|Last checked:||July 12, 2003|
Expert on psychology of ethnic conflict changes his mind about Yugoslavia:
Media Misrepresentation Of Milosevic's Words
By Professor Francisco Gil-White
Posted on Emperor's Clothes: February 9, 2002
*Note from Emperor's Clothes*
A couple of months ago I chanced upon the Emperor's Clothes Website because of their coverage of 9-11.
I noticed their startling claim that we have been systematically lied to about Yugoslavia, including Slobodan Milosevic. As they told it, he was an honorable leader; perhaps a great one. Since their views sharply contradicted my own, I started systematically checking their references by obtaining the relevant original documents. I have yet to find a single claim in error.
This was particularly surprising regarding the famous speech that Slobodan Milosevic delivered at Kosovo Field in 1989 at the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo. According to what I had read, this was an ultranationalist diatribe in which Milosevic manipulated memories of a famous defeat to stir mob hatred of Muslims, especially Albanians.
Emperor's Clothes posted what they claimed was the official U.S. government translation of that speech:
which they attributed to the National Technical Information Service, a dependency of the Commerce Department.
The posted speech was certainly not hateful.
But was this the real speech? The text contradicted everything I had been led to expect from Slobodan Milosevic and everything I had read about this speech.
Through my university library, I obtained a copy of the microfilm of the BBC's translation (which is a translation of the live relay of the speech). I compared this text to the one posted at Emperor's Clothes.
Except for a few words that the BBC translator was not able to hear, they match almost exactly.
The speech is not devoid of a certain poetry and, given what I had been led to believe about Milosevic, I was amazed to find that it was *explicitly tolerant*. In other words, the entire point, structure, message, and moral of the speech -- in all its details -- was to promote understanding and tolerance between peoples, and to affirm the unity of all those who live in Serbia, regardless of their national origin or religious affiliation.
But if a speech such as this had been falsely reported as a viciously hateful speech, then what about the rest of my information about Yugoslavia? After all, it came from the same sources which had misrepresented this speech...
I began to read voraciously, to see how academics, politicians and the media had reported what happened in Yugoslavia. I have found an enormous amount of misinformation, and it is hard to dispel the impression that much of this is *deliberate*. This is quite important for my field because students of ethnic conflict, like myself, need to know what it is that we are supposed to explain. Our case data comes from historians and journalists who describe ethnic conflicts for us. Until recently, I was assuming that those who wrote about Yugoslavia could at least be trusted to try to report things accurately.
I have changed my mind. What I now know suggests that the problem is not merely that reporters and academics are misinformed. I have observed that a source may report the facts accurately and then, in another place, usually later, *the same source* will report them completely inaccurately. How can one explain this as a result of ignorance? It suggests a conscious effort to misinform.
That obviously raises the question: why?
Many articles on Emperor's Clothes explore that question. Here I am primarily concerned with convincing you that Slobodan Milosevic was, in fact, systematically and willfully misrepresented. As an example of what is done, I have assembled excerpts from various sources regarding Milosevic’s famous 1989 speech at Gazimestan (the location is often referred to as Kosovo Polje or Kosovo Field). I compare these excerpts to Milosevic’s words so that you can see what was done.
I have provided Emperor's Clothes with a pdf version of the microfilm of the BBC translation so my readers can compare the US government and the BBC versions for themselves.
To see the pdfs of the BBC microfilm visit these links:
For an easy-to-read text version of the BBC translation, go here:
To compare this to the US government translation, go here:
Finally, you may look at further instructions I provide in the footnote for those who may wish to track down this text on their own.
As you read the compilation (certainly not complete) of misquotations, misrepresentations, misattributions, and mischaracterizations of Milosevic’s speech in the media and by academics, it is important to keep something in mind.
If Milosevic really *was* a hate-monger, the evidence would not be hard to find. Incitement to hatred, after all, is a *public behavior*. One cannot become an ultra-nationalist populist politician without making ultra-nationalist speeches -- the masses cannot be incited *in secret*. Thus, if Milosevic really was the man portrayed in the media, nobody would have to slander an explicitly tolerant speech in order to make the case. They could just use a genuinely hateful public statement, written document, radio interview, letter -- anything. It would make zero sense for the media to fabricate all sorts of things about a tolerant speech if anything hateful by Milosevic really existed.
