PER Home Page
About PER
Board and Staff
Council for Ethnic Accord
The Kona Statement
PER in the Balkans
Russia and the Baltics
PER in Hungary
PER in Slovakia
PER in Romania
Central European Series
Euro-Atlantic Series
PER and the Roma
PER and the
Media
PER
Bulletins
REPORTING IN A POST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT:
BOSNIAN AND CROAT JOURNALISTS MEET
Dubrovnik, Croatia
September 26-28, 1996
Preface
The media have played a key, and often destructive, role in the recent outbreaks of interethnic disputes and violence in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) has therefore undertaken several preventive projects with media professionals from the region.
In 1994, PER convened a meeting in Prague of media leaders from several countries to consider ways of encouraging fair and accurate coverage of interethnic issues.1 That effort led to the establishment of a PER Media Council on Ethnic Relations, whose members have worked with PER staff on several projects: seminars for ethnic Romanian and Hungarian journalists from the Transylvania region of Romania concerning the development of professional standards for reporting in ethnically mixed communities; a continuing series of bilateral meetings for the editors-in-chief of the leading daily newspapers from Slovakia and Hungary and from Romania and Hungary; press monitoring of ethnic coverage in Romania during the 1996 election campaign; and a seminar, again in Prague, for journalists from the mainstream and Roma (Gypsy) media to consider the question of ethnic stereotyping and its impact on public opinion and behavior.
The effort reported here--a meeting of leading Muslim and Croat journalists from the new Bosnian-Croat Federation and from neighboring Croatia--was intended to explore how responsible journalism could contribute to the stability of the fragile new federation. Too late for prevention, this mission was one of healing: it brought together for the first time in several years former colleagues from the media who had chosen, or found themselves on, opposite sides of the ethnic divide during the wars in Bosnia.
Although they were asked to focus their discussions on the federation and its problems, in the event the participants were drawn to consider a wider set of problems: the sometimes bitter struggle for media freedom as a prerequisite for democratic and peaceful societies, and the daunting problems that the media face in coping with political interests that treat them as weapons to be wielded for their own ends, sometimes even resorting to physical violence to enforce their control. Indeed, in the end it was clear that the specific problems in the federation are part of a larger pattern of opposing conceptions of the role of the media. Future meetings would no doubt profit from the inclusion of journalists from other areas of Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.
PER would like to thank the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnikand Berta Dragicevic, its executive secretary, for kindly hosting the meeting; Konstanty Gebert, foreign correspondent of the Warsaw daily Gazeta Wyborcza, for moderating the sessions; and Jasmina Kuzmanovic of the Associated Press who helped to organize the meeting.
This report was prepared by Aleksey N. Grigor'ev, of the PER Princeton staff, and was edited by Robert A. Feldmesser, PER's senior editor. The participants have not had an opportunity to review the text, which is PER's responsibility alone.
Allen H. Kassof, President
Livia B. Plaks, Executive Director
Princeton, New Jersey
December 1996
1See the PER report, The Media of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet
Union: Reporting on Interethnic Relations, 1994.
Summary
This meeting provided an opportunity for working journalists from Croatia and both parts of the Bosnian-Croat Federation to discuss the most pressing problems in their work and the practical possibilities for future cooperation. They discussed the issues of the independence of journalists in Croatia and Bosnia; the interference by and pressures from governments and political parties in the work of the media; reporting on ethnic questions; taboo subjects in their reporting; and practical steps toward cooperation. They agreed that the predominant political culture in both countries is authoritarian rather than consensual and democratic.
For many participants, this was the first opportunity in the course of the last several years to meet with their professional colleagues. The journalists discovered they are not so different from one another, that ethnic divisions are less important than the differences between people who are open to the building of a democratic society and those who support various forms of totalitarianism, and also less important than the standards of professional journalism.
They found, too, that journalists in both countries face the same problems in their politically polarized societies. "Censorship by the gun" is still a reality, at least in some parts of Bosnia. The immediate pressing tasks are to overcome the obstacles to a free flow of accurate information, freedom of distribution of the media across boundaries, and the ability of journalists to cross those boundaries themselves.
The solutions to those problems often lie beyond the journalists' reach, in the politics of Bosnia and Croatia and the policies of the international community. Each side in the recent conflict tried to monopolize the flow of information in its territory, and the participants asserted that nationalistic political forces were still trying to maintain their monopolies.
