FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 130 W. 25th Street New York,
NY 10001
Media Advisory:
CEASEFIRE SUBTERFUGE:
Despite Claims of Serb "Stalling," NATO Ploy Delayed Kosovo Deal
June 9, 1999
The June 7 breakdown of military talks between Yugoslav and NATO generals
was almost uniformly greeted by the major U.S. media as a sign that the
Serbs were reneging on their agreement to pull troops out of Kosovo and
allow in an international security force.
Tom Aspell of NBC News reported that morning that "all hopes of a
cease-fire have evaporated" because the "Yugoslavians are balking at the
idea of NATO troops replacing their forces in Kosovo."
But, with little fanfare, it has emerged that the talks' disruption was
in
fact caused by the failure of a bizarre NATO diplomatic gambit intended
to
sideline the United Nations from a settlement-- contradicting NATO's
earlier commitment to include the U.N.
On Thursday, June 3, when the Serb Assembly agreed to the Kosovo peace
plan
presented by Russian envoy Victor Chernomyrdin and Finnish President
Marti
Ahtissari, the news media interpreted the accord as a capitulation by
Yugoslavia that would bring a swift end to the conflict.
Reporters talked of a NATO "victory." Sunday morning pundits were already
doling out credit and assigning blame. The papers gave prominent coverage
to NATO assertions that the bombing could end "as early as Tuesday,"
giving the impression that the war was winding down.
On Monday, the coverage suddenly changed gears. The front-page headline
in
USA Today (6/7/99) read "Kosovo Talks Break Down: Yugoslavs Balk at
NATO's
Conditions to End Bombing." The words "balk," "renege" and "stall" were
constantly used to describe Yugoslavia's actions.
NBC News reporter Tom Aspell said (6/7/99) that at the military talks
between Yugoslav and NATO generals, the "Yugoslavs stalled and haggled
over the details until the talks collapsed."
The New York Times' lead story Monday (6/7/99), by reporter Elizabeth
Becker, carried a bold, three-column headline: "Kosovo Talks Break Down
As
Serbs Balk Over Details."
But in the next day's paper (New York Times, 6/8/99), Becker quietly
reported that the media's spin - including her own-- had been misleading.
Becker's article on page 17 explained that Sunday's military talks on the
Macedonian border had in fact broken down because Yugoslavia had failed
to
fall for a bizarre NATO ploy: In order to get around a provision in the
Chernomyrdin-Ahtissari plan explicitly requiring any Kosovo peacekeeping
force to be "under U.N. auspices," NATO generals had tried to force
Yugoslavia to sign a legally binding military document on a peacekeeping
force that contained no mention of the United Nations.
Becker reported that "Western political leaders had tried to disguise
that
omission by offering what was supposed to be a highly detailed technical
agreement." She quoted a senior Western diplomat as saying the idea
behind
the ploy was that "if you call it a technical document it would hide the
fact that it went beyond the nuts and bolts of the military arrangement
and was essentially creating the legal basis for the Kosovo peacekeeping
force"-- with no role for the U.N.
Becker quotes a senior European diplomat who seems genuinely perplexed
that
NATO had thought it could get away with such a scheme: "We knew the
problem of the U.N. would be exposed during the talks. Why, then, was the
military encouraged to pursue the talks without the U.N.?"
Becker's article was obliquely headlined, "Tricky Point For Serbs: No
Mention of U.N. Role" (which is itself somewhat misleading, since NATO's
omission of a U.N. role was not a mere "tricky point"; it directly
contradicted NATO's promise last week of a Kosovo force "under U.N.
auspices.") Strangely, the piece was placed under the heading
"Macedonia."
Nevertheless, the lead editorial in that edition of the Times (6/8/99)
begins: "Slobodan Milosevic is a master at using delay, surprise, and
confusion to divide his opponents, and he is now using all three to
undermine the peace agreement that he accepted in Belgrade last week."
Ignoring its own correspondent's reporting, the editorial adds that "the
immediate obstacle to peace is Belgrade's refusal to accept a detailed
NATO plan" for Kosovo.
The Washington Post (6/8/99) reported on the break-down of talks in
Macedonia this way: "By holding up implementation of the peace deal,
Milosevic demonstrated once again that he is a master of the last-minute
tactical ploy."
In a war that the media have covered by portraying one side's leader--
Slobodan Milosevic-- as a wily master of diplomatic subterfuge, a very
real instance of subterfuge by the other side-- NATO-- has been ignored
and even misrepresented.
This media advisory was written by FAIR media analyst Seth Ackerman.
________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.