In The New Statesman, Neil Clark writes:
Imagine a country where the self-styled democrats threaten press freedom and where “anti-democratic" forces try to defend it. Such an Orwellian state of affairs exists in Serbia, where a draconian new media law from the Democratic Party-led government has been attacked not only by the political opposition, but by national and international human rights groups.
Under the law, media outlets and journalists can be fined for offences including publication of what is deemed to be false or libellous information. Editors face fines of up to €25,000 - fearsome enough were this to be imposed in the UK, but a colossal sum in Serbia, where salaries are about a fifth of the size. The law suspends citizens' right to set up publications and introduces a registration system for media outlets.
The government claims the law will introduce "order into the chaotic media", but opponents say it has been rushed through in order to prevent the press from criticising Serbia's ruling elite.
“The adopted changes abolish all domestic and European standards of the freedom of the media," says Vladimir Vodinelic, a Belgrade professor of law. The head of the OSCE Serbia mission, Hans Ola Urstad, warns that they may lead to "self-censorship and the closure" of news outlets.
The prime movers behind the law are the small but influential party GI7 Plus, which threatened to leave the governing coalition if the law was not passed. G17 was one of the "pro-democracy" organisations supported by the US's National Endowment for Democracy in its push to topple Slobodan Milosevic's regime in the 1990s. That yesterday's "democratic" opposition is now acting like an authoritarian group is an irony not lost on Serbs.
“In the 1990s I wrote many articles attacking Milosevic and the government," says Dragan Milosavljevic, a journalist. “It is much harder to criticise the democratic government today."
When a restrictive media law was introduced in Yugoslavia in 1998, as the country faced the prospect of Nato airstrikes, there was widespread condemnation from western governments. Will the same condemnation be offered again? We shouldn't hold our breath.
Remember, our boys died for this. Just as they died for the "democracy" in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not quite sure on your position on the illegality of the Afghan War (and indeed others). While I myself take the view that all wars are bad, it strikes me that the concept of leagl and illegal is a variable.
ReplyDeleteOf course I am entirely neutral in terms of Afghanistan and Iraq. I prefer the notion that we cannot engage with the Islamist World.
But I have no direct involvement, therefore neutrality strikes me as the correct approach for me.
Your declaration that these wars are "illegal" seems to go further than I would do. It immediately labels as wrong doers those who are fighting an illegal war......not merely the political masters but the actual squaddies on the ground.
It suggests that "Illegality" must be defeated and therefore the actual British (and American etc soldiers) must be defeated.
Unfortunately there is only one way soldiers can be defeated. LikeI say calling for their defeat (and frankly death and injury) goes much further than I could go.
Oh, unlike with Iraq, I am not convinced that the war in Afghanistan is Iraq. I simply say that it is insane and wicked.
ReplyDeleteBut surely "wicked" is wrong. In stark terms "sinful" and therefore those waging it should be defeated.
ReplyDeleteIt seems totally acceptable to me that you can call for withdrawal. But actually calling for Defeat seems to go too far.
Again I emphasise I do not have any vested interest or attachment to the combatants.
I don't call for defeat. What would be the point? That has already happened. What matters now is, indeed, withdrawl. Immediately.
ReplyDeleteI think that youre right. The War HAS been lost from a British/American perspective. And it was inevitable.
ReplyDeleteBut of course an "illegal" war CAN be won or lost. It just happens that this one was lost. It wa not lost BECAUSE it was illegal. It was lost because it was in your words "insane".
I merely ask if you believe that those fighting "illegal" or in your word "wicked" wars SHOULD be defeated.
Not necessarily, at least so far as wickedness is concerned. The other side may be no better morally. Or, for that matter, legally.
ReplyDelete