In the first part of my analysis below I report the misrepresentations of the speech. Following that, I quote reports in the media made on or immediately after June 28, 1989, the day Milosevic spoke. These accounts, published immediately after his speech, *were accurate*, and this demonstrates that the truth was easily available if someone had wanted to report it later on. Not only that, I go further to demonstrate that the same media services which reported the speech accurately in 1989, then went on to lie about the speech eight years later, when NATO needed to demonize Slobodan Milosevic.
We shall begin with Balkan Report.
Let me first point out that Balkan Report describes itself as "A weekly compilation of politics media and Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty Broadcasts in the Western Balkans."
What is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty?
If it sounds like a contradiction for Radio Free Europe to describe itself as "a private... service... funded by the United States Congress" that's because it *is* a contradiction. There is nothing private about RFE. RFE is in charge of American propaganda broadcasts which until the early 70's were overtly run out of the CIA (see footnote [12b]). So what Balkan Report (essentially RFE) says is precisely what the US government wants it to say.
COMMENT: Slobodan Milosevic did not announce any such thing. Consider for comparison something that he *did* say:
It is simply impossible to interpret Milosevic’s words as an announcement “that he would also launch a war against the other peoples of Yugoslavia.”
Consider what Vladimir Zerjavic, a Croatian retiree of the UN, said:
COMMENT: Mr. Zerjavic puts actual quotation marks around words that never appear in the text of Milosevic’s speech. That is bold. As bold, perhaps, as the claims by the same Mr. Zerjavic, in his book Population Losses of Yugoslavia in the World War II, to the effect that the number of Yugoslavs (especially Serbs) who lost their lives in the Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) death camps has been wildly exaggerated.
An important British newspaper, The Independent, included this in what it presented as a chronology of events:
COMMENT: No such threat appears in the text of the speech. This allusion to an "open threat" sounds like the Independent is using Dr. Vladimir Zerjavic as source. They don’t sound like they could have seen the text of the speech.
Or heard it...
Alas…! As we shall see later, The Independent actually had two reporters in Kosovo Polje in 1989, listening to the speech as Milosevic gave it, and on that day The Independent accurately reported the speech as a tolerant one. You read correctly.
Consider this by The Irish Times:
COMMENT: The Irish Times does not borrow the quote from Dr. Vladimir Zerjavic, but they do borrow the boldness. They have put quotation marks around a phrase that appears nowhere in the text.
This quote is from something called “The Croatian Student Online,” which purports to explain the “Causes of Serbian Aggression”:
COMMENT: Notice how casually the Croatian Student evokes "the superiority complex, and the feelings of cultural insecurity which are common among lower and middle-class Serbs." This reads like an ethnic slur. But Serbs have been so thoroughly demonized in the media that most readers will hardly notice it, or else will consider it a probably just appraisal.
Let us now look at another excerpt from Milosevic’s speech. How does one create an "us versus them" atmosphere with these words? (They do seem ineptly chosen for this purpose):
This is from Balkans Paces:
COMMENT: No such "plan" was "outlined". Note that the writer speaks of "the plan" not "a plan" thus suggesting that the existence of said plan is common knowledge…
And how about this, from Opression.org? 
COMMENT: Oppression.org gets high marks for boldness. Others merely put quotation marks around a fabricated sentence. They have put quotations around an entirely fabricated *paragraph*.
Let us now look at what the biggest media heavyweights said. We shall begin with The Economist, perhaps the most prestigious and influential news magazine in the world:
COMMENT: The passages from Milosevic’s speech quoted above already make it clear that this was not a "stirringly virulent nationalist speech." The Economist would have you believe that Milosevic was literally foaming at the mouth, and wanted to use the memories of Prince Lazar and the defeat at Kosovo Polje as a catalyst for arousing ultra-nationalistic feelings. This is how Milosevic actually introduced his remarks about that historical event:
COMMENT: Is this a virulent nationalist speaking? Milosevic sounds positively *professorial*. He sounds like an academic, showing a grandfatherly understanding for the human frailties that lead people to conveniently forget things in order to make legends out of history in a romantic and nationalistic manner.
And he is talking about the famous battle at Kosovo Polje, in the very place where that battle was fought!
The truth of what happened, he says, is for scientists to establish. Is this a nationalist using a myth of the people to rouse their passions? Does he sound ‘injured’ and ‘insecure’?