Although some participants admitted that they had arrived in Dubrovnik in a pessimistic mood about the possibilities of cooperation, many of them discovered during the meeting a number of small first steps that could improve the current situation of the media in this part of Europe and perhaps even prevent a new conflict. They exchanged their experiences in everyday reporting and showed that professionals with different backgrounds can come together and discuss issues of common concern. As one of the participants put it, they were fortunate enough to have a chance to meet each other; now they must not miss the chance of starting to work together.
(Note: In order to encourage a frank discussion among the participants, it
was agreed that no remarks would be attributed to individuals in this
report, other than PER staff and the moderator. However, if the viewpoints
expressed at the meeting are to be properly understood, participants have to
be identified as coming from a specific city or country. In this report, the
word "Croatian" refers to the citizens of the Republic of Croatia and to
their political and media organizations; "Croat" refers to ethnic Croats,
whether they live in Croatia or in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and "Bosnian"
refers to ethnic Bosnians (Muslims) and to the institutions of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina.)
Introduction
Before the revolutions of 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia had a clear advantage among the countries of the region. It was seemingly about to begin a successful transition to Western-style pluralism and a market economy. The first free elections in the republics of the former Federal Yugoslavia were held at the end of the 1980s. However, in the 1991 elections, the nationalists were victorious, and they subsequently dragged Yugoslavia into a brutal war that destroyed the state and any hope of democratization and economic reform.
Many observers hold the media partly accountable for this tragedy. Biased and one-sided reporting, it is charged, helped to create the climate of public opinion that led to war.
In December 1995, following four long years of war, the presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia signed a peace agreement in Dayton, Ohio. The agreement established the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, consisting of the Bosnian-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska. Whether and how this fragile peace will survive will depend in no small measure on whether the media can reestablish standards of fairness and objectivity.
On September 26, 1996, the Project on Ethnic Relations (PER) brought together, in Dubrovnik, Croatia, journalists from the Republic of Croatia and the Bosnian-Croat Federation for three days of discussion on the topic, "How to Get the Federation Going." The group was joined by members of the PER staff and by Konstanty Gebert, foreign correspondent of the Warsaw daily Gazeta Wyborcza, who moderated the discussions on behalf of PER. This report summarizes those discussions. It does not purport to be a complete record but rather seeks to capture the main themes of an encounter that was at once troubling and rewarding. Many of the participants had been on opposite sides, and indeed some had been bitter opponents, during the recent war. In Dubrovnik, they were meeting together for the first time in many years. The discovery, or rediscovery, of their human and professional bonds was a moving experience. Yet the discussions also revealed the immense difficulties that they faced in their efforts to reestablish free, independent, and effective media.
The discussions were marked by four main themes:
- Political pressures on the media in Croatia and in the new federation. The participants agreed that, on the whole, current trends were inimical to the development of free media.
- The specific problem of Mostar. Although nominally a united city under the Dayton accords, in fact Mostar is divided between Croat and Bosnian control. Journalists from both sides of the city faced particular difficulties in getting information from the other side. The media tended to be ethnically limited and politically biased in favor of their respective nationalist causes.
- The role of the international community in building free and independent media in the post-conflict environment in the region.
- The practical problems of reporting on ethnic issues: identifying and dealing with "taboo" subjects, the ethics of reporting about the "other side," and instituting cooperation across the new boundaries.
PER's president opened the meeting by explaining why an American organization would be interested in bringing together Bosnian and Croat journalists. One reason, he noted, was that the United States seems to be pulled into European ethnic conflicts despite its reluctance to become involved and the dangers of doing so. The war in the former Yugoslavia showed why it is much better to prevent such events than to repair the damage afterwards. Finally, what has happened in the former Yugoslavia seems to be only one example of a worldwide phenomenon of intergroup rivalry from which few countries are exempt and about which everyone needed to develop a deeper understanding.
PER's executive director then spoke about the organization's particular interest in the impact of the media on ethnic relations. The media shape opinion today to an unprecedented extent, she said, and the responsibility resting on the shoulders of journalists was therefore immense. It is first and foremost a responsibility to use effectively the right of free speech. She also described some of the activities with the media that PER has sponsored in Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic in recent years, and she explained the work of the PER Media Council on Ethnic Relations, an advisory committee established in 1994.
The issue of journalistic responsibility was picked up by a participant from Zagreb and by the chairman of the session, who had learned his craft as an underground journalist in the Solidarity movement in Poland. They stressed that the media play a very important role in the shaping of any conflict. Journalists lost their innocence in the recent war, the Croat journalist declared; it is now clear, she said, that paper and words can and do cause deadly conflicts.
