Humanitarian Law Centre Media Monitoring: 

The Debate on the Status of Vojvodina

For period: August 2001

Introduction

The status of the Serbian province of Vojvodina and the ensuing public debate were among the main media topics in Serbia in August. In a joint communiqué of 25 July, Nenad Canak (League of Social-Democrats of Vojvodina - FHP), Miodrag "Mile" Isakov (Vojvodina Reformists - FHP), and Jozef Kasza (League of Vojvodina Hungarians - FHP) said they would seek internationalisation of the issue unless the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) Presidency initiated discussions on Vojvodina's status without delay. This was followed by the Declaration on the Position of Vojvodina adopted on 20 August by representatives of 14 political parties and non-governmental organisations in the province, and a DOS Presidency meeting on 21 August.

The media reacted differently to these developments. The NIN and Vreme weeklies published articles analysing the political and economic aspects of the problem while state television (RTS) and the privately-owned BK Telecom TV limited themselves to carrying statements made by politicians.

The Glas Javnosti, Danas, and Politika dailies adopted a combined approach, publishing analytical articles, interviewing Vojvodina politicians, and carrying official statements, with the last taking up most space.

RTS and BK Telecom TV coverage of the issue started only after the adoption of the Declaration on the Position of Vojvodina, when they began carrying statements by politicians. RTS did not have a single item on the status of Vojvodina in its prime time news program (Dnevnik 2) before 20 August.

Quantitative analysis

Glas Javnosti, Politika, and Danas printed a total of 54 items on Vojvodina's status in the 1-31 August period. Glas Javnosti led with 23, and was followed by Danas with 17, and Politika with 14. NIN had four items on the subject: an interview with Josef Kasza, an economic analysis of the status of Vojvodina, an in-depth article on the ferment in the Vojvodina branch of the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), and a lead editorial. In its single item, Vreme examined the relations between political parties in Vojvodina, and between Belgrade and Vojvodina.

In its Dnevnik 2, the news program with the highest rating in the country, RTS gave up 5 minutes and 12 seconds (0.5 % of total time) to the status of Vojvodina. Dnevnik 2 totalled 16 hours and 6 minutes. BK Telecom allocated 2 minutes and 54 seconds, or 0.88 % of total time, to this topic in its prime time Telefakt 4 newscast. Telefakt 4 totalled 4 hours and 50 minutes.

Media coverage of the situation in Vojvodina

The monitored print media approached the subject from different angles and came out with their own versions of the developments. The Glas Javnosti and Politika dailies viewed the Vojvodina issue as part of the conflict between the political parties making up the DOS, both local Vojvodina parties and the leading parties such as the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) and the Democratic Party (DS), and analysed the situation which arose when the Vojvodina pro-autonomy parties raised the question of the province's status.

Glas Javnosti was the least inclined to come out with its own analyses, preferring to carry the statements of both pro-autonomy and pro-unitary state politicians. The paper opted for a neutral stance and its coverage favoured neither grouping. It set out in one article the stands of two pro-autonomy politicians, Nenad Canak and Union of Socialists leader Zivan Berisavljevic, and of Dejan Mikavica (DSS) whose views reflected the position of hard-liners supporting a unitary state and who consider any mention of autonomy as a prelude to open separatism. In conclusion, the paper drew an interesting parallel by quoting from the writings of a 1930s Vojvodina politician whose views were very similar to those held by today's advocates of autonomy (Glas Javnosti, 19 August 2001).

Politika and Danas treated Vojvodina's status in analytical articles, interviews with politicians, and by carrying the press releases of political parties.