TIME Magazine, perhaps the most widely-read news magazine in the world, had a similar slant:
And the same goes for The New York Times:
And the Washington Post:
And here is what National Public Radio (NPR) said about this speech, through the lips of Chuck Sudetic:[12a]
COMMENT: First of all, I apologize to loyal fans of NPR if this shatters their illusions about a favorite institution, but the above is no aberration for NPR. In fact, NPR's president is a CIA man.[12b]
Beyond this, there is the larger question of this piece: does Milosevic sound like his purpose is "whipping a million Serbs into a nationalist frenzy" with his remembrance of the events of 1389? Is this a "fervent speech" meant to "galvanize the nationalist passions"? Is it a "rallying cry for nationalism"? Could "people [be] whipped up into a kind of hysteria" with Milosevic's words?
I can't see how.
The following excerpt is relatively long but it is worth reading because of the juxtaposition of Milosevic with Tudjman and Izetbegovic. If you wish to skip forward to the Comment on T.W. Carr's article, click here.
COMMENT: Contrary to Carr’s claim, Milosevic did *not* speak about the status of Kosovo in the 1989 speech.
It is known from other sources, of course, that he certainly did not want Kosovo to be split from Yugoslavia, for good reasons having to do with the security of Serbs, Roma, Slavic Muslims, Jews, Albanians and everyone else in Kosovo, and his conviction that Kosovo was legitimately part of the country he was after all helping lead. How many leaders want their countries broken up? But that does not mean that in his 1989 speech he said, "that the Autonomous Province of Kosovo would remain an integral part of Serbia and Yugoslavia, despite the then current and often violent, problems of separatism demanded by the Muslim Albanian majority living in Kosovo." So this is false.
Moreover, Milosevic never referred to the Ottoman Empire as "Islamist." On the contrary, Milosevic’s remarks in his speech concerning the Ottoman Empire showed no real animosity. He even acknowledged certain strengths: "In that distant 1389, the Ottoman Empire was not only stronger than that of the Serbs but it was also more fortunate than the Serbian kingdom." (Milosevic's 1989 Speech at Kosovo Field)
More importantly, however, notice that Carr pairs the three leaders, Milosevic, Izetbegovic, and Tudjman, and prefaces his remarks by saying all three rose to prominence by manipulating nationalism. But does Milosevic belong in this company? Whereas a good and effortless case can be made for Izetbegovic and Tudjman being ultra-nationalists (see above), all we get as evidence for Milosevic’s "ultra-nationalism" is a false allusion to a declaration he never made in the Kosovo Polje speech about the fact that he did not want Serbia to be partitioned, which in itself would not even be evidence of intolerant ultra-nationalism anyway. Moreover, the speech Carr refers us to is the *antithesis* of an ultra-nationalistic speech.
Milosevic at his alleged *worst*, then, sounds not unlike Ghandi or Martin Luther King.
Finally, I must observe that Carr is arguing that the US and Germany are carving zones of interest in Europe and that this is the central reason for the troubles in Yugoslavia. In other words, he is not sympathetic to the official propaganda about the causes of the wars in Yugoslavia. Yet even he seems blithely to assume that Milosevic is a virulent nationalist, though he provides no evidence. On the other hand, Izetbegovic and Tudjman, both US allies, certainly *do* sound like bad guys.
The propaganda against Milosevic has been so successful that even a critic like Carr believes it, though he can only give us one short paragraph to support his belief, and that paragraph refers to a consummately tolerant speech.
Is this the worst one can say about Milosevic?
Here is what the International Crisis Group said about Milosevic’s Speech:
COMMENT: This quotation *does* appear in the speech.
Any observer of Yugoslavia at this time knew that it was possible that armed battles could break out. Why should the observation of such an obvious fact be interpreted as a *threat*?
One could just as well interpret it as a *worry*.
Any state trying to contain irredentist terrorists may find itself in the position of having to deploy its army to protect its citizens -- Milosevic was just stating the obvious. It is really necessary to omit reference to any other part of the speech, and to ignore the facts of Yugoslavia at this time, for the quote -- completely out of context -- to appear as a threat. Even then it does not look very threatening (you have to be *told* that it is a threat, for otherwise how could you reliably infer it?). But it pays to see this quote in its minimal context: the paragraph in which it appears:
COMMENT: This minimal context is already quite informative. The "chief battle" has nothing to do with armed conflict. And it requires “heroism, of course of a somewhat different kind.” If one further puts this paragraph into the larger context of the speech it is obvious that Milosevic is hardly making threats. For example, elsewhere in the speech Milosevic says:
COMMENT: Milosevic was warning that nationalism was being used by “internal and external enemies of multi-national communities” to destroy Yugoslavia. He was worrying out loud that people would listen to fear-mongers and that waves of suspicion between national communities would get started and then become “difficult to stop.” He was chiding his fellow Yugoslavs for failing to remember World War II and other catastrophes during which the Balkans “experienced the worst tragedy of national conflicts that a society can experience and still survive.” Does this sound like a man whipping up the population to go to war against other ethnic groups?