The moderator expressed his belief that, while governments had been guilty in the Yugoslav conflict, so were the journalists whose writings had fanned the flames. Professional journalists must understand that, no matter which side they are on, they have an ethical responsibility for objective reporting. They need to recognize that, whatever happened in the past, they now have a common interest in freedom and independence for the media. That is the bond that should unite them.
Both these participants noted that, because of the divisions created by the
war, a meeting of the present kind would have been impossible only a year
ago. The time has come for media professionals to try to repair the damage
of the past and to consider what they could do to avert a repetition of the
disaster.
Political Pressures on Journalists
Several participants noted that pressure on the media in Croatia began to mount following the elections of October 1995. The elections showed that the ruling party, the Croatian Democratic Movement (HDZ), was losing its support in the country, especially in large urban areas, including Zagreb, the capital. HDZ failed to get a two-thirds majority in the parliament. The opposition won a majority in the Zagreb City Council, but the president of Croatia repeatedly refused to approve its choice of mayor. This situation has been further complicated by the political and social fragmentation that had begun with the signing of the Dayton peace agreement.
One result has been increasing nervousness in the HDZ ranks and a concomitant rise in authoritarian tendencies in the government of Croatia, and these have been reflected in attacks on the independent media.
One of the first targets was the independent weekly that calls itself the Feral Tribune. At the behest of President Franjo Tudjman, a case was lodged by state prosecutors against the editor in chief and a leading writer of the Feral Tribune, charging them with defamation of the president. They became the first journalists indicted under a provision in Croatia's criminal code that had been recently enacted to protect the reputation of top state officials at a time of declining governmental popularity.
However, on the day before the meeting began in Dubrovnik, a Croatian court acquitted the two journalists. The judge said that neither the articles nor the photo montage alluded to in the charge could be interpreted as defamatory. The montage was obviously satirical, he said, and was published in the satirical supplement of the issue, while the articles merely made judgments on aspects of political activity.
The moderator described this court decision as a very important positive development. "What does this decision mean?" he asked the participants. "What are the implications for Croatia?"
A journalist from Zagreb agreed that the acquittal was indeed important, and she added that journalists in Croatia had not expected it. However, she cautioned, one swallow does not make a summer; the decision does not mean that the situation will soon improve or that political attacks against independent journalists will stop.
Actually, she continued, radio and television were the first targets of the push against media independence, because the authorities realized that television in particular had become the main source of news for the public. Croatian Radio and Television is now nominally a commercial enterprise, but the state is the sole shareholder. The participant described Croatian Radio and Television as "a factory of lies." Meanwhile, such crucial questions as implementation of democratic legislation concerning the media, an end to intimidation of the free press, and enforcement of a code of ethics among journalists remain unresolved.
As for the situation in Bosnia, two quite different assessments were presented. One participant from Sarajevo declared that the Bosnian media function under much more favorable political conditions than is the case in Croatia. There are no untouchable members of the government, and many discussions of controversial issues are published in the newspapers. In one of them, in Oslobodjenje, a Sarajevo newspaper, President Alija Izetbegovic himself joined in.
However, another journalist from Sarajevo pointed out that on the day after President Izetbegovic's contribution appeared, the "financial police" arrived in the paper's office and harassed the journalists. Another participant from Bosnia recalled that a state-run kiosk in the city of Bihac was forbidden by government order from selling an independent publication.
Only the means, not the end, of political pressure on the media have changed, said the journalist from Sarajevo; the state is seeking complete control over the media, especially the electronic media, and those in political office are constantly searching for new mechanisms to achieve that goal. In the last analysis, a "censorship of the gun" is still at work in Bosnia. Another very serious problem for the independent media in Bosnia is the lack of financial resources.
This participant expressed the belief that the media in both Bosnia and Croatia are no less endangered now than they were during the war. The nationalist groups that launched the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina are still in power, and they still profit from the continued disorder, the closed borders, and the complete control over the media. He predicted that the space for the free media would be narrowing and that the temporary financial support now coming in the form of humanitarian aid from abroad would evaporate in the next five or ten years.
