Monitoring of Media February 10Th – April 20Th 2011

NGO INFO-CENTRE MACEDONIAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN EDUCATION

Monitoring of Media February 10th – April 20th 2011

SKOPJE, July 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 3

Quantitative Overview 3

Quality Analysis 4

Lack of Knowledge on EU-related Issues 5

Opposition Boycotts the Parliament, International Partners Express Concerns 5

Diplomatic Scandals: Fouere Leaves, Sorensen Arrives 7

Gruevski’s meetings with Countryman, Füle and Barroso. The Events on the Skopje's Kale 9

The Resolution of the European Parliament and Thaler's Resignation 13

Diplomatic Activities 14

2 Introduction

The NGO Infocentre, in cooperation with the Macedonian Centre for European Training (MCET), continues its monitoring of quality of media coverage of the European integration processes in Macedonia in 2011. The monitoring programme is financially supported by the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia (FOSIM). The monitoring includes the coverage in eight daily newspapers (“Utrinski vesnik”; “Dnevnik”; “Vest”; “Vecer”; “Vreme”; “Nova Makedonija”, “Spic” and “Koha”) and the central news programmes aired on seven TV broadcasters (A1 TV; Kanal 7 TV; Sitel TV; Telma TV; MTV 1; Alfa TV; and Alsat TV). This report covers the period from February 10 to April 20, 2011. The monitoring follows the Monday, Wednesday and Friday news programmes on broadcast media, and Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday editions of the daily newspapers.

Quantitative Overview

In the period February 10 – April 30, 2011, a total of 360 journalistic articles and stories, dedicated to European integration processes, were printed and aired by the monitored media. Of that total, 199 (55%) were published by the print media, and 161 (45%) were aired by the broadcast media. Following is the breakdown of publication of articles by print media: - „Utrinski vesnik“ published 47 articles (13%); - „Vecer“ published 35 articles (10%); - „Vreme“ published 28 articles (8%); - „Dnevnik“ published 23 articles (6%); - „Nova Makedonija“ published 22 articles (6%); - „Spic“ published 20 articles (6%); - „Vest“ published 12 articles (3%); - „Koha“ published 12 articles (3%).

Following is the breakdown of results by broadcast (electronic) media: - Kanal 5 TV aired 31 news article (9%)1; - MTV1 aired 29 news articles (8%)2; - Sitel TV aired 28 news stories (8%)3; - A1 TV aired 26 news stories (26)4; - Alpha TV aired 19 news stories (5%)5; - Alsat M TV aired 15 news stories (4%)6;

1 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 21 and 30.3.2011, as well as on 3.4.2011 2 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 21 and 30.3.2011, as well as on 3.4.2011 3 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 21 and 30.3.2011 4 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 21 and 30.3.2011 5 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 21 and 30.3.2011

3 - Telma TV aired 13 news stories (4%)7.

In terms of the used genres, the break-down is as follows: - Reports – 301 (84%) - Statements – 25 (7%) - Interviews - 12 (3%) - News – 9 (2.5%). - Commentaries – 9 (2.5%) - Analyses – 2 (0.5%) - Commentary/Reports – 1 (0.3%) - Readers' letters - 1 (0.3%)

Quality Analysis

During the period covered by this monitoring report, the media reported the diverse views of the government and the opposition, the positions of EU and U.S. representatives, consulted with the members of the diplomatic corps stations in the country, invoked expert opinions, etc. Journalists also provided their