil self-organisation which hasn't been bettered yet. We're
working in a similar way now with the refugees from Kosovo.

Among intellectuals, those who don't carry weapons, the debate about the
NATO intervention was reminiscent in tone of the Cold War. You travelled
widely after the bombing, talking, trying to eliminate misunderstandings.
Have you discovered where the problem lies for one side (donors and
international aid organisations) in understanding the other (Serbia's
independent media) and vice versa?

To some extent it a classic cold war misunderstanding. It's much broader
and much more complex than I can explain here. But let's look at the aim of
the intervention: the prevention of a humanitarian catastrophe and the
establishment of peace and a multi-ethnic Kosovo on one side and the
ousting of Slobodan Milosevic on the other. Today we see that one
humanitarian catastrophe has been prevented and another brought about,
while a peaceful and multi-ethnic Kosovo and the ousting of Slobodan
Milosevic are nowhere in sight. Time will reveal the actual aims of both
sides, NATO and Milosevic. I believe that it is today much clearer that
Milosevic's real opponents are mostly those who have always been his
opponents and that there is no solution from outside for a change of regime
in Serbia. But the trauma of the war and the merciless and shameless
propaganda against all who opposed the war will leave deep scars on all of
us.

I think that the most important thing is to not draw conclusions in advance
but to perceive as many facts as possible through concrete research, if
possible, more thorough insight, more serious analysis, not superficially
based on the conclusions of the creators of day-to-day politics or based on
the prevailing emotions. I'm trying to open up a process of peaceful,
sober, constructive discussion on all the subjects of misunderstanding and
lack of understanding, without trying to immediately find definitive
conclusions, simply to undertake a process of re-examination, both of
ourselves on the inside and those on the outside.

But how can mutual trust be regained?

Only through a joint, prudent and consistent fight against this regime.
Without pathetic and empty rhetoric. We're working on a project of
sensitising the public to open dialogue on the crimes committed in Kosovo
and other parts of the former Yugoslavia as well. B92 has worked on a lot
of programs in this field, a lot of books. We want to use the similar
experience of countries which have undergone the process of
self-examination and truth-seeking, such as Chile and Argentina. To speak
about the denazification of Serbia is highly inadequate and
counterproductive because it draws historical analogies which are
inapplicable. I would prefer to speak about re-examining one's own role,
responsibility and guilt.

We're going to publish about thirty titles relevant to discussion of the
process. We've already held a seminar for ANEM editors led by the
Vice-president of the South African Commission for Truth and
Reconciliation, Alex Borain. We're preparing a whole series of similar
seminars. The aim of all this is to find an authentic model for facing our
recent history and undergoing catharsis in order to begin the process of
reconciliation. Of course this process would have to be undertaken by a
democratic government, but it's up to us to awaken a feeling for this
process in the public as much as we can.

Can you put yourself in the position of an outside observer? Why is it
that, after the bombing, central Serbia and the provinces (long considered
to be a source of support for Milosevic) became more active than Belgrade
in protests against the regime and what the regime had done in Kosovo in
the name of the Serbian people?

There was much more damage in provincial Serbia during the war. It's not
well-known that very few reserve army members from Belgrade were sent to
Kosovo. Naturally this led to much greater resistance and political
activism, often quite spontaneous, in the rest of the country than in
Belgrade. Also the whole repressive apparatus and the state media are
concentrated in Belgrade, not the provinces. In addition, the Zajedno
opposition coalition survived at a local level in a large number of towns,
when it fell apart at the national level. Problems are perceived in much
more concrete terms (not abstractly, at the level of political struggle by
the party leadership). There is also the beginning of a spontaneous process
of decentralisation within the parties. The leader-oriented parties have
begun to lose influence, precisely thanks to the leaders and because it was
natural that leaders from the provinces would begin to emerge.

You have probably seen the analyses of the International Crisis Group (ICG)
which are available on the Web. What do you think of their latest paper
"Transformation of Serbia: the Key to long-term stability" in August 1999?

Without stability and democracy in Serbia there is no stability and
democracy in the entire region. I agree completely with the ICG about that.
The other thing, however, is what will Kosovo's future look like if the
necessary changes occur in Serbia? I hope that the ICG will find an answer
to that question, otherwise their next stop will be Macedonia. The
proactive approach taken by the European community is very important. It's
important to reach agreement with the US on that. I think that when it
comes to Serbia there is constant conflict between the European and
American approaches, which so far has been exploited very skilfully by
Milosevic.

What's your view of the Serbian opposition at the moment?

The opposition is still in disunity, but now it is the people who are
insisting on changes. If the opposition doesn't achieve them peacefully,
I'm afraid that desperate people will, and this would not be good. I
believe that the opposition will have to listen to the voters. I even
believe that there will soon be a reasonable faction established within the
ruling parties which will try to make the necessary changes. It's very
important to reach consensus on the primary aim of opposition activity and
that is the departure of Milosevic. I think that this is crucial for the
success of the democratisation process. Any regime which follows will be
easier to change than this one.

Radio B92's premises and the major part of its equipment were confiscated.
Under a slightly changed name, Radio B2 92 is now a guest at Studio B. How
do you feel in that role?

We all feel like guests. Naturally we work under much more difficult
conditions. It's not natural, as an adult who has both an apartment and a
job, that you should be a guest somewhere. We are, in fact, some kind of
refugees. However we're lucky that we've managed to begin broadcasting
again and that we managed to restore the network operations very quickly.
We're working on a series of projects, such as establishing a network of
programs broadcasting Albanian-language programs in Montenegro (this began
during the bombing). That network is spreading through the region with
media in Albanian, Macedonia and Kosovo.

The important thing is that with all our work we've won space for
autonomous activity at the very outset. Even in this new role as refugees
we're working according to the criteria we laid down a long time ago. The
good thing is that, because of our ten years of commitment, nobody even
thinks about influencing us except the state apparatus which is very
frustrated by the fact that, even under the most radical repression, we
have managed to restore everything.

What do you think about the opposition potential of Vuk Draskovic who
controls Studio B?

Vuk Draskovic and the Serbian Renewal Movement are a significant political
factor. Without Draskovic it is difficult to imagine the current regime
being replaced. That's a fact, whether you like him or not. This fact
should be considered a serious starting point. That it was Studio B which
enabled us to broadcast is also a fact. But that doesn't mean that anybody,
especially Vuk Draskovic, is interfering in our program. We would never
accept anyone interfering in our work.

How is the development of the Radio B2 92 project going so far? Can you
tell us anything about ratings?

According to the latest surveys we are at the moment number three in
Belgrade. The radio station which robbed us of our equipment, our premises,
our frequency and our name is in the twentieth place. So much for
influence. We have restored our music production division, publishing, the
Internet...

Would you like to say anything which we haven't covered here?

It would be easy to say that changes will come in a few months, but it's
not such a simple and easy process. We are even ready to fight for that
within a year or two. We are not so tired that we would leave everything at
the mercy of the worst of all systems in Europe, a system which has not
only impoverished and humiliated us, but has also made us an object of hate
and wariness throughout the whole world.

Veran Matic' e-mail address: veranb92@xs4all.nl Website B2 92: www.freeb92.net

This is an integral version of the interview with Veran Matic. Shorter
version was published in De Groene Amsterdammer, 12 January 2000



Press Now supports independent media in Southeast Europe -->
http://www.dds.nl/pressnow/ News on media manipulation, restrictions and
repressive laws, freedom of the speech and press in Southeast Europe.

 Press Now Internet, Amsterdam mailto:aca@dds.nl



  .........   .....    .............               ..................
  Les faits sont faits. http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/~stalder


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net