He recounted an episode that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the outset of the war. Someone had painted graffiti on the walls of a post office in Sarajevo declaring, "This is Serbia!" The next morning a retort appeared, "Idiot, this is a post office!" Thus, said the participant, the war was between those who saw only Serbia (or Croatia or Bosnia) and those who saw simply an institution that was supposed to send and receive letters and telegrams and provide telephone service. The picture in Bosnia today is still the same. People are arguing about whom the post office belongs to instead of how it should function. He expressed sadness that there were many journalists among such people. If after four years of war the people of Bosnia have learned nothing, he added, there is no viable future for the free media in that country.
This journalist also suggested that the reason for the favorable outcome in the Feral Tribune case was not the personal courage of the judge but a decision taken at the very top in response to the pressure on Croatia to fulfill the preconditions for acceptance as a member of the Council of Europe. In May 1996, the Council of Europe put Croatia's membership bid on hold partly because of a renewed right-wing campaign to silence the critical media with a new defamation law, punitive taxes, and other forms of legal pressure.
A Croat journalist disagreed, saying that the court's decision had no relevance to the country's acceptance into the Council of Europe. He pointed out that the Croatian minister of foreign affairs had said that the first condition for acceptance was cooperation with the Bosnian state, not freedom of the media.
Another participant from Zagreb expressed the belief that the judge did deserve some credit for the positive outcome of the Feral Tribune case. She emphasized, however, that, despite that outcome, censorship was still at work in Croatia. Other participants added that the information systems in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are still very fragmented, a condition that allows political parties to obstruct the free flow of information and to continue with their nationalistic propaganda. The main parties are democratic in name only.
All the participants agreed that media professionals are destined to play a
key role in determining whether there will be a heritage of peace or of war
for the next generation.
The Question of Mostar
During the war in Bosnia, the city of Mostar was divided into two parts, one Bosnian (Muslim) and the other Croat. The fate of all city institutions followed the fate of the famous medieval bridge over the Neretva River, which was destroyed by the warring factions. Each part established its own separate municipal bodies. The Croat-held sector was declared to be the capital of the Croat-held part of Bosnia and Herzegovinathe self-proclaimed Republic of Herceg-Bosna. Mostar became a symbol of the division in Bosnia. The Dayton accords provided for the city's reunification, and in the following months, municipal elections were in fact held, and the slow process of establishing a united city administration began. Nevertheless, Mostar remains divided between Croat- and Bosnian-controlled sectors.
A Bosnian journalist from Mostar recalled that the division of the city was already visible by July 1992. There was no television, and there were no newspapers from Sarajevo. Mostar was in effect isolated from the outside world. The city's media were under the control of Serbs and Croats from the mountains. The main goal of the Croat attack on Mostar was to make the city the capital of Herceg-Bosna. According to this participant, one of the means by which this was to be accomplished was the elimination of the Muslim media there. During the war, ten to fifteen kiosks in Mostar that were owned by the Sarajevo newspaper Oslobodjenje were seized by the Croat side and converted into property of Slobodna Dalmacija, a Croatian newspaper.
The Dayton accords notwithstanding, the nationalist parties in Mostar are still firmly entrenched. They continue to obstruct unification, to preserve the fragmented information system imposed during the war, and to carry on their political and nationalist propaganda. The present media war has the effect of increasing intolerance. The participant suggested that the media should help people return to their homes and that they should join in the struggle for a united Mostar, which was approved by a majority of the city's voters in recent local elections.
A journalist from Sarajevo called to the participants' attention that the first "military" operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the offensive against the media, which was conducted even before the war began. De facto separation was imposed through the destruction of a large number of TV and radio transmitters, so that southern Herzegovina could receive only programs broadcast from Croatia. The media in Bosnia thus became an instrument of the politics of intolerance. Sarajevo and the Croat-held side of Mostar are still the centers of two completely separate media regions. This separation prevents journalists from meeting and sharing information--that is, from simply doing their job.
A participant from Zagreb noted that the Croat part of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been assimilated into the Republic of Croatia, using the same currency, flag, and coat of arms. Similarly, the media of Herceg-Bosna have been incorporated into the media of Croatia. Herceg-Bosna, like Croatia itself, is under the complete control of one party, the HDZ. As another participant put it, there are no "national" parties in Herceg-Bosna; everything comes from Zagreb. If one is a Croat, one is supposed to think along the lines of the HDZ. According to this participant, this ideology is similar to that of fascism: one nation, one leader, one party.