Here is what the London Times had to say:
COMMENT: This one comically gets it wrong. Milosevic probably never said, "No one will ever beat you!" He more likely said something like "No one will be allowed to beat you like that!" In any event, he did not say it at the commemoration of the battle at Kosovo Polje (the speech we have been discussing here). Those words *were* uttered at Kosovo Polje but two years earlier, in 1987. At that time, Milosevic met with Serbs and Montenegrins, mostly peasants, who had serious grievances: they said they were being mistreated by prejudiced Albanian authorities in Kosovo and violently harassed by radical Albanian terrorists. They wanted to speak directly with Milosevic but he was only meeting with a relatively small group in the hall.
Here is an account of this:
Milosevic said, "No one will be allowed to beat you!"
Is this nationalistic incitement?
Or is he reassuring a nervous crowd that their civil rights will be respected? After all, he is an official with responsibilities to citizens who were being beaten by police *before his very eyes*.
But in the London Times article the context of the peasant Serbs getting beaten is no longer evident. The utterance has been transformed into, "No one will ever beat you" which has an eternal, mythical overtone, and which therefore fits well with the new and excellent location that the Times has found for this utterance: the speech to commemorate the battle of Kosovo Polje.
Two different events have been fused into one, and Serbian mythology has been joined to an injured cry, providing a total impression of a syndrome of victimization that lashes out as a reborn and vicious nationalism. "No one will be allowed to beat you" is supposed to mean, “*We* will beat *them*.”
I want to emphasize that Cohen’s book “Serpent in the bosom,” which I quoted above, is an attack on Milosevic. If Cohen’s description has a bias it is to suggest that Milosevic is a virulent nationalist. For example, although Cohen has Albanian policemen beating peasant Serbs *brutally*, this is not described as ethnic animosity (the remark that some of these policemen are Serbs seems to have been inserted in order to dispel any such impression). But Milosevic’s attempt to reassure a crowd whose basic human rights are being trampled right in front of his eyes *that* is nationalism, as Cohen goes on to explain in what remains of the chapter.
Everybody else has done the same. The 1987 events are supposed to mark a turning point on Milosevic’s road to becoming a virulent nationalist (Cohen calls it “the epiphanal moment”).
However, notice that despite these attempts, it is difficult not to see Milosevic’s behavior as perfectly natural, indeed laudable. Why not reassure a crowd of your constituents, who are being bludgeoned by policemen, that this will not be allowed to happen? What else should he have morally done? By what stretch of the imagination is this utterance transformed into a nationalistic call to arms? Well, it helps to omit the context in which the utterance was made, and it also helps to insert it into a speech commemorating the defeat of the Serbs at Kosovo Polje, as the Times has done.
And here is what Newsday said:
COMMENT: Notice what has happened here. First, for Newsday, apparently, it is enough that Noel Malcolm said something. The same can probably also be said for The Times of London, which paper, as we saw above, parroted a similar line to the one we see here: utterances to the effect that "nobody will beat you" are supposed to allude to the defeat of the Serbs at Kosovo Polje in 1389.
This is a fusion of the events of 1987 and 1989 and, since this connection does not seem to appear prior to 1999 (which is the year Noel Malcolm’s book appeared), it is at least a reasonable guess that:
a) Malcolm is the originator of this confusion and
b) ever since, newspapers like The Times of London and Newsday have been fusing remarks that Milosevic made in two different years and in two very different contexts (neither of them even remotely damning).
This is worth a pause and a reflection.
Academics typically get their facts about what happened in a particular time and place from journalists. But here we have newspapers getting their facts from an academic. It would be fine for the newspaper to report the *interpretation* or *theory* of an academic, but isn’t the world turned upside down when a newspaper gets the basic facts of what happened from some bookish professor who wasn’t there?
