Articles on the Bosnia Conflict




The Serbian Unity Congress and the Serbian Lobby


A Study of Contemporary Revisionism and Denial

By Brad Blitz


October 1994


Lobbying Practices..........4
The Direct Lobbying Campaign..........4
The Indirect Lobbying Campaign..........5
Revisionism and the Serbian Propaganda Campaign..........6
Public Relations Efforts and Links with other Communities..........13
I The Hellenic Community..........13
II Jewish Groups..........14
III The Armenian Community..........15
The Role of the U.S. Information Agency..........15
The Serbian Community and Lobby Abroad..........15
Post Script: Warning..........17
APPENDIX A: Lee Hamilton: A Willing Target for Serbian and Greek Sponsorship..........18
APPENDIX B: The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee - An Amateur and Inattentive Lobby.........20
APPENDIX C: Attached propaganda from the Serbian Unity Congress and SAVA..........23


Students Against GEnocide (SAGE) -- Project Bosnia is a national student organization based at Stanford University and is an affiliate of the American Committee to Save Bosnia. Over the past eighteen months SAGE has been monitoring the activities of Serbian activists in the San Francisco Bay Area as part of an on-going campaign to discredit Serb-nationalist apologists and revisionists. The information presented in this briefing was collected from a vast number of sources. This includes personal correspondence, private meetings and forums organized by the Serbian Unity Congress and its affiliated groups. This briefing was written by Brad K. Blitz, a Ph.D. candidate in international development education at Stanford University.

© 1994 Brad K. Blitz October 18, 1994


The Serbian Unity Congress (SUC) is the largest Serb-nationalist organization in the United States. Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is devoted to political lobbying on behalf of the regimes in Belgrade and Pale. The SUC is both a membership organization made up of individuals and an umbrella organization linking a number of Serb-nationalist groups. It represents the interests of Serbian political leaders by: i) lobbying as a political action committee; ii) sponsoring a disinformation campaign which targets the media, university campuses and research centers; iii) engaging public relations firms to lobby on behalf of the Serbian leadership in Pale and ensure representation during congressional committee hearings; iv) purchasing the services and support of journalists and speakers.


The SUC is registered in the State of California as a 501(c)(3) and is also connected to a political action committee registered under the name of the Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee. According to its own introductory letter, the SUC has a number of bank accounts for different activities which are now organized from three main offices in the United States. The offices regularly communicate by electronic mail, phone and fax. 1 Two of these are in the San Francisco Bay Area and one, the Serbian Information Center, is in Washington, D.C. Few of the offices are run more by more than one or two staff members.

The Central Office of the SUC, in Napa Valley, is run by Jelena Kolarovich and is perhaps the largest of all the SUC offices. Kolarovich is the wife of George Kolarovich who is President of Fairmont Vineyards. It is believed that the central office is based on their estate and that this is where most of the information concerning accounts, membership lists, newsletters etc. is stored. The central office is nonetheless under the supervision of the Executive Director, Mirjana Samardjzia, who works out of her home in Pacific Heights, San Francisco. 2 The Washington office, under the direction of Danielle Sremac, has recently received more public attention than the other offices as a result of a series of interviews on CNN and NPR's Talk of the Nation in June and July. However, in spite of the increased visibility of its director, this office is largely a one person outfit and Sremac is the only visible face of the SUC in Washington.

When addressing an American public, the key speakers of the SUC often present themselves as representatives of different groups. Although they attempt to project an image of unity there are ideological differences between the various groups. For the past five months at least, there has been considerable in-fighting between the leaders of these groups as some have been more publicly critical of the Milosevic regime than others. 3 The Serbian groups that are attached to the SUC are, however, united in their perception of Serbs as victims and in their denial that genocide has been committed against the people of Bosnia.

The SUC works very closely with two information centers, Serbnet (which includes the Serbian American Media Center) based in Chicago and SAVA (the Serbian American Voters Alliance) based in Los Angeles. Both of these organizations produce materials which are distributed by the SUC as part of their speaker tour programs and press kits. SAVA, like the SUC, was also set up as a political action committee. It was initially registered as the American Serbian Institute Political Action Committee but had made no contributions in 1992 and 1993. 4 The connection between Serbnet, SAVA and the Serbian Unity Congress requires further explanation.

Serbnet and SAVA are managed independently of the SUC. Serbnet is structured primarily as an umbrella organization linking groups around North America. However, there is a considerable overlap between directors and members of these groups with some members serving on the boards of more than one organization. There is also an obvious overlap in terms of purpose. Both Serbnet and the SUC organize speaker tours, campus-based programs and editorial meetings with local and national newspapers. Serbnet was responsible for placing advertisements in the Washington Post and New York Times on July 10 and August 17, 1993. SAVA also circulates press reports from Tanjug, the official Yugoslav-Serbian news agency and has produced a number of cartoons as part of its propaganda campaign (see attached).

Lobbying Practices

In 1993-94 there was a concerted lobbying effort to further the SUC's political interests which was largely financed by Greek-American money. The fact that Serbian monetary contributions do not stand out from the Federal Election Commission reports only disguises the actual nature of the Serbian lobbying program. The campaign to promote Serbian interests has been conducted through public relations firms and friendly ethnic groups that have well-defined political interests in the region. This is most evident within the Hellenic community. For the sake of clarity, it is therefore necessary to distinguish between the direct lobbying campaign conducted by the SUC and Serbian-affiliated groups and the indirect efforts of Greek and Cypriot-Americans which have also advanced the cause of the SUC. 

The Direct Lobbying Campaign

The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee (SUC PAC) has made financial contributions to a number of public officials, although the amount offered to each candidate has been relatively small. Most of their contributions have been made to House members and candidates running for office. Only a handful of senators have received contributions from this Serbian PAC. The most significant recipients of donations from the SUC PAC are Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-MD) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). Bentley, former President of Serbnet (and now Honorary President) has been the most vocal pro-Serbian voice in the House.

The 1993-94 returns from the Federal Elections Commission for the Serbian Unity Congress PAC reveal a random targeting of individuals. Apart from Representatives Delich Bentley and Burton, there is little indication that this Serbian PAC has developed a coherent strategy for targeting Members of Congress by offering monetary contributions. Congressional candidates, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Sam Gejdenson rejected the donations sent by the SUC almost immediately.5 Others such as Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) were unaware that they had even been the beneficiaries of SUC contributions and denied having had any contact with Serbian groups.6 The FEC returns also shed light on the disorganized accounting and reporting procedures of the SUC. On several occasions, the Federal Election Commission staff have written to the SUC asking for reports to be submitted, reminding the organization of past deadlines etc. The FEC has also pointed out that the accounts reported by the SUC do not correspond with the declared donations and receipts. This raises further questions about the SUC's internal administration and use of funds.7 (see attached report)

The Indirect Lobbying Campaign

In the past eighteen months, an indirect lobbying campaign has been conducted by SUC-financed public relations firms in order to unite Serbian and Greek interests. This lobbying effort has been orchestrated by the Washington-based firm Mantos and Mantos, Inc. and has been aimed primarily at mobilizing individuals -- as opposed to PACs.8 In addition to direct contributions made on behalf of the Serbian Unity Congress PAC, prominent figures and sponsors of the SUC have made significant personal contributions to congressional campaigns. Contributors include: Michael Djordjevich, former President of the SUC; George Bogdanich, Director of Serbnet; both the Director and Chairman of the Serbian American Media Center, Messrs. Peter Samardzija and Nicholas Trkla, respectively. Mr. Milan Panic, the former political challenger to Milosevic, has also made noticeable contributions. On two specific occasions, a series of personal donations from Serbian leaders was made simultaneously with members of the Greek-American Community. Targeting congressional members with multiple contributions seems to be part of a determined public relations effort organized by Andrew Manatos of Manatos and Mantos, Inc.