However, some participants pointed to positive signs. A journalist from Mostar mentioned that for some time he and his colleagues had been attending press conferences at the office of the European Union in Mostar, together with journalists from all parts of the world, including Croatia, showing that professional cooperation was still possible. He expressed a hope for more cooperation between journalists from the two parts of Mostar.
A Croat journalist from Mostar asked his colleagues to be very careful in their reporting. As an example, he cited the question of whether the Muslim population of Bosnia should be called "Muslims" or "Bosnians." He said that in his articles he uses the term "Bosnians," because that is how they are referred to in the Bosnian Constitution. Neglect of such terms could contribute to a perpetuation of the divisions in Bosnian society.
Another participant proposed that journalists in Mostar become leaders in
the process of reunification and postwar reconstruction. Journalists from
the two sides of the city should help one another in gathering information.
This can be done only by professionals, not by political fighters on
opposite sides. To fail to cooperate is in effect to become a part of the
only alternative: a continuation of the division and fighting between
Bosnians and Croats.
The Role of the International Community
The participants agreed that, although Bosnia's future will depend primarily on internal factors, the international community can and should help. Since the end of the war, numerous international governmental and non-governmental organizations have launched projects in Bosnia aimed at rebuilding the country and its democratic institutions.
A number of these projects have involved the media. A Bosnian participant noted that Bosnia now has more than 100 new media organizations, and all of them are dependent on foreign support for their survival. However, she cautioned, it remains to be seen what the outcome will be. One unfortunate result is that almost everything seems to be under Western control: the courts and the police as well as the media. In addition, many journalists from Bosnia have left the country and settled in the West, while many of the most talented among those who stayed behind have been recruited by Western employers. Bosnia has become a kind of Western protectorate, this journalist asserted.
The chairman of the session added that insofar as these Western organizations were "buying up" good Bosnian journalists, they were hampering the development of a free and independent indigenous press.
On the other hand, as an example of constructive Western involvement, the moderator told the participants about the Media Development Fund, which provides loans (not grants) to print and electronic media, in Croatia and Bosnia among other places. These loans are available to both private and state-owned media organizations working toward the goal of an open society. He suggested that the participants apply to this fund.
The suggestion was met with skepticism by one participant, a Bosnian journalist, who said that such a scheme might work in Croatia, but the situation in Bosnia was very different. Bosnian newspapers would have no way of repaying loans. Anyone faced with the choice of buying bread or a newspaper will buy bread. A Croat journalist was even more pessimistic. He said that successful projects with the media in this part of the world were not a realistic possibility.
Another participant mentioned that the international community spent
$63,000,000 on elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, yet there was absolutely
no impact on the media, which received none of the funds and remain
impoverished. PER's president said that the question might be one not of
money but of the seeming incapacity of the international community to offer
real solutions, or perhaps an absence of political will. It is easier to
dispense funds than to devise programs that will assure their effective use.
Reporting on Ethnic Issues
Almost all the participants agreed that there were numerous self-constraints and taboo subjects in their reporting, including war crimes committed by their own side and the role of the churches in inciting ethnic warfare. A participant from Sarajevo confessed that he does not write about the mujahedins' participation in the war. The way his publication covers this and other delicate issues is by reprinting articles from abroad without taking responsibility for them.
The moderator suggested that the journalists of Bosnia might write stories about the obstacles to their reporting, about how and why it was not possible to cover certain subjects in the press. The suggestion was received with interest by the participants. The moderator went on to say that the most difficult subjects to write about were the ones the readers did not want to read about. Newspapers in Central and Eastern Europe have no problem investigating the government, the mafia, or privatization. Problems arise when a paper starts publishing articles about racism in the majority population or attitudes toward the Roma (Gypsies). Supposedly liberal and democratically oriented readers start calling the paper to complain that they do not want to read about such things and will stop buying the newspaper if it continues to publish articles on such themes.
Several Croatian journalists responded that the situation in Croatia, and especially in Bosnia, was different from that in the rest of Europe because of the strong political pressures, the very small circulation of most newspapers, and the high proportion of illiterates in the population.
The chairman of the session took note of the general pessimism among the participants, many of whom had expressed the opinion that the problems Bosnia and Croatia faced seemed impossible to solve. He asked the journalists to be realistic and demand what was already possible. Opinion makers in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe had worked in societies ruled by Communist parties and the military, supported by one of the world's two nuclear superpowers. In 1985, they seemed to have no hope, yet their experience shows that the impossible sometimes happens. One has to work for the development of independent reporting. The Dayton accords mean nothing if they do not end the war among the journalists. Are Bosnian and Croat journalists colleagues or enemies? The problem is less one of censorship than of self-censorship. Journalists should not be afraid to write the truth because it is going to hurt their cause, nor should they be reluctant to investigate their own side's wrongdoing.
