Mostar after the war |
The first few seconds of the documentary “Unfinished Business: War in Mostar”, which was broadcast on the BBC in 1993, are very powerful.
This sets the tone for the rest of the documentary, which
portrays the devastation the Croats inflicted on besieged Muslim-held East
Mostar, the expulsion of elderly Muslims from Croat-held West Mostar and the desperate
attempts of the Muslims to fight back. It does deliver some balance when it shows
the Bosnian Army forcing captured Croat soldiers to dig trenches on the front
line in contravention to the Geneva Convention, but taken as a whole, there is
little doubt at which side this film points the finger.
It contains much interesting and harrowing detail
about the horrendous conditions in East Mostar, but what about this propaganda the Croats were relaying over
loudspeakers? The presenter of the documentary, Jeremy Bowen, who dramatically reminds us about it again eight minutes into the film, fails to provide any kind of description.
All that can be heard is the voice listing international
dialling codes for Croatia and Slovenia: “Republiku Hrvatsku 385, Republiku
Sloveniju 386”. The viewer can only imagine what kind of Orwellian poison spews out of these tannoys
once the speaker has finished listing telephone numbers.
Mr Bowen was given the opportunity to shed further light on the nature of the propaganda when he appeared in 2007 as a witness in the ongoing trial of Jadranko Prlic et al, Bosnian Croat political and military leaders who are accused of war crimes against Muslims in Mostar and elsewhere. He was quizzed about the documentary by the defence team.
Mr Bowen insisted that although the audible part of the speech
from the tannoy is not propaganda, “that broadcast went on for many hours a day
and we listened to it a lot and I listened to it with our translator who
described to me what was being said ...
[the tannoys] were there for a purpose, and that purpose was to try to
get over the political propaganda points of one side.”
He concedes that the documentary makers “should have chosen
a better piece of sound for that section of the picture, because it is a bit
confusing” but adds, “I'm telling you there was propaganda coming out of those
tannoys.”
Pressed by the judge to come up with “a sentence that was
actually spoken and leads you to say it was propaganda”, Mr Bowen replies that he
can’t remember an exact sentence, but explains that the Croats were
broadcasting news of battlefield victories in the same way the BiHTV news he
saw in Sarajevo broadcast news of Bosnian Army victories.
“I didn’t take either news broadcast seriously; I regarded
both as propaganda,” he adds, perfectly reasonably.
None of this laudable scepticism and balance is apparent in the film though. This wouldn't matter so much if it were also possible to imagine a BBC documentary about the Muslim-Croat conflict beginning with an unexplained account of the Bosnian government's nefarious propaganda, but this is not the case.
In "Bosnia by Television", Nik Gowing, diplomatic editor for the UK's Channel Four News until 1996, writes that due to difficulties getting there, the conflict in Mostar barely received any coverage until Jeremy Bowen made his film. So as one of the few contemporary accounts of life in Mostar in 1993, "Unfinished Business: War in Mostar" may well have played an important part in shaping Western perceptions of the Muslim-Croat war. But the film itself was clearly shaped by an already prevailing view of that conflict and, by failing to question that view, can be seen to have contributed to a distorted view of the conflict.
In "Bosnia by Television", Nik Gowing, diplomatic editor for the UK's Channel Four News until 1996, writes that due to difficulties getting there, the conflict in Mostar barely received any coverage until Jeremy Bowen made his film. So as one of the few contemporary accounts of life in Mostar in 1993, "Unfinished Business: War in Mostar" may well have played an important part in shaping Western perceptions of the Muslim-Croat war. But the film itself was clearly shaped by an already prevailing view of that conflict and, by failing to question that view, can be seen to have contributed to a distorted view of the conflict.
6 comments:
Rory,
There is little doubt at which side your blog post points the finger. You're obviously pro-Croat, period.
Joke aside, all sides used propaganda to some extend, but the Serbs were masters of the trade.
The author of the Srebrenica Genocide Blog thinks that I am “pro-Croat.” I do not think this is the case. In a previous post, “Ethnic Cleansing in Bijeljina”, I described the claim that there was a Muslim plan to drive the Croats out of central Bosnia as “far-fetched”. My view of the Croat-Muslim (or Bosniak) conflict is that it was largely the consequence of the two ethnic groups separating politically (in the 1990 elections) then coming into conflict with a third ethnic group, the Serbs. The political separation of the Croats and Muslims meant that they would inevitably have different war aims despite their common enemy and it was likely that these different war aims would lead to conflict between them. I do not think the conflict was the result of a plan to create an ethnically clean “Greater Croatia” or an all-Muslim central Bosnia. I have looked at the evidence of this conflict in great detail and am baffled at the many observers who seem to have formulated a definitive view about which side was to blame on the basis of reading a few books. (See my comment on people who wish to have an opinion about Bosnia in the “About me” section.)
Although I draw attention to facts that cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that the Croat-Muslim conflict pitted Greater Croatia against multi-ethnic Bosnia, I do not point the finger at the Muslim side. For example, although it seems to me highly interesting that Muslim members of the HVO in Herzegovina appear to have staged a mutiny in 1993 and even more interesting that this rather important detail is not mentioned in any of the mainstream English language accounts of this conflict, I also consider the Muslim soldiers’ actions to be perfectly understandable and do not criticise them for this. The reason for drawing attention to facts such as these is that they call into question the conventional view of the Croat-Muslim conflict. If the mainstream view were the one advanced by Charles Shrader in “The Muslim-Croat Civil War in Central Bosnia”, I would be just as keen to highlight details that cast doubt on that interpretation.
This brings me to the Srebenica Genocide’s Blog’s invitation (in a comment on the post “A brief comment on the LM libel case”) to avoid being labelled a “genocide-denier” by setting forth my opinion on whether the Srebrenica massacre was genocide. I decline to offer an opinion one way or the other. This is because, although I believe I have studied the details of this event much more closely than many of those who are happy to describe it as a genocide, my understanding of what happened there and of the legal concept of genocide are not sufficient for me to offer an opinion. I also don’t offer an opinion on whether what happened across Bosnia in 1992 was a genocide, whether Bosnian Croats were victims of a Serb genocide or whether the Serbs committed genocide in Croatia.
Rory if you want definitive evidence refer to Gibbs who details how Muslims began cleansing of croats in central Bosnia.Mladen Ancic also details Muslim planning for fighting before the outbreak of war. The Bosnian war was different to the Croat war; in Bosnia the Serbs and croats basically United against the Muslims. This lasted until the US forced them to ally, and then armed the Croat army to drive the Serbs out of the Krajina and then push right into central Bosnia.
Thanks for your comment. Which Gibbs work are you referring to?
David Gibbs - First do no harm
Thanks
Post a Comment