Manatos and Manatos, Inc. was hired by the SUC on September 15, 1992 to foster better relations between the Greek and Serbian communities and, above all, to secure political support from the established Hellenic community in the United States. Manatos and Manatos, Inc. was well-placed to organize this public relations exercise since this firm represents a number of Hellenic institutions as well as the City of San Francisco, where the leadership of the SUC is based. Mantos' clients include: the Embassy of Greece, the United Hellenic American Congress and the Pan-Cyprian Association of America. According to Morton M. Kondracke, Andrew Manatos had developed an extremely successful fundraising and lobbying effort with a small group of wealthy Greek-American businessmen by the late 1980s. In a 1988 article for The New Republic, Kondracke noted how the network set up between Manatos and Senator Paul Sarbanes had been exploited for the purposes of raising vast sums of money from small numbers of sponsors to support Dukakis' presidential ambitions.9 This network also succeed in introducing potential non Greek-American contributors to the Greek lobby. A careful study of the FEC records suggests that this lobby is once again active and is working along side Serbnet and the SUC.

Together with leading figures of Serbnet and the SUC, prominent individuals in the Hellenic Community have made repeated donations to influential political officials at critical periods in the Balkan conflict. For example, a flurry of contributions were made at the time of the Serbian assault on Gorazde (April 1994) when NATO re-issued a threat of airstrikes and when the divergent agendas of NATO and the United Nations were made public.10 The most popular recipient of these multiple contributions is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN). On September 29, 1993 and April 25, 1994 Hamilton received over $30,000 in multiple contributions from leaders of the Serbian and Greek-American communities. Contributors included: Andrew Athens, head of the United Hellenic American Congregation; Philip Christopher, President of the Pan-Cyprian Association of America; Michael Djordjevich, former President of the SUC; Ronald Radakovich, Vice-President of the SUC. (see attached report)

The aim of this indirect campaign is two-fold: first, to lend support to potentially sympathetic congressional representatives by bolstering their campaign funds; second, to create an image of a powerful lobby. The Serbian contributions, on their own, do not amount to large sums of money. However, combined with Greek-American sponsorship, the Serbian lobby appears certainly more influential. The Greek lobby is well-established, highly professional and, as the Kondracke article points out, potentially extremely wealthy. (Greek-Americans are the second wealthiest ethnic group in terms of wealth per capita after the Jewish community.) The organized nature of this lobbying effort is evident since contributions are sent simultaneously and are often for the exact amount. Each time, the donations made to Hamilton's campaign are sent on one specific day. This pattern is repeated at other times in the year. The impression given is that of a community of individuals who can unite quickly to raise large sums of money when necessary and may therefore carry some influence.

Revisionism and the Serbian Propaganda Campaign

Most important of all the Serbian lobbying practices is the way in which the SUC and Serbnet have gained access to the media and the American public. Their disinformation campaign is the center of their activities. Both organizations have distributed a 26 minute video to Members of Congress, national and regional newspapers, television and radio stations. This video, Truth is the Victim in Bosnia, is narrated by a woman with a BBC accent and attempts to copy a serious documentary format. It contains three interviews with former U.N. General Lewis MacKenzie. His statements are then followed by extracts from Strategic Policy, an academically obscure journal, which is used as a source of authority for the Serb's claims of military and political insecurity. Arguing that the Western media favors the Croats, this video contains a number of common myths circulated by Serbian apologists. The most notable of these is the claim that breadline massacre was staged by the Bosnians to gain sympathy from the West. The main references in this video come from MacKenzie but his comments are supported by partial citations from politicians such as Sir David Hannay and respectable authorities on human rights such as Ms. Jeri Laber.

The Serbian lobby has used the cautionary statements of human rights authorities such as Jeri Laber and Aryeh Neier and journalists such as A.M. Rosenthal to create an atmosphere of doubt (especially over the use of rape) and moral relativism.11 Two frequent lines of attack used by the Serb lobby have formed the basis of a successful propaganda campaign which has aimed to confuse and deter unilateral criticism of Serbia. 12 First, there is the argument equating the diplomatic recognition of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina by Germany with the use of violence on the ground. Such violence, they argue was initially defensive and justifiable under the provisions of the CSCE Helsinki Accords. Second, there is the emotive argument based on their 'justifiable' fear of German expansionism and Croatian aggression as a result of historical events. 13 SerbNet Media Watch (April 1993) reporting on the achievements of Serbnet, took credit for Abe Rosenthal's use of Serbnet material in his column in the New York Times. The information sent to Rosenthal was on the 'German role in the War in Yugoslavia.' Since his early writings on the War in Bosnia, Rosenthal's columns have become increasingly confused and he has more than once adopted the line that the conflict is hopeless.

A frequent tactic of the Serbian lobby is to begin public debates by arguing that critically-minded people should recognize the existence of political interests behind the production of information and thus should be aware that 'truth' and 'objectivity' lie 'somewhere in the middle.' 14 By reducing real events to personal interpretations the Serbian lobby has managed to camouflage the actual aggression and the commission of genocide behind supposed 'opinions' which can be neither 'verified' nor 'denied.' Their aim is clearly to present the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia as a civil war rooted in ancient hatreds in order to discourage public opinion from supporting direct U.S. military intervention.15 To these ends the SUC, Serbnet, SAVA etc. have developed a well organized system of producing propaganda and seemingly credible references.