The moderator proposed a number of ways to improve the situation. Given that the Bosnian journalists know the real situation, even an incomplete story written by them, as domestic professional journalists, would be a hundred times more powerful than one done by foreigners. Any kind of cooperation of the media across the boundary lines would help.
He proposed that the Croatian newspaper Novi List and the Bosnian
Oslobodjenje publish a joint issue, but the proposal was met with
skepticism. A journalist from Novi List remarked that the concepts of these
newspapers are completely different, and a participant from Sarajevo added
that their concepts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were different as well.
Another journalist from Bosnia proposed instead Bosnian and Croat newspapers
be sold in each other's countries.
Practical Steps and Conclusions
The meeting produced no agreement or final document. However, during the discussion a number of participants suggested possibilities for practical cooperation among them. These included exchanges of information within Bosnia and between Bosnia and Croatia, the establishment of information networks, midcareer training of journalists, improvement of telecommunication links, and professional solidarity among the journalists.
Several participants pointed to the need for exchanges of information between Zagreb and Sarajevo, as well as between those cities and Belgrade. Journalists from different parts of the former Yugoslavia worked together before the war, but the region has changed radically since then. The former Yugoslavia is now five different countries, most of them hostile or at best indifferent to one another. There is no media cooperation.
Within Bosnia itself, the situation is even worse. To get information from the Republika Srpska, a journalist from Sarajevo has to call Banja Luka via Paris.
However, some initial steps toward cooperation have been taken. A journalist from Zagreb called attention to the Alternative Information Network (AIM), which supplies, gathers, and exchanges information among journalists in all three parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and seeks to institute networking among them. However, a participant from Sarajevo informed the group that the European Union, the main sponsor of AIM, is ending its financial support for the network--200,000 ECU annually--at the beginning of January 1997. He asked PER to use its contacts with the major European international organizations in order to help find money to continue the work started by AIM. PER's president promised to contact representatives of the EU regarding this matter on behalf of the participants at the present meeting.
A Croat journalist from Mostar asked that the international community buy at least a hundred copies of each Mostar newspaper and distribute them at the city council or the EU office in Mostar. He said this would be a sort of financial guarantee for the media in the city. His colleague from the other side of the Neretva River supported him. There are readers who will read these newspapers. A good indication of this potential market is that people on both sides watch both Sarajevo and Zagreb TV. Newspapers from both sides must reach not only the general population but, even more important, the politicians from different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Participants also mentioned problems of poor telephone links and the high cost or even complete lack of e-mail, Internet connections, and computer equipment. However, the main problem is the absence of personal contacts.
Assessing the discussion, a Bosnian participant declared that it had opened his eyes and changed his attitudes toward Croat journalists, especially those from the state-run media. He said that he had discovered that his Croat colleagues were professional journalists like himself, craving freedom of the press.
PER's president remarked that there is a need for professional solidarity
among the journalists of the former Yugoslavia. This meeting had shown that
journalists from opposite sides can come together and talk professionally
about real problems. He expressed PER's readiness to help to keep this
dialogue going. He and PER's executive director encouraged the journalists
to stay in touch with each other. In response, a journalist from Sarajevo
proposed creating a professional association or network of journalists from
Bosnia and Herzegovina. He said that a very important result of this meeting
had been getting to know each other better. Perhaps the conversations had
not been easy going at times, but they had made a very good beginning.
List of Participants
MOSTAR
Alija Behram, RTV Mostar
Pejo Gasparevic, HINA (Croatian Information Agency)
Veso Vegar, Slobodna Dalmacija
SARAJEVO
Zlatko Dizdarevic, Svijet
Emir Habul, Oslobodjenje
Snjezana Mulic, Dani
Drazena Peranic, AIM (Alternative Information Network)
WARSAW
Konstanty Gebert, Gazeta Wyborcza
ZAGREB
Sanja Despot, Novi List
Nino Djula, Novi List
Jasmina Kuzmanovic, Associated Press
Jelena Lovric, free-lance journalist
Ivan Sabic, Vjesnik
PROJECT ON ETHNIC RELATIONS
Allen H. Kassof, President
Livia B. Plaks, Executive Director
Aleksey N. Grigor'ev, Program Associate