The second observation is that what Milosevic actually said, "no one will be allowed to beat you!" has been changed to "no one should dare to beat you!" With this change the utterance dovetails nicely with Malcolm’s reference to Milosevic’s supposed lyricism concerning the “*sacred rights* of the Serbs.” So not only is this fusing of the events of 1987 and 1989 apparently an innovation of Malcolm’s, it is one he seems to work hard at, modifying other facts as well, to give the fusion plausibility.
In any case, it should be obvious that it is quite a stretch of interpretation to say that one is invoking a moment in history by making assurances to peasant Serbs that no one should beat them, when those peasant Serbs *are at that very moment* being “attacked by local police, most of them Albanians.” How about the hypothesis that rather than making “an eloquent extempore speech in defense of the sacred rights of the Serbs,” Milosevic was saying that the Albanian policemen right below him should not be beating the peasant Serbs?
Here is what another ‘academic’ said:
COMMENT: The quote from Milosevic's speech is accurate, but it is difficult to do justice to the distortions in this paragraph with the appropriate superlatives. Cigar is, in second-order Orwellian fashion, claiming that *Milosevic’s* speech is Orwellian. When Milosevic contrasts Serbs to “others,” this means (according to Cigar) other Serbs! That is a very interesting code. And when Milosevic talks about liberation, he really means that Serbs should oppress non-Serbs!
But just a tiny little bit of history suggests a different hypothesis.
In World War I, the Serbs were the only Balkan people to side with the allies. This means they simultaneously fought for their independence against two empires (Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian), while the Croats, Muslims, Albanians, etc. fought on the side of the empires. The Serbs won, but instead of creating a ‘Greater Serbia’, as many a victor might have, they spearheaded the creation of a joint kingdom, and they even shared the name (the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, which later got an even more inclusive name when it was renamed Yugoslavia -- land of the Southern Slavs).
Thus, they had liberated these other peoples from the clutches of the empires, and did not create an empire themselves.
Contrast this with the treatment that Germany got from the victorious allies.
Then, in World War II, the Croats, Slovenes, Yugoslav Muslims, and the Albanians, for the most part betrayed Yugoslavia and allied themselves with the invading Nazis. The Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Romanians also either allied themselves outright or reached an understanding with the Nazis. The Serbs were surrounded but fought the invaders anyway, even though they were practically alone. Tito’s Partisans, who had dogmatic ideology of ethnic tolerance, and who won the war in Yugoslavia, were mostly Serbs. Once again, the result was not a ‘Greater Serbia,’ but a magnanimous recreation of Yugoslavia (and this, *despite* the fact that Serbs had suffered a Holocaust during the war very much like that of the Jews).
Could it be that when Milosevic said the Serbs had always fought for their liberation, and that of others when possible, he was merely saying what he meant?
The examples of how this speech has been maligned could be multiplied. But we gain a valuable perspective by taking a look at how the speech was reported the very moment it happened:
COMMENT: It does not appear that the BBC reporter had the impression Milosevic's speech produced a nationalist incitement. On the contrary, the reporter has explicitly highlighted the tolerance of the speech.
The British newspaper The Independent, which had reporters covering the speech, had a similar impression:
COMMENT: The quotes from Milosevic are accurate.
This account, a day after the event, suggests that the speech was not “emotionally charged,” as Cigar claims, and neither was it a speech designed to whip up “a million Serbs into a nationalist frenzy” -- as Time Magazine untruthfully alleges.
It is clear that there was no “ferocious and frustrated crowd,” as the Times of London would have it. It was not a “fervent speech …[that]… galvanized the nationalist passions” as The New York Times states, and neither was it a “stirringly virulent nationalist speech,” as The Economist claims.
Finally, for good measure, it was not a “fiery speech…to a million angry Serbs [and] a rallying cry for nationalism,” as the Washington Post reported.
From the story above we even learn that one observer thought people had been disappointed, although this impression is belied by the opinion of the locals who said this was not a protest rally.
Indeed, it didn’t sound like one, if one reads the speech. The framing of the events is that Milosevic was *conciliatory*.
How should we describe the fact that The Independent, which paper had reporters on the ground, and which had accurately reported this speech when it was given, later said that this was Milosevic setting his agenda “as he openly threatens force to hold the six-republic federation together” (see above)?