The Serbian propaganda campaign employs methods similar to Holocaust denial and revisionism Their first line of action is to create an atmosphere of relativism, as discussed above. The secession of Slovenia and Croatia from the former Yugoslavia and their recognition by Germany is equated with the bombardment of civilian centers such as Sarajevo, Dubrovnik and Vukovar. The second line of action is then to deny the totality of the destruction in order to downplay the purpose and systematic nature of the aggression. Dubrovnik was barely attacked, they argue. Vukovar was destroyed by Croatian forces... There is no evidence of a systematic rape policy -- where is the commander who gave the order, they argue? Personal testimonies and eye witness accounts are discarded as 'inadequate evidence.'16 The third line of action is then to create their own 'facts' and 'references' and it is here where they have been most successful.17

As in the Serbnet produced video, the sources which the SUC representatives cite when speaking publicly are most often their own. The SUC has used public relations firms (Manatos and Manatos, McDermott O'Neill and Associates, David Keene and Associates), in order to grant their leaders and paid representatives access to television and radio interviews, congressional sub-committee hearings and U.N. sponsored commissions. These congressional hearings, interviews and official reports are then used as references, which lend legitimacy to their position.18 For example, the Serbnet speeches made by former UN General Lewis MacKenzie on his speaker-tour are frequently advertised, as are the articles of Sir Alfred Sherman which appeared in the British press. Sherman, reportedly to have admitted to being a paid public relations advisor to Radovan Karadzic last summer, 19 is frequently cited as a distinguished journalist and Jewish knight 20 who supports the Serbian position. David Erne, a Milwaukee attorney who is responsible for information within the SUC, was able to use his position as reporter of the UN Commission of Experts to produce a report on The Historical Background of the Civil War in the Former Yugoslavia. This document which was published on U.N. letterhead presents Karadzic as an elected leader, former dissident and poet supported by a Shakespeare scholar for vice president.

The creation of a community of revisionists and deniers who circulate these Serb-manufactured tales has been quite successful. The Serbian lobby has in the process managed to co-opt Marxist/Socialist organizations, as well as respectable members of the academic community in support of their position.21 This is illustrated in periodicals, newsletters and reports produced by adherents to the 'old left.' For example, the briefing produced by the London-based Campaign Against Militarism (CAM) entitled 20 Things you Know About the Serbs That Aren't True maintains that Serbia is simply the victim of Western imperialism -- the West's latest 'whipping boy.' Arguing against the use of air-strikes on Serbian artillery positions, the CAM briefing cites MacKenzie's speeches from his Serbnet tour and repeats a number of Serb-nationalist claims such as the 'choreographed staging' of the breadline massacre and the role of the 'partisan press.' The CAM briefing even argues that the encirclement of Sarajevo by Serb forces is defensive, concluding that Sarajevo is not really besieged.

"It is not strictly true to say that Sarajevo is 'besieged' by the Serbs. As several UN commanders have suggested, the Serbian encirclement of Sarajevo is essentially defensive, concerned with holding on to territory rather than grabbing more. It is a funny sort of siege where the besiegers allow relief supplies into the city by air and road. The Serbs handed over control of Sarajevo airport to the UN in June 1992, and have allowed the free passage of relief flights into the city ever since."22

The author of the above statement is a certain British journalist, Joan Phillips, who works for the Campaign Against Militarism in London.23 Elsewhere, Phillips has questioned the parallels drawn between of the genocide in Bosnia and the Nazi Holocaust. In her writings, Phillips has repeatedly sought to describe the conflict as something other than a war in which genocide is the defining characteristic. The fact is, she allocates blame almost solely to the Western powers and ignores the ideological antecedents for the war while absolving the armed militants on the ground.24 Similar apologies for Serbian expansionism are found in her articles published in Living Marxism, the monthly journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party (UK). 25

Outside the margins of Living Marxism, Phillips' thesis over the intersection between this new round of 'Great power politics' and the production of information has received greater attention both from apologists and serious journalists. In January 1994, Peter Brock of El Paso, Texas published an article in Foreign Policy accusing the press of being partisan and anti-Serb.26 According to Phillips, Brock contacted her before he wrote the article for Foreign Policy.27 The article repeated a number of Serbian myths and raised questions about his own objectivity. Charles Lane of The New Republic has already exposed both Brock's connections with Serbia and the factual distortions in his writing. Brock, who communicates regularly with the Executive Director of the Serbian Unity Congress and chief propagandist in the San Francisco Bay Area, Mirjana Samardzija, has however succeeded in one aim.28 He has succeeded in furthering the claims of "old-left" ideologues and academic deconstructionists who are using epistemological debate as a means to "discredit" personal testimonies in order to advance their own politically motivated agendas. 29

At the root of this epistemological debate are three obvious political agendas. Together, these unite the ideologies of the extreme-Left and extreme-Right struggle against alleged imperialism. These are: i) a campaign of appeasement and struggle against imperialism by traditional adversaries of U.S. foreign policy30 ; ii) an increasingly Russo-centric foreign policy which is being advanced outside as well as inside the State Department by sovietologists and political commentators 31; iii) an explicitly racist claim to power by Serbian ultra-nationalists and apologists. 32

The actual influence of Foreign Policy's decision to include Brock's lies in this serious journal will be determined by subsequent studies and publications. Universities, the most obvious centers of knowledge production, are currently under attack from revisionists and moral relativists on a number of fronts. Yet, the lack of resistance from the academic community to apologists and relativists who promote the 'Serbian side' is startling. This is all the more the serious given the growing entry and expansion of Holocaust revisionism and denial on American college campuses. Even though such Serbian revisionism is crudely apparent and seems to be in an embryonic stage of development, Phillips' and Brock's accusations are starting to emerge elsewhere in the form of articles and books. The photocopied pamphlets produced by Serbnet and Samardzija's "News Analysis Network" will soon no longer be necessary to advance their cause once their arguments are institutionalized in serious publications. The current intellectual climate of silence can only but serve the interests of Serbian ultra-nationalists and their apologists. It is they who have filled the void created by the absence of serious scholarship dedicated to the defense of certain standards of evidence, including personal testimony. In the past six months, a few intellectuals have actively furthered the charges made by Brock in an attempt to legitimize Serbian propaganda and grant it a place in the canon of Balkan history. They seem to be gaining ground. Their ideological arguments are now contrasted against first-hand reports and personal testimonies collected by serious journalists like Pulitzer-Prize winners Roy Gutman and John F. Burns. 33

Professor Thomas Fleiner who is the Director of the Institute for Federalism in Freiburg and Chairman on the CSCE Human Rights Commission is one of the latest academics to have lent legitimacy to Serb-nationalist propaganda. On April 14, 1994, Fleiner published an article entitled People must not be Pilloried in Zurich's Die Weltwoche -- the same publication which had printed Brock's piece for European audiences. Fleiner's argument rested on the power of the oligopolistic media to influence public opinion and determine foreign policy positions. His piece, which contains the same Serbian myths, not only questions the responsibility of the journalistic community but unfairly condemns the international media for provoking the conflict.

"The more power the media obtain and are able to influence, through public opinion, political decision-making also important foreign policy matters, the greater is their responsibility. As far as the war in Croatia and Bosnia is concerned, it is suspected that local international media helped the division of peoples and incitement of hatred." (my underlining) 34

While Fleiner's political associations and affiliations are not known, one thing is clear: his article has circulated on the electronic notice boards of Serb-nationalist groups and has been used by apologists who support Brock and Phillips' bias. Thomas Deichmann, a colleague of Joan Phillips who wrote the NOVO book review which contrasts Roy Gutman's first-hand accounts against Klaus Bittermann's polemic "Serbien muß Sterbien -- Wahrheit und Lüge im jugoslawischen Bürgerkrieg" ("Serbs must Die -- truth and lies in the Yugoslav Civil War"), has based his review on all the same infected sources of bias.