Politika considered that the status of Vojvodina posed no danger to the integrity of Serbia since the stands of Vojvodina leaders were now less rigid than earlier. "An attentive eye would not miss the word "in" in the title of this document: Platform for the Autonomy of Vojvodina in the New, Democratic Serbia and Yugoslavia, or the fact that, in contrast to some previous documents, this one emphasises the preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia" (Politika, 22 August 2001). In its articles on relations in Vojvodina, Danas was critical of three Vojvodina leaders: Nenad Canak, Mile Isakov, and Jozef Kasza, considering that they, at least in part, raised the issue of the province's status out of personal interests. "Nenad Canak and Mile Isakov went off on their vacations without waiting for the deadline they gave their comrades-in-arms in the DOS Presidency to run out. They thus suspended the quarrels over Vojvodina's status for at least three weeks. The rumour in Novi Sad is that the whole fuss concerning the ultimatum was provoked deliberately to get some free advertising for the parties in the summer when nothing much goes on. If so, the aim was accomplished" (Danas, 4 August 2001).

Politika published an interview with Nenad Canak on 26 August, and Danas with Miodrag Isakov on 6 August 2001. The questions Danas asked Isakov were sharply worded and designed to clarify some statements he had made earlier, in particular regarding the internationalisation of the Vojvodina question. When it interviewed Canak, Politika opted for neutrality, posed questions that avoided extremes and thus did not place Canak in an unfavourable position.

In its analysis of the situation in Vojvodina, the Vreme news magazine expressed doubt that the situation would be radicalised. "DOS will be discussing Vojvodina by the end of this month. In spite of serious warnings that the price of the delay will ultimately be very high, those who uttered them obviously don't believe that developments concerning Vojvodina's future will get dramatic in the next two or three weeks or suddenly become a focus of interest of the various international factors" (Vreme, 2 August 2001).

In an interview with Josef Kasza, the NIN weekly dealt with the political, economic and ethnic aspects of the Vojvodina issue. The choice and intonation of the questions posed were neutral (NIN, 2 August 2001).

RTS limited itself to carrying statements made by politicians and favoured neither side. Apart from the introductions to stories, RTS had no commentaries or surveys of its own, and made no attempt to deal comprehensively with the problem of Vojvodina's status. BK Telecom's coverage was very similar to that of RTS.

Background to the Vojvodina issue

Danas considers that the problems in the perception of Vojvodina's status are an unfavourable legacy of the recent past, and that there has been no substantive change in the way of thinking shaped at that time. "Since the national lens was the main optical instrument of politics in this country for more than a decade, the Vojvodina issue was viewed only through it. The fact that Vojvodina, even if it had a smaller minority population (over 43% according to the 1991 census), deserves to be defined in a specific way because of its historic, geographic, economic and other distinctive characteristics is disregarded. The multi-ethnicity and multi-culturality of Vojvodina are all the more reason for it to be in a position to regulate its own internal relations" (Danas, 25 August 2001).

The paper believes that a division of the market is behind the latest conflict within the ruling DOS coalition, which includes the pro-autonomy Vojvodina parties. "People who deal with money on a daily basis say the announced building of a cigarette factory in Novi Sad is a problem. The moment Canak lays the cornerstone, they say, Novi Sad and Belgrade will really be at loggerheads" (Danas, 4 August 2001).

For its part, NIN holds that Vojvodina's real problems can be recognised only through an economic approach. "Statistics appear to be more boring than a telephone directory but can be more exciting than all the Vojvodina leaders and their interlocutors in the capital together. The two key years in this analysis are 1988, when decentralised decision-making was at its height, and 1998, when centralised government was at its peak. A comparison of Vojvodina's share in Serbia's gross social product in these two years is evidence of the backsliding of the northern province over the past ten years" (NIN, 2 August 2001).

Vreme also underscored the economic background of the problem of Vojvodina's status. "A recent analysis commissioned by Belgrade Media Centre's Analytic Service claims that the number of dissatisfied people in Vojvodina who felt they were being robbed rose constantly in the years following the 'Yoghurt Revolution' [HLC note: abolition of Vojvodina's autonomy when Slobodan Milosevic came to power] and at one point reached approximately 70 percent" (Vreme, 2 August 2001).