Or perhaps we should show sympathy for the harried journalists at The Independent, who apparently cannot find the time to read their own paper!
And what about the other, 1987, speech? This is how it was reported by the New York Times, immediately after it happened:
COMMENT: It is clear from how *that* speech was reported at the time that Milosevic had simply meant to reassure the assembled Serb peasants that the police certainly did not have the right to beat them like that. It was not a nationalistic call to arms nor was it supposed to have overtones to the battle of Kosovo Polje. Why should it? What was happening in front of his eyes was not metaphorical. Policemen were beating peasants.
This is how a myth is constructed: we hear the same story everywhere. The repetition of the story convinces us that the story has been confirmed. But, of course, repetition is hardly confirmation. If it were, every urban legend would be true.
It is important to pause and reflect on what this means. If the media can lie so blatantly about what Milosevic had said in 1989, and if they do it consistently and across the board, something is wrong.
The question is: *how* wrong?
The US government obviously has an interest in demonizing the people it bombed. Although its own translation of the speech is a rebuke to how the speech has been portrayed, we should not expect the US government to criticize the misinformation. This is unjustifiable, and corrupt, but not unexpected.
Explaining the behavior of the BBC, on the other hand, is not so easy. The BBC is not the US government. Its role is supposedly to give us the truth, as best it can. Moreover, the BBC is supposed to be in competition with other media outlets. Since the BBC *translated the speech*, they were in a position to lay bare that what was being written about the speech was misinformation. They have not done it, and this is a very serious sin of journalistic omission.
If only this was their biggest sin!
On April 1, 2001, the BBC wrote the following: 
The BBC here makes it seem as though Milosevic was indeed talking about preparing the Serbs for aggression against other people.
But the BBC translated the live relay of the speech!
They know Milosevic did no such thing in 1989 at Kosovo Polje. The BBC piece continues:
Again: the BBC translated the speech! They know that he spoke in skeptical and professorial tones about the famous battle at Kosovo Polje, rather than manipulating it for ultra-nationalist ends.
This is not an isolated instance. Here is the BBC again, in a different piece:
But… but… the BBC knows that what it is reporting here is not true. They translated the speech! Milosevic did not vow any such thing in 1989 at the Kosovo Polje commemoration. He may have vowed it elsewhere (and the vow in and of itself is perfectly consistent with his desire to keep Yugoslavia whole, and does not indict him of anything). But he certainly made no such vow in the 1989 speech.
Why is the BBC not reporting what it knows to be true?
Since this is possible, I am forced to wonder what else is possible. What can we believe about what has been written about Milosevic in particular, and Yugoslavia more generally? After all, the demonization of Milosevic, and the Serbs more generally, perfectly fits with the propaganda aims of the NATO powers that went to war against Yugoslavia, including the US and Britain. Here we have seen that the media establishment in these two countries has produced stories about Milosevic’s speech that are consistent with such a deliberate propaganda campaign.
Footnotes and Further Reading
 The BBC microfilm can be obtained from some university libraries. If you are an academic, you can get it at your library or through an inter-library loan, in the same way that I did. If in doubt, ask the people at the reference desk, for this is not the easiest item to find.
It is, however, much easier to find the BBC translation on Lexis-Nexis. Restrict your search to 1989 and do a "full text" search for "milosevic and speech and gazimestan" (do not include the quotation marks). If you have a version of Lexis that forces you to search by category, then select "World News" and also "European News Sources." This will bring up the BBC translation, which has the following reference: BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, June 30, 1989, Friday, Part 2 Eastern Europe; B. INTERNAL AFFAIRS; YUGOSLAVIA; EE/0496/B/ 1;, 2224 words, SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC ADDRESSES RALLY AT GAZIMESTAN, Belgrade home service 1109 gmt 28 Jun 89Text of live relay of speech delivered at 28th June rally celebrating the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje (EE/0495 i)
Finally, it is possible that your library has this volume, which contains an English translation of the speech: Krieger, Heike, ed. 2001. The Kosovo conflict and international law: An analytical documentation 1974-1999, Cambridge International Documents Series, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(p.10)
 Reprinted from
Balkan Report, 2 July 1999, Volume 3, Number 26 (Translated by Fabian
Schmidt, notes by Patrick Moore)
 Written by Vladimir Zerjavic, retiree of UN; Zagreb, July 1997, revised in December 1997.