The incestuous nature of this publication drive is at the heart of the revisionist program. It seeks to advance marginalized ideologies -- not least critiques of Western imperialism. Phillips, herself, has a clear political agenda. Her organization, the Campaign Against Militarism, is a front for the British Revolutionary Communist Party. She is fundamentally opposed to militarism. The influence of Western imperialist nations and the use of war is obviously central to her publication program. The nature of such politicized 'journalism' raises two important issues here. First, there is the issue of dogmatic reductionism masquerading as a 'critical bias.' Are Phillips' writings truly critical of Western imperialism or is she blind to the actual aggression being conducted in and around Sarajevo? It is essential that serious academics and scholars recognize the often all-too-impulsive response of those who seek to present a 'critical voice.' Apologists who use such arguments should be exposed, even those like Phillips who may sincerely claim that their political interests are defined by their concerns for a 'better world.' Second, there is the issue of scholarship. The above-mentioned authors are not producing serious investigative or academic-quality research. They are simply cross-referencing across borders and in different languages. They are not advancing knowledge but are rather recycling the founding ideas of certain ideological arguments that mesh with their own political agendas. Phillips' outrageous comments (many of which came straight out of the government-controlled Belgrade media) are re-packaged by Brock in Foreign Policy. This article (and all its factual errors) is then cited by Fleiner and Diechmann who also makes reference to Phillips' "20 Things You Know About the Serbs That Aren't True." Diechmann is Phillips' colleague who then promotes the work of another author, Klaus Bittermann. In his book, Bittermann himself cites Brock and Phillips and again repeats the same accusations.

Public Relations Efforts and Links with other Communities

I The Hellenic Community

The Serbian Unity Congress operates very closely with the Hellenic Community. According to the 1993 handbook Washington Representatives, The SUC has engaged Manatos and Manatos, Inc. for a project attached to the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is through the Orthodox Church that the Hellenic community is being approached to support the Serbian lobby. 35 Ron Radakovich of Walnut Creek, California is responsible for Church relations. The SUC is also supported by the International Orthodox Christian Charities based in Pittsburgh for humanitarian assistance. In addition, Manatos and Manatos has also been particularly successful in getting its clients to testify before congressional hearings. Michael Djordjevich, former President of the SUC and Philip Christopher, President of the Pan-Cyprian Association and PSEKA, International Coordinating Committee, Justice for Cyprus have both been invited to speak before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

II Jewish Groups
Croatian Ustashe

The organized Jewish community has been particularly critical of the Serbian regime and the violence inflicted on the Bosnian people. However, there is a clear counter-offensive being launched by the SUC and Serbnet to co-opt Jewish public opinion. This involves a propaganda campaign which recalls the role of the Ustashe and certain Muslim contingents who supported by the Mufti of Jerusalem during the Second World War. Their main attack is in the form of articles written by Alfred Lipson, a leader of the community of Holocaust survivors36 and Sir Alfred Sherman37 . Through the Serbian Jewish Friendship Society and direct meetings with Jewish organizations, the SUC has conducted an energetic campaign to win over Jewish and Israeli support. 38 This has included efforts to overturn the position adopted by the National Organization of Jewish Community Relation Councils (NJCRAC), which endorsed a call for air strikes and the lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government. According to Bosnian and Jewish sources, the Serbian lobby is also engaged in a broader campaign which has targeted the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. 39

III The Armenian Community

It is difficult to determine the extent of the connection between the Armenian Community and Serb-nationalist organizations. There are certain notable lines of association: the Government of Armenia is also represented by David Keene, who was until recently also on the payroll of the Serbnet. Like the SUC, the Armenian National Committee and the National Association of Armenian Americans have made multiple contributions to Rep. Lee Hamilton in 1994 (see attached report). The extent to which the Armenian Community has been approached by its the SUC, under the banner of its Orthodox Church unity project is, however, not known.

The Role of the U.S. Information Agency

Throughout 1994 the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) has been organizing a series of visits for several journalists and politicians. Although this is common practice for this governmental agency, the SUC has organized a number of meetings around these visits and is generally included on the agenda. According to Dick Christiansen at Meridian International, these have been organized by Katherine Marinis who arranges these visits directly with Belgrade.40 Visitors have included the Vice-President and Secretary General of the extreme nationalist Serbian Renewal Movement, Mihailo Markovic and Vladimir Gajic, respectively.

The Serbian Community and Lobby Abroad

The practices established by the SUC and other organizations are very similar to those of Serbian groups abroad. In both London and Paris, the Serbian Information Centers function as propaganda centers for the local community.41 In London there is also a specifically nationalist (Chetnik) organization of Serbian royalists: the Yugoslav Royal Draza Mihailovic Association. The Serbian Cultural and Information Center in Paris contained lists of student activists in the Paris area. Amongst these activists are also two former UN 'Blue Helmets.' The Serbian lobby in France is organized around l'Association pour la Défense des Droits et Intérêts du Peuple Serbe (ADDIPS). Like the SUC, ADDIPS has made a number of approaches to other Orthodox communities, notably the Russian congregation of Paris. ADDIPS, like the SUC, is run by a handful of staff. Its director is a well-established Serbian Parisien, Ljubomir Peskirevic.


There is no doubt that organizations such as the Serbian Unity Congress, Serbnet, SAVA and ADDIPS represent ultra-nationalist leaders and suspected war criminals in Pale and Belgrade. The Serbian Unity Congress is Karadzic's mouthpiece in the United States. The major achievement of the Serbian lobby must be its infiltration of the media and the U.S. public through its disinformation campaign, bullying tactics, letter-writing etc. Yet, it must be remembered that the Serbian lobby has only managed to gain ground here because the current cultural/intellectual climate has made this possible. The lack of resistance from academics and an intellectual trend which promotes a simplistic breed of relativism offers an unchallenged platform to Serbian apologists. This is an extremely worrying trend and it is difficult to work against. Combating historical revisionism and denial is a time-consuming effort. Moreover, the need to combat revisionism by meeting apologists" "demands for proof" actually advances the cause of reductionists and those who frequently dismiss personal testimonies and eye-witness accounts as "soft evidence" and "non-verifiable."

The Serbian lobby is certainly an organized entity. It involves many people across a number of continents. There are, however, many holes in its organization. First, there is considerable infighting. At present, the two camps are quite separate: those who are more pro-Milosevic and those more supportive of Karadzic are now engaged in internecine struggles. Second, the day to day organization of the Serbian Unity Congress is handled by relatively few staff. Third, the Serbian lobby is highly dependent on the Hellenic community. On its own, it is less influential. This is evident from its haphazard lobbying of elected officials and poor accounting and reporting procedures. These failings are indicative of a truly embryonic lobby. Finally, there are blatant holes in the Serbian lobby's internal security. Subscribers to e-mail systems and even mailing lists are not always vetted.