Rising Tensions

On 1 August, at a meeting of Vojvodina's provincial government held at the Montenegrin resort of Igalo, Rade Marinkov, a member of Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica's DSS, said before several witnesses that tanks should be sent against the supporters of Vojvodina's autonomy, and that he would finish off the survivors himself with a knife (Glas Javnosti, 11 August 2001). Nenad Canak, who is the Speaker of the Vojvodina Parliament, reacted by addressing an open letter to President Kostunica in which he insisted on Marinkov's statement being publicly denounced.

Danas carried Canak's letter (15 August 2001) as well as a denial by Marinkov, who said he had been misquoted and described Canak as a charlatan who will not last long on the political scene (17 August 2001).

Glas Javnosti failed to carry Marinkov's denial.

Politika published Canak's open letter on 11 August but not Marinkov's denial.

Glas Javnosti printed a letter to the editor whose author said Canak's accusation was a set up. "By accusing Rade Marinkov, Canak, Kasza and Isakov are obviously paving the way for the threatened internationalisation, which could start very soon. It is not hard to see from all of this that the three separatist parties will not be satisfied with any kind of agreement reached by the designated 25 August, and are therefore trying to eliminate a person who is, quite rightly, coming out with state-political counter-arguments" (Glas Javnosti, 22 August 2001).

NIN also reacted to Canak's open letter, saying the affair surrounding Rade Marinkov's remark was an attempt to raise tensions. "When important issues are not put on the agenda and are not resolved in keeping with promises and agreements, minor episodes usually come to the forefront and become topics of the day." The weekly also expressed scepticism with regard to the source of Canak's information. "The reader should be aware of an important fact: Nenad Canak was not in Igalo and therefore could not have heard what Vojvodina's Deputy Premier Rade Marinkov said. Someone must have let him know."

Querying how the DSS would respond to Canak's letter and accusations, the weekly quoted a senior official of the party as saying the DSS viewed the affair as yet another piece of Canak sensationalism and would not give his letter serious consideration (NIN, 16 August 2001).

While RTS did not report the incident, BK Telecom TV carried a statement by Dusan Bogosavljevic, a supporter of Vojvodina autonomy, who condemned Marinkov's remark (BK Telecom TV, 24 August 2001).

Danas reported the dismissal of a Serb municipal official in Vojvodina. "Besides political, the recent ousting of the deputy mayor of Senta Municipality, Slobodan Boroski, is increasingly taking on ethnic connotations as he was the only non-Hungarian municipal official. In the latest reaction from the Democratic Party, its official Bojan Pajtic called this a case of ethnic-majority dictate." The paper went on to say that ethnic Hungarian politicians rejected this view. "Senta Mayor Atila Juhas denied the allegation and said Boroski was given a vote of no-confidence because of his incorrect actions, not his ethnicity." Danas, however, did not agree and concluded: "This case is receiving more and more attention in Vojvodina and even threatens to become the acid test of inter-ethnic relations" (Danas, 25 August 2001).

Glas Javnosti, Politika, RTS and BK Telecom TV had no coverage of this event.

Conclusion

The media treated the issue of Vojvodina's status as a serious but not overly important topic, as is evident from the sparseness of analytic and in-depth reports. The daily newspapers differed greatly with regard to the speed at which they reacted to, and even reported, the developments. With the exception of Glas Javnosti and Politika, the printed media made a bigger effort than the electronic to take a critical approach, from their own positions.

Danas and NIN showed the most interest in the topic, featuring a wide variety of texts, from analyses to interviews. Although it had only one article, Vreme examined the topic from several angles, without giving either side preferential treatment. Since this was not a major media topic entailing greater risks, it cannot be said that domestic journalism made any significant advances.

go to top

P.O. Box, CH-8031 Zürich, Switzerland
Phone +41-1-272 46 37,  Fax +41-1-272 46 82, email: info@MEDIENHILFE.ch