 "Milosevic on Trial: Fall of a Pariah"; Newspaper Publishing PLC, Independent on Sunday (London); July 1, 2001, Sunday, SECTION: FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 21
 "Serbs make ragged retreat from their historic cradle"; The Irish Times; June 16, 1999, CITY EDITION; SECTION: WORLD NEWS; CRISIS IN THE BALKANS; Pg. 13
 from The Croatian Student Online
"Causes of Serbian Aggression" by Branko Mletic posted at: http://www.algonet.se/~bevanda/aggression3.htm
 -- From Balkans Paces; http://www.igc.org/balkans/conclusion-slobo.html
 from Oppression.org (1999): http://www.oppression.org/europe/kosovo_in_the_circle_of_fire.html
 The Economist, June 05, 1999, U.S. Edition, 1041 words, What next for Slobodan Milosevic?
 Time International, July 9, 2001 v158 i1 p18+
 The New York Times, July 28, 1996, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; Page 10; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 1384 words, Serbs in Pragmatic Pullout from Albanian Region, By JANE PERLEZ, PRISTINA, Serbia, July 22
 The Washington Post, June 29, 1998, Monday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A10, 354 words, Bitter Serbs Blame Leader for Risking Beloved Kosovo, R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Foreign Service, KOSOVO POLJE, Yugoslavia, June 28
[12a] National Public Radio (NPR), ALL THINGS CONSIDERED (9:00 PM ET) , March 31, 1999, Wednesday, 1304 words, CHUCK SUDETIC, AUTHOR AND FORMER NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER, TALKS ABOUT THE YUGOSLAV WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL INDICTMENT OF SERB PARAMILITARY LEADER ZELJKO RAZNATOVIC, ALSO KNOWN AS ARKAN, LINDA WERTHEIMER; NOAH ADAMS
[12b] "One of the matters the NPR Board discussed before hiring [current NPR President Kevin] Klose: how NPR's news staff would react to a boss who had worked in government radio and for the Radios, which were CIA-financed until the early 1970s. "There was a question as to how the NPR newsroom would receive Kevin Klose," says board member Chase Untermeyer, who headed Voice of America [also a CIA operation - FGW] during the Bush years. But those questions were "put aside" because of Klose's leadership abilities and other assets, he said. Untermeyer argues that operations like the Radios are congressionally mandated to be even-handed and so operate "under far more desirable standards of journalism" than privately owned news outlets."
MY COMMENT: It is certainly charming that a CIA man, the one who headed Voice of America (Untermeyer), would vouch for the even-handedness of Klose, another CIA man. And notice that Untermeyer was already on the NPR board and had a hand in hiring Klose: the CIA hiring the CIA. The transformation of NPR hardly began with Klose.
 from "A Careful Coincidence Of National Policies?" by T.W. Carr (Ass. Publisher, Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications. London)
Democrat or Radical Islamist: Who is Alija Izetbegovic, the man the US
sponsored in Bosnia?"
 BALKANS Briefing, Belgrade/Brussels, 6 July 2001; International Crisis Group;
 From "Milosevic on suicide watch in Dutch prison"; Times Newspapers Limited; The Times (London); June 30, 2001, Saturday
 Cohen, L. J. 2001. Serpent in the bosom: The rise and fall of Slobodan Milosevic. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
 Cigar, Norman 1995. Genocide in Bosnia. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press. (p.34)
 Copyright 1989 The British Broadcasting Corporation; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts; June 29, 1989, Thursday; SECTION: Part 2 Eastern Europe; 2. EASTERN EUROPE; EE/0495/ i; LENGTH: 249 words;
HEADLINE: The anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje
 The Independent, June 29 1989, Thursday, Foreign News ; Pg. 10, 654 words, Milosevic carries off the battle honours, From EDWARD STEEN and MARCUS TANNER in Kosovo Polje
 The New York Times, April 25, 1987, Saturday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Page 5, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 356 words, YUGOSLAVIA POLICE AND 10,000 CLASH DURING A PROTEST OVER ETHNIC BIAS, AP, BELGRADE, Yugoslavia, April 24
 "The downfall of Milosevic ", Sunday, 1 April, 2001, 07:17 GMT 08:17 UK;
 From the newsroom of the BBC World Service * Monday, June 28, 1999 Published at 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK * World: Europe
The truth belongs to us all.
Feel free to download, copy and redistribute.
Placed on srpska-mreza.com: July 12, 2003