The above-mentioned areas of weakness should be studied. A successful campaign that discredited the Serbian and Greek-American lobbies would serve one important purpose long after the genocide in Bosnia is over: it will prevent Serbian ultra-nationalists from gaining unrestricted entry into the canons of Balkan history. It will deny them their ultimate goal -- the destruction of the memory and civilization of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Post Script: Warning

At the time of writing, two additional sources of Serbian revisionism have been reported to be have reached both the Congress and the general public. These are: i) an article published in Mediterranean Quarterly entitled "Yugoslavia's Wars of Secession ad Succession : Media manipulation, Historical Amnesia, and Subjective Morality," by Carl C. Jacobsen; ii) a film, Vukovar-One-Story.

The article contains the typical sources of Serbian propaganda: Serbnet's paid spokesman, General Lewis MacKenzie, as well as a number of Belgrade-based references. What is disturbing is that this piece of Serbian propaganda is reported to have been distributed to members of the House Armed Service Committee by its Chairman, Ronald Dellums (D-CA). Dellums, who is based in Oakland, California, is one of a number of California representatives that the San Francisco Bay Area Serbian Unity Congress may be targeting. Other California representatives include recipients of SUC contributions: Bill Baker, Anna Eshoo (see attached disclaimer) and Nancy Pelosi.

The film Vukovar-One Story was produced in Cyprus and directed by Boro Draskovic. The Press Office of the Croatian Embassy claims that the filming was done with the assistance of the Yugoslav National Army on-site in Vukovar. This seems highly plausible since Vukovar is currently occupied by JNA (Serbian) troops. The film is scheduled to be shown in the Bay Area at Los Gatos Cinema on November 11th (3:30 PM) and 12th (7:30 PM).


Lee Hamilton: A Willing Target for Serbian and Greek Sponsorship

The 1993 Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reports record that on September 29, 1993 Representative Lee Hamilton received $24,000 from an assembly of over 45 prominent Americans. The amount of money which was credited to Hamilton's congressional campaign account on this one day is disproportionately important. This series of contributions represents over 35% percent of the contributions which he received for the preceding six month period (January to July 1993) and over 10% of his receipts for the whole 15-month Federal Elections Commission (FEC) cycle. 1 Over ninety per cent of these contributors resided in the Chicago-area and fell almost exclusively into one of three ethnic groups: Serbian, Greek, or Jewish. 2 Most occupied very senior management positions in prominent firms and industries. According to his own Federal Elections Commission (FEC) returns, Hamilton's staff traveled to Chicago on September 23, 1993. What were they doing there? Did they meet with Serbnet? And how could they account for these donations from this collection of Greeks, Serbs and Jews? The circumstances behind this series of donations require further investigation.

It looks very much like this series of donations was part of a special fundraising effort. These contributions were the first noticeable series of donations made to Hamilton by an identifiable group. They followed an active press campaign in July and August 1993, when Serbnet placed advertisements in the New York Times and Washington Post. The Serbian lobby has been approaching both Greeks and Jews in the hopes of "winning them over." In addition to the traditional arguments that the Greeks are co-religionists threatened by Turkey or that, like the Jews, they too were victims of the Nazi genocide is the common threat of "Islamic fundamentalism." Was an anti-Islamic/anti-Turkish bias a rallying point for these groups who chose to rally behind Hamilton? Is Representative Hamilton capitalizing on their hysteria? The only grounds to suggest that such a bias might lie behind this series of donations is the macro-political context in which these contributions were made.

This series of contributions coincided with an energetic campaign by Bosnian President, Alija Izetbegovic, who aimed to rally support for the use of force against Serbian positions and the lifting of the arms embargo. They also coincided with the failed attempt by Owen and Stoltenberg to carry out a three-way partition of Bosnia. Throughout the first half of September, Izetbegovic traveled around the world to secure support and financial assistance. His tour took him to Turkey (Sept. 2-5), the United States (Sept. 5-9), Saudi Arabia (Sept. 12), Iran and Kuwait (Sept. 13). It also coincided with a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Istanbul and a closed meeting with the UN Security Council on September 7. During this time, Izetbegovic also appealed directly to the Clinton Administration. The response from the former US Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, was the first admission that the U.S. was truly prepared to send troops to enforce a peace agreement (Sept. 12).

On April 25, 1994 Hamilton received a further $9,525 through multiple contributions from 25 members of the Greek and Serbian Community. This included $2,000 from PACs, notably the pan-Hellenic Dynamis Federal. The majority of the contributors were from Maryland and Virginia and almost every contribution was of the order of $300. Contributors again included, Michael Djordjevich of the SUC; his vice-president Ron Radakovich and both leaders of the Greek and Cypriot communites, Andrew Athens and Philip Christopher, respectively. Three weeks after this second series of donations, Djordjevich was invited to speak before a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by Hamilton.3

What is important to note about both series of donations is that they coincided with a series of major foreign policy debates. In April 1994, the threat to use force against Serbian forces as they assaulted the Bosnian town of Gorazde was another reason for Serbian anxiety. On April 25, the Western press had reported that Yashui Akashi, the UN envoy, has vetoed the request of the NATO Secretary-General to authorize strikes. The contributions made on April 25, therefore coincide with the renewed threat of air strikes and were made before it was established that the Serbian para-military units would ultimately be forced to withdraw without the use of NATO air power.4 This series of contributions clearly looks like the Serbian and Hellenic sponsors were responding to these events as the threat of direct military intervention through NATO air power became increasingly realistic.

Hamilton's acceptance of these contributions raises a number of questions. He is, after all, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Serbian nationalists and Greek-American leaders, who have their own political agenda, have singled him out. Unlike Sarbanes and Delich Bentley, he does not seem to have a direct attachment to any particular ethnic/Balkan group. Why has he not, unlike other Members of Congress (e.g. Sam Gejedenson), returned these contributions? Does he not recognize that those sponsoring his campaign are also Radovan Karadzic's representatives in the United States?


The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee An Amateur and Inattentive Lobby

The Serbian Unity Congress Political Action Committee (SUC) has not been extremely active as PAC. The contributions made to support congressional candidates have been fairly small. Yet, the SUC PAC sheds some light on the internal organization of the operations of the SUC as a whole.

First, there are the administrative practices of the SUC PAC. From 1991-94, there was a series of correspondence between the Federal Elections Commission and the SUC. This correspondence reveals an inattentive PAC that often did not even reply to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

  1. Correspondence from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to the SUC notifying the PAC that it should have filed its mid-year report (4/16/91-6/30/91)
  2. Reply from the SUC (mistakenly) dated January 9, 1991 but received January 13, 1992 in which the then Treasurer, Peter Chelovich apologized to the assistant director of the Federal Elections Commission's(FEC) Federal Analysis Division for "not complying with certain procedures."
  3. Reminder from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) (not dated) that neither the year-end reports (7/1/91-12/31/91) nor the April quarterly report (1/1/92- 3/31/92) had been filed.
  4. Reply sent by the SUC on August 2, 1992 by SUC Secretary Momcilo Tasich concerning contributions to Rep. Dan Burton which he was forced to refund. In this letter, Tasich notes that the PAC acquired the status of a multicandidate committee on July 20, 1992.
  5. Letter from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) dated March 9, 1994, questioning the totals listed in the SUC PAC's 1993 year-end report. The letter reminded the PAC that it had to file a response or amendment to correct the original report.
  6. Letter dated March 31, 1994 in which the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) noted that the SUC PAC had not responded to the letter sent on March 9. In this letter, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) warned the SUC that the Commission may choose to initiate an audit or enforce legal action.

Second, the SUC does not seem to have done its accounting properly. The author has noted two instances where reports submitted to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) do not align with those submitted by congressional recipients.

  • • Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) did not report the in-kind donation of $1,041 which the SUC accounted for as dinner expenses with Burton on 03/08/93
  • • Rep. Anna Eshoo, in a letter dated September 24, 1994, claimed that she never received the $500 donation listed by the SUC on 10/31/92 and can find no record of this donation from any of her accounts and Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reports. (letter attached)

These two episodes mentioned above suggest that the SUC PAC is not really a serious PAC in its own right. These errors and failings therefore suggest that the role of the Hellenic lobby and its associated public relations firms is all the more important in understanding the relative success of the Serbian lobby.

Anna G. Eshoo


September 24, 1994

Brad Blitz
Executive Director
Students Against Genocide
PO Box 9248
Stanford, CA 94305

Dear Brad,

I want to give you an update regarding the "contribution" you suggested I had received from the Serbian Unity Congress in 1992.

At the time you mentioned it in my office, I had no recollection of it, so I asked my campaign staff to check it out.

Having researched the Serbian Unity Congress PAC's Federal Elections Commission report for 1992, we discovered that they reported to the FEC a $500 contribution to my campaign. However, I never received this contribution. My treasurer has no record of it, nor does any FEC report from the period reflect such a contribution.

I have written to the Serbian Unity Congress PAC requesting they amend their Federal Elections Commission report to reflect that I did not receive any funds. I also sent a copy of my request to the Federal Elections Commission. Federal Elections Commission. I am awaiting confirmation of the correction from the Serbian Unity Congress. I will forward a copy to you when I receive it. I hope this clarifies the situation Sincerely

Anna G Eshoo


Attached propaganda from the Serbian Unity Congress and SAVA





P.O. BOX 471432


  • Western countries are repeatedly stating that their approach to the conflict has been mistaken, yet the same mistakes are now being made again, thus compounding the problems of war.
  • We believe that the only way to attain peace immediately is to make the whole of the former Bosni-Herzegovina a safe area, taking into account that there are two realities there: the Muslim-Croat federation and the Republic of Srepak.
  • A general cessation of hostilities cannot prejudice the outcome of political agreement. A political agreement is only possible in the absence of fighting. A general cessation of hostilities is thus the only way forward to peace.

97. On April 24, 1994, several Serb civilians from villages around Gorazde returned to their villages from which they had been expelled by Muslim forces earlier in the war. UNPROFOR, whose troops are being deployed along lines separating Ser and Muslim forces, have guaranteed safety to the Serb villagers. Upon their return, the expelled Serb civilians found devastation as Mulsims had razed and burned down their houses and other buildings.

98. On April 25, 1994, deadly Mulsim sniper bullets in Gorazde directed against Serbs and hitting a Serb soldier conferring with Ukrainian peacekeepers symbolized the unabating intentions of the Muslims to violently provoke the Serbs.

99. On April 26, 1994, the special correspondent of the French television channel "TF-1" in Sarajevo admitted that the figures given by the Muslims humanitarian organisations and western media for Muslim casualties at Gorazde, 700 dead and nearly 2,000 wounded Muslims were grossly inflated. He added that only several dozens of seriously wounded Muslims had been evacuated from Gorazde. The "TF-1" special correspondent also said that neither U.N. spokesman nor humanitarian workers could explain how several hundered dead and wounded Muslims from Gorazde were able to suddenly disappear without trace.

100. On April 29, 1994, two U.N. officials, a general and civilian, accused the United States of prolonging the war in Bosnia. They said that Muslims had orchestrated their defeat on Gorazde in the hope of NATO warplanes, reacting to pressure from the United States, would help lift the Serb siege. They also indicated that the extent of the destructions of the city and of the killing and wounding of civilians in the past month has been grossly exaggerated by the U.N. officials stationed in Gorazde. Their comments reflected an overwhelming feeling on the part of the U.N. officials in Sarajevo that the greatest impediment to peace has been the flawed policy of the United States. The aim of this policy has been the establishment of the unitary Muslim state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an aim that has been the very cause of the two-year long civil and religious war in this region.

May 7, 1994


SOURCE: The Secretary for Information of The Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
June 22, 1992, Sarajevo

There are numerous locations accross the Bosnia-Herzegovina region where captured Serbian civilians are detained, tortured, starved to death, women raped, many inmates are being killed, or disappeared with no trace of their whereabouts.

The following chart presents only a few of similar sites in the above region, many are hastily being open and run as makeshift concentration camps. The world news media has turned one blind eye at these wretched people, facing another physical anihilation in the same area where they were deimated by the same Muslim and Croatian forces 50 years ago.


3. GORAZDE CITY JAIL (open on 6/15/92) 1,200+ WOMEN, CHILDREN, MEN (Torturing, killing)
4. SARAJEVO "KOSHEVO" STADIUM (open on 6/15/92) 2,000+ ALL CIVILIANS caught on spot
7. Ali-Pashino Polje (A.P.Field) HOT WATER PLANT 6,000+ Civilians, mass liquidation
18. TRAVNIK      
Secretary for Information
of The Serbian Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Velibor Ostojic


 Pigs can fly.

SAVA - Serbian American Voters Alliance - March 23, 1994


  1. The SUC has at least one internal e-mail link . The executive communicates primarily by e-mail although fax and telephone are standard means of contact. In addition to the SUC e-mail link, the Serbian Information Initiative (SII) connects subscribers and provides information in Serbian as well as in English. The SII has certain rules of behavior, including no threats to subscribers. Although this claims to be a semi-monitored service, the SII seems to have very lax conditions of membership and subscription.
  2. Samardzija's office is located on the third floor of her house 2714 Steiner Street, San Francisco, California 94123-4714.
  3. This in-fighting was immediately obvious during a SUC/News Analysis Group forum held at La Peña Community Center in Berkeley on July 29 1993. On this occasion, one of the invited speakers, Mr. Antonio Erceg Yurovich, publicly attacked the organizer, Mirjana Samardzija.
  4. Nonetheless, this account should be monitored. FEC ID number C00239723
  5. On May 17, 1993 and December 10, 1992 the SUC PAC made donations of $1,000 to Hutchinson and Gjedenson respectively. In less than one month both had returned their contributions.
  6. Anna Eshoo, in private meeting at her office in Palo Alto, July 16, 1994.
  7. At the time of writing, the author has noted two instances where reports submitted to the FEC do not align with those submitted by congressional recipients. First, in 1993 Rep. Dan Burton did not report the in-kind donation of $1,041 which the SUC accounted for as dinner expenses with the Congressman on 03/08/93. Second, Rep. Anna Eshoo, in a letter dated September 24, 1994, claimed that she never received the $500 donation listed by the SUC on 10/31/92 and can find no record of this donation from any of her accounts and FEC reports.
  8. Only one PAC, stands out in the Federal Election Reports as explicitly Pan Hellenic. This is Dynamis Federal PAC, registered in Sacramento and based in Palo Alto California. The number of donations made on behalf of this PAC to congressional representatives is quite small.
  9. Morton M. Kondracke, "Grecian Formula: the Arrival of an American Ethnic Group" in The New Republic. June 6, 1988.
  10. While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much has been directed towards payment for speakers and journalists, the SUC and Serbnet have set up a special fund for this purpose. Based on former UN General Lewis MacKenzie's own admission which was later corroborated by Serbnet -- that he was receiving over $15,000 per speaking engagement -- the amount spent on MacKenzie represents more than what the SUC is paying to PR firms such as Manatos and Manatos, Inc.
  11. In addition to Truth is the Victim in Bosnia, Neier's articles in The Nation and Laber's letters to the Editor in the New York Times in 1993 have been distributed by the SUC at meetings and forums to cast doubt on the use of rape as a systematic means of genocide.
  12. One argument used is that 'Serbs simply want to live with other Serbs' and that Serbian nationalism is no different from say German unification. Michael Djordjevich argued before the House on May 11, 1994 that Germany was allowed to unite but Serbia is not. "What kind of logic is there that we permit one people to unite but not the same thing to another people. And that is the problem. We have double standards, Congressman."
  13. In his speech before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Djordjevich used this tactic He then tried to describe the conflict as a civil war..."we have a Civil War here. We do not have aggression. What I am saying is that there are no Bosnian tanks in Serbia; there are no Serbian tanks in Bosnia. The tanks in Bosnia belong to the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Serbs have lived in Bosnia for 400, 700 years. That is a civil war. Are you going to tell me that Sherman's march to and burning of Atlanta was a genocide and that it was a "foreign intervention" in Southern States? That is what you are saying sir. That is precisely what you are saying." See: "US Policy toward Bosnia and the Balkans." (May 11, 1994)
  14. This appeal of relativism has aided the Serbian lobby to gain air-time on local radio stations. "Progressively minded" producers have been encouraged to hear the "Serbian point of view." Jerry Jacob of KALW Radio in San Francisco, an NPR affiliate, was so taken in by the Serbian lobby that he joined in their accusations that critical listeners who phoned in to challenge three members of the SUC Executive were surely Croatian supporters. After the broadcast (August 29, 1993) Mr. Jacob sent the following message to a local Croatian: "Well I am very impressed with the level of organization of the Bay Area Croatian Community. You are to be congratulated for jamming the call-in lines during Saturday night's program. The attempt to stifle informed debate and an open expression of ideas and questions from people who really want to know a view different from your own deserves to be known for what it is. It is hard to disbelieve the Serbs' claims of media manipulation given the experience of Saturday." Mr. Jacob was wrong about the callers -- only two callers were members of the Croatian Community.
  15. This is the most common tactic used by Mirjana Samardjzia and Tina Tomasevic Hone both, prominent Serbian apologists in the Bay Area. These SUC leaders often go to ridiculous lengths to persuade audiences of their objectivity. Tomasevic, an image of tolerance rather than a school teacher, presents herself as the daughter of an African American mother and graduate of UC Berkeley Law School to create a image of tolerance and authority before she makes her racist beliefs publicly known. Samardjzia often uses the fact that she has a Bosnian Muslim au paire girl and Jewish husband to persuade audiences of her objectivity before she speaks.
  16. See "Rapes in Yugoslavia: Separating: Fact from Fiction" (1993), produced by Mirjana Samardzija for the North American News Analysis Group. This is the basis of the report which the SUC sent to major newspapers and television stations.
  17. See Deborah Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust: the Growing assault on Truth and Memory" (1994) where Lipstadt discusses how revisionism preceded outright Holocaust denial as part of a concerted epistemological attack .
  18. When Michael Djordjevich spoke before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he had a report based on meetings with Radovan Karadzic attached to the final record, U.S. Policy Toward Bosnia and the Balkans May, 11, 1994. Karadzic's statements now figure in the appendix of this official document.
  19. See Noel Malcolm in The Spectator July 1993
  20. He is always Sir Alfred Sherman.
  21. Only two Marxist organizations, Socialist Action and the News and Letters Committee, have openly opposed the Milosevic-Karadzic regime(s) and the Serbian lobby in the U.S. The academic community has responded to Serbian lobbying efforts with silence and in some cases by lending tacit support to Serbian nationalists. As one looks into their tactics, it is clear that this campaign has really only promoted marginal thinkers and scholars. This includes outcast Marxists such as the tenure-denied Michael Parenti, author of the "Invention of Reality." Although the SUC distributes articles written by non-Yugoslav academics at SUC events and invites their participation at public forums in order to give an impression of authority, most of these academics are junior faculty and doctoral students at mediocre universities and colleges. Respectable scholars do have their uses, however. Another cover for the SUC in Northern California is the Balkan Peace Committee, (BPC) a collection of academics based at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution. In reality, this group is run by a graduate student and research assistant at the Hoover Institution, Dushan Djordjevich. The BPC has only succeeded organizing a handful of small forums and in placing an advertisement in the Stanford Daily in the form of an open letter to Clinton with signatures from 35 senior faculty. The letter was an excellent illustration of the kind of moral relativism now gripping college campuses. In search of a 'balanced' perspective, this letter contained a number of statements which did not correspond with facts and figures recorded in official reports e.g. those produced by the UN Commission of Experts on war crimes in the Former Yugoslavia. One published statement by the Balkan Peace Committee stands out immediately..."no side has a monopoly on either atrocities of suffering in this war." Few of the scholars who signed the open letter are aware of the continued existence of this committee and that their names are still being used as supporters.
