Contents
Introduction..........2
Organization..........2A
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
Conclusion..........16
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
Contributors
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
Introduction
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.
Organization
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.
Conclusion
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).
APPENDIX A
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?
APPENDIX B
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).
- 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)
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
MEMBER of CONGRESS
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
(signed)
APPENDIX C
Attached propaganda from the Serbian Unity
Congress and SAVA
THE VIOLENT DISSOLUTION OF YUGOSLAVIA
TRUTH AND DECEIT
1991-1994
ONE HUNDERED IRREFUTABLE FACTS
NORTH AMERICAN NEWS ANALYSIS GROUP
P.O. BOX 471432
SAN FRANSISCO, CA 94147
- 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
LIST OF MAJOR CONCENTRATION CAMPS, PRISONS AND
DETENTION SITES SET UP BY THE MUSLIMS IN THE STATE OF
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA FOR THE SERBIAN CIVILIANS
SOURCE: The Secretary for Information of The
Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
June 22, 1992, Sarajevo
(excerpt)
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.
| LOCATION |
DETENTION SITE |
NUMBER OF INMATES |
NOTE |
| 1. GORAZDE |
SPORTS STADIUM |
200+ |
WOMEN, CHILDREN |
| 2. GORAZDE |
POLICE STATION |
150+ |
WOMEN, CHILDREN |
| 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 |
| 5. SARAJEVO |
MILITARY JAIL |
UNKNOWN |
CIVILIANS |
| 6. SARAJEVO |
CENTRAL JAIL |
UNKNOWN |
CIVILIANS |
| 7. Ali-Pashino Polje (A.P.Field) |
HOT WATER PLANT |
6,000+ |
Civilians, mass liquidation |
| 8. TARCIN |
SILOS |
UNKNOWN |
VILLAGERS from KONJIC, HADZICI |
| 9. BUTUROVI-POLJE |
CONCENTRATION CAMP |
UNKNOWN |
CIVILIANS from HADZICI, KONJIC,
JABLANICA |
| 10. BRADINA |
RAILWAY TUNNEL |
400+ (survivors of 4,000) |
PREDOMINANTLY CHILDREN - LEFT ORPHANS
FATHERS KILLED BY MUSLIMS, AND WOMEN. |
| 11. CHAPLJINA/LJUBUSKO |
CONCENTRATION CAMP IN OPEN |
THOUSANDS OF SERBIAN
CIVILIANS THAT WERE ROUNDED UP FROM THE LEFT BANK OF THE
NERETVA RIVER. |
| 12. CHELEBICI by KONJIC |
THE WHOLE PLACE HAS BEEN TURNED INTO
A CONCENTRATION CAMP |
UNKNOWN |
CIVILIANS |
| 13. SARAJEVO |
RADIO-TV CENTRE (UNDERGROUND ROOMS) |
UNKNOWN |
SERBIAN JOURNALIST. ALREAD KNOWS AS
KILLED: Mr. Milivoje Karan and Mr. Rajko Bogdanovic |
| 14. VISOKO |
SEVERAL LOCATIONS |
THOUSANDS |
ALL SERBIAN CIVILIANS FROM VISK-ONE |
| 15. LIVNO |
DIFFERENT LOCATIONS |
THOUSANDS |
ALL THE SERBS FROM LIVNO AND ADJACENT
VILLAGES, TWO MONTHS IN DETENTION |
| 16. FOJNICA |
CONCENTRATION CAMPS ARE
HURRIEDLY BEING SET-UP AND |
| 17. ZENICA |
FILLED UP WITH SERBIAN
CIVILIANS WHO DID NOT MANAGE TO FLEE ON TIME. |
| 18. TRAVNIK |
|
|
|
| 19. OZDAK |
SEVERAL CONCENTRATION
CAMPS ARE ALREADY SET-UP FOR THE SERBIAN |
| 20. DERVENTA |
CIVILIANS, WHO ARE BEING
SAVAGELY TORTURED AND KILLED BY THE MUSLIMS. |
| |
|
|
|
| 21. SLAVONSKI BROD (CROATIA) |
CONCENTRATION CAMP |
THOUSANDS |
SERBIAN CIVILIANS IN ALL WALKS OF
LIFE, FORCED LABOUR, WOMEN RAPING, TORTURING, KILLING OF
INMATES |
| |
|
|
|
THE ABOVE LIST WILL BE UPDATED AS NEW INFORMATION
IS MADE AVAILABLE.
Secretary for Information
of The Serbian Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Velibor Ostojic
TELL CHARLES REDMAN
THAT SERBS WILL JOIN IN
A CROAT AND MUSLIM
FEDERATION
WHEN...
Pigs can fly.
SAVA - Serbian American Voters Alliance -
March 23, 1994
NOTES
- 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.
- Samardzija's office is located on the
third floor of her house 2714 Steiner Street, San Francisco,
California 94123-4714.
- 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.
- Nonetheless, this account should be
monitored. FEC ID number C00239723
- 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.
- Anna Eshoo, in private meeting at her
office in Palo Alto, July 16, 1994.
- 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.
- 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.
- Morton M. Kondracke, "Grecian Formula: the
Arrival of an American Ethnic Group" in The New Republic. June 6,
1988.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 .
- 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.
- See Noel Malcolm in The Spectator July
1993
- He is always Sir Alfred Sherman.
- 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.
- Campaign Against Militarism Briefing "20
Things You Should Know About the Serbs That Aren't True."
February 1994 No 4.
- Joan Phillips also produced the Channel
Four (UK) current affairs program for the series Free for All
entitled, "Journalists at War" August 15, 1993
- 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.
- See: Living Marxism September 1992;
February 1993; May 1993; July 1993.
- Foreign Policy No 3 January 20, 1994.
- Joan Phillips in conversation in London,
October 14, 1994
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.'
- 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) .
- 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.'
- 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.
- See: "People Must Not be Pilloried" in Die Weltwoche April 14, 1994
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- See: Philip J. Cohen's manuscript
"Desecrating the Holocaust: Serbia's Exploitation of the
Holocaust as Propaganda" (1993)
- 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.
- Dick Christiansen in (telephone)
conversation, June 3, 1994.
- 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.
NOTES TO THE APPENDIX
- According to the report, "FEC Releases 15
Month Congressional Election Figures," May 9, 1994, Hamilton
received $193,441 from individual contributions.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.