By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
September 27, 2000
Every so often I write an analysis in which I point out that much of what is called "news" today is actually only someone's opinion. Nothing better illustrates the deplorable state of the media today than what has occurred in the last few days in "reporting" the election in Yugoslavia.
Today, whether in America or in Europe, it seems it is no longer necessary to count ballots. It seems the media can tell us who won the election, or who WILL win the election by listening to pollsters, or the media's favorite candidate. Last night, for example, Larry King asked George W. Bush if the media pundits were "breaking it down correctly - California and New York to Gore, Texas and Florida to Bush, Northeast to Gore, South to Bush; the states that will decide (the presidency) are New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri."
In other words, do we even NEED the expense of an election? Can't we just write off most of the electorate as already in one candidate pocket or another and just concentrate on those six states?
Bush responded, "That's flawed logic, because I'm going to win California."
King asked, "You're going to win California?"
Bush said, "I am." A moment of silence followed that comment and then Bush added with a laugh, "Please don't fall out of your chair!" Larry King mentioned the polls and Bush rattled off points which he felt would bring voters his way, his education plan, social security, NAFTA, tort reform, etc.
This is not exactly unusual for candidates. Both sides USUALLY declare they will win. The issue is decided AFTER the people vote and AFTER the votes are counted. However, this has not been the case with the Yugoslav vote and seems it may not be the case in the US Presidential election either.
Madeleine Albright, whose irrational hatred of Milosevic was a very large part of the decision to bomb Yugoslavia last year, said through her spokesman Charles Hunter "We have made clear over the last week that Milosevic would commit fraud in these elections. We believe the official count reflects manipulation and fraud."
Albright told a Senate committee Tuesday before the Commission's announcement of the vote, that the authorities in Belgrade "have used every trick in the book to prevent a fair campaign, rig the election and distort the results. In so doing, they have fooled no one."
"Clearly now, Milosevic is a figure of the past," Albright said. "For too long, his lawlessness has weakened Yugoslavia; his cronies have robbed Yugoslavia; and his mismanagement has In fact, long before the hand marked ballots were counted we were told by the world media that Milosevic had lost and would "steal" enough ballots to claim he had won. If that happened, it was darkly suggested, some sort of "action" would have to be taken.
The New York Times reported the day before the election:
"In Kosovo, the Serbian community probably numbers barely 100,000 people, and the Albanian majority will continue their decade-old boycott of any Yugoslav election. But Mr. Milosevic may try, as he has in previous elections, to fake the results by claiming hundreds of thousands of votes from Kosovo."The opposition insists that Mr. Milosevic will attempt widespread vote manipulation. He and his government say that the elections will be free and fair and that the opposition is preparing vote fraud."
All the wild accusations proved false when, on Tuesday evening in Belgrade, the Yugoslav Election commission announced that no candidate polled more than 50%, but that the main opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica, had finished with 48.22 percent to 40.23 percent for Milosevic and that, under the election law of Yugoslavia, a run-off election would have to be held in the next two weeks. Bill Clinton, had poured an estimated $77 million into the coffers of Milosevic political opponents, chose the election week-end to send US ships to the Adriatic sea for "military exercises" and was reported prepared to send in at least undercover troops if Milosevic won. Before the votes could possibly be counted, Clinton claimed that "it seems clear that the opposition party defeated Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic despite government attempts to manipulate the vote."
Robin Cook, the Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary announced, before the votes had been counted, "We know he is preparing to rig the result, but the scale of this defeat is too great for even him to fix it. Let's give Milosevic a clear message while he is trying to decide who won. Don't rob your people of their vote for change. Accept their verdict and go." The "clear message" was deploying British warships, led by the carrier Invincible, to the eastern Mediterranean.
Defense Secretary William Cohen, speaking to a business audience in Chicago, said he is uneasy about a runoff, fearing it would give Milosevic and his supporters "more time to steal the election."
Has everyone gone nuts? We just had a bunch of run-offs in THIS country among presidential candidates. What's wrong with a run-off?
Also, why haven't news sources interviewed and reported the observations from those 200 poll-watchers from 52 countries? I have searched news sources all over the world for media reports on the observations of those observers. So far, I've only found two: One from USA observer, Kris Sparou, a member of Democratic Party, who is reported in the Serbian Broadcasting Company as saying:
"I have been included in electoral processes all my life, I was very impressed with the way the elections were held at the polling places I visited. I saw a very civilized atmosphere in which people expressed their electoral will. I would especially emphasize that I did not see any policemen at the poling places. Everything was regular, I did not hear any complaints from any of the political parties` representatives. It was a normal civilized process in a democratic country."Elections were held according to the international democratic standards and regarding this I was assured that the elections were fair and regular. I think that citizens who voted can be proud because they participated in a very democratic process,"
The other came from Greece as the Athens News reported:
"ATHENS responded cautiously to early returns yesterday from Yugoslavia's Sunday presidential elections with the government spokesman relying on reports from Greek observers that balloting went smoothly and the foreign ministry later indicating that main opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica had defeated Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
The Associated Press reported:
"The State Election Commission announced Tuesday that Kostunica finished first in the weekend presidential elections but without enough votes to avoid a runoff with Milosevic, state television said."The commission said Kostunica won 48.22 percent of the vote in Sunday's ballot to 40.23 for Milosevic.
By everyone's admission, there was a very high turn-out of the nation's over 7 million voters. The ballots were paper ballots that had to be opened and counted. The observers reported that all was in order and quiet. It takes time to count millions of votes - by hand. And, once the results were announced, and there was no 50% plus plurality, under the nation's laws, a run-off is required. Furthermore, the run-off has to take place within 15 days.
If, as the commission says, Kostunica won with 48.22 percent of the vote to Milosevic's 40.23percent, logic would tell us that Kostunica has the advantage and would probably win the run-off. Yet, at this point in time, Kostunica has said he will refuse to run in the run-off, demanding that he be allowed to take office without the 50 plus majority required by Serbian law.
This makes little sense to me. Also, Kostunica, from early reports I have read, is not apt to be the compliant Serb leader that the West is clearly demanding. In fact, he may be a more fervent nationalist than Milosevic. One report from Britain noted:
"VOJISLAV KOSTUNICA, the man the West is relying on to break Slobodan Milosevic's hegemony in today's Yugoslav elections, is a fervent Serb nationalist who blames Nato as much as the regime for Serbia's present woes.According to his own statement, ... he will refuse to turn Milosevic over to The Hague War Crimes Tribunal or allow Montenegro independence. He says he will also demand that Nato forces leave Kosovo and Serb forces be allowed to return.
"...Western diplomats, whose countries are pouring tens of millions of pounds into his campaign, like to explain away such flaws by saying he is forced to play the nationalist card to win over Milosevic voters. But Serbian analysts reject this claim. One said: "He has been consistent in his views since the very beginning."
"For most Serbs, Mr Kostunica's nationalism is seen as a political plus and even most pro-democracy activists find no problem with his views. One said: 'We see Kostunica as a moderate nationalist, perhaps even a patriot. There is nothing wrong with that.'" "...Supporters have also made much of a Serbian legend that the man to save Serbia will come from a place of the same name. Mr Kostunica's roots go back to Kostunici, a village on the slopes of Mount Suvobor."
That last point may mean more in this election than any other. Hopefully, is Kostunica, a college professor, is as level-headed as he is portrayed to be by his friends, he won't plunge Yugoslavia into another civil war over a two week delay.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