  22. Campaign Against Militarism Briefing "20 Things You Should Know About the Serbs That Aren't True." February 1994 No 4.
  23. Joan Phillips also produced the Channel Four (UK) current affairs program for the series Free for All entitled, "Journalists at War" August 15, 1993
  24. Elsewhere she claims... "Indeed the fact is there was no war in Yugoslavia until the West stuck its nose in." See: "Bloody Liberals" in Living Marxism September 1993.
  25. See: Living Marxism September 1992; February 1993; May 1993; July 1993.
  26. Foreign Policy No 3 January 20, 1994.
  27. Joan Phillips in conversation in London, October 14, 1994
  28. See Lane's article Brock Crock in The New Republic, September 5, 1994
    According to A. S., who worked for Samardjzia, Brock speaks to the SUC leaders frequently.
  29. This debate is not just limited to the traditional 'Left' but includes Libertarians as well. In fact, the Balkan Peace Committee was initially launched by Williamson (Bill) Evers, a Libertarian activist and researcher at the Hoover Institution. Evers attempted to disrupt a forum at Stanford University (May 22, 1994) with the feminist legal scholar Katherine MacKinnon by calling on students to hear the "other side."
  30. This includes those on the extreme-Left such as the Revolutionary Communist Party and Trotskyist groups. The academic community which has been supportive of non-intervention (e.g. the Balkan Peace Committee) would fit into this category even though this community has in some cases been co-opted by the Serbian nationalists. The inaudible response from the academic community and their inability to understand the nature of the conflict in the Balkans has prompted Nigel Osborne, composer and professor of music at Edinburgh University, to describe some of his colleagues as 'intellectual failures.'
  31. The most notable Russophile writing on the Balkans is Misha Glenny author of The Fall of Yugoslavia, (1993). Those who argue that the role of Russia has been constructive in preparing a diplomatic settlement often display an overt sympathy towards Serbia. This is sometimes expressed in the controversial claims that Serbia was an ally against the Fascists during the Second World War and therefore should be treated more "fairly" e.g. Sharyl Cross of San Jose State University. See Sharyl Cross's article in the San Jose Mercury News, "The Path to Peace in Bosnia" (March 6, 1994) .
  32. This racism is reminiscent of the articles produced by Sherman in the early 1970s and is immediately identifiable in the language used in SUC reports and publications which describe Bosnians as 'Turks' and 'Islamic fundamentalists.'
  33. See: the German language publication NOVO September/October 1994 which contrasts the first-hand reports and Pulitzer Prize-winning writings by Roy Gutman against the book by Klaus Bittermann Serbien muß Sterbien -- Wahrheit und Lüge im jugoslawischen Bürgerkrieg, (Serbs must die -- truth and lies in the Yugoslav Civil War) Edition Tiamat, Berlin 1994. The title of the article immediately questions the idea of bearing witness by suggesting that such reports may be propaganda: Augenzeugen oder Propagandisten.
  34. See: "People Must Not be Pilloried" in Die Weltwoche April 14, 1994
  35. In a number of cities, the Serbian Community Center and Serbian Information Center are housed in the Orthodox Church. The Serbian Clergy have been particularly supportive of ultranationalist leaders in Serbia and occupied Bosnia. This is evident from Serbnet's Media Watch newsletters. Also see the letter from Bishop Anthony of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese to President Clinton dated April 20, 1994 and included in the appendix of the Congressional Hearing US Policy Toward Bosnia and the Balkans (May 11, 1994) pp. 55-56
  36. Lipson is leader of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors in New York. He is most active as a writer, publishing articles which expose the role of the Croatian Ustashe from 1941-45. Lipson's articles repeatedly recall the atrocities committed by the Croatian Ustashe and advance the xenophobic arguments made by Serbian nationalists. His group has argued against intervention and has successfully sabotaged events organized by pro-Bosnian groups in New York such as the Jewish Ad-Hoc Committee on Bosnia (JACOB) and the Coalition for Intervention Against Genocide. (See Lipson's "Croatia Report is Misleading" in Forward, February 14, 1992)
  37. Together with Nora Beloff, Alfred Sherman is the most active apologist for the Serbian lobby in the U.K. Sherman , a British Jew who received a peerage under Thatcher, has been publishing racist articles in the Daily Telegraph since the late 1970s. His writings on Bosnia are reminiscent of his articles opposing immigration in the U.K. which develop racist arguments based on the concept of an exclusive national homeland for the English, Scots and Welsh. (See: "Britain is not Asia's Fiancée" in The Daily Telegraph, Sept. 11, 1979). A former Communist who fought in the Spanish Civil War, Sherman is now aligned with the far Right. He has been associated with the leader of the French National Front, Le Pen, and attempted to organize a speaker tour for Le Pen in the U.K. in 1987. Since the start of the war, he has been a constant supporter of Karadzic and in July 1993 admitted to be working as Karadzic's public relations advisor in Pale. Sherman is one of the most frequently cited sources of support and authority by the SUC. According to Dushan Djordevich of the Balkan Peace Committee, the Serbian community had hoped to invite the controversial speaker to the U.S. last year. (See Sherman's statements and writings on Bosnia: Spain had heroes; Bosnia only laptop bombardiers in The Daily Telegraph, May 3, 1994;The Coming of the Sword, (Opinions) The Jerusalem Post, March 23, 1994; "Focus on Bosnia" by Paul Goodman in The Sunday Telegraph August 8, 1993; Letters The Spectator, 8 may, 1993)
  38. See: Philip J. Cohen's manuscript "Desecrating the Holocaust: Serbia's Exploitation of the Holocaust as Propaganda" (1993)
  39. Richard Raimi of Austin, Texas tried to pass a counter resolution on January 18, 1994. According to the Charge d'Affairs at the Bosnian Embassy in London, there was a considerable effort aimed at encouraging the State of Israel to recognize the New Republic of Yugoslavia this past August. The Israeli Government did not agree to recognition immediately but instead sent a mission to Belgrade to meet with the Jewish Community prior to any diplomatic recognition.
  40. Dick Christiansen in (telephone) conversation, June 3, 1994.
  41. The importance of these centers as propaganda bureaus is clearly evident from the working of ADDPIS in Paris. ADDIPS served as the medium through which SRNA, the information agency of Radovan Karadzic, signed a contract with Agence France Press (AFP) under which SRNA would receive reports and information from AFP. ADDIPS represents Karadzic in Paris.


  1. According to the report, "FEC Releases 15 Month Congressional Election Figures," May 9, 1994, Hamilton received $193,441 from individual contributions.
  2. Several of these figures, e.g. Dr. Martin Gecht and Sidney Epstein, were active leaders in (nominally conservative) Jewish Community organizations, including the Jewish Federation of Chicago and the Jewish Theological Seminary.
  3. On May 11, 1994 Michael Djordjevich, former SUC President, spoke before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also present were Ambassador Vladimir Matic, Former Assistant Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; Warren Zimmermann and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Representing the National Federation of Croatian Americans was Professor Edward Damich. Introducing the hearing, Chairman Hamilton asked for advice on "how to end the war and promote the U.S. national interest."
  4. These donations also appear at the time when the European Commission took action for the first time against Greece for its refusal to end the trade blockade of Macedonia.

A longer piece by Brad Blitz on the Serbian American lobby appeared in
Cushman and Mestrovic's
This Time We Knew: Western Responses to Genocide in Bosnia,
chapter 8, published by NYU Press, 1996. Much of that is now available on Google Books.

Balkan Witness Home Page

Articles index





Contact Balkan Witness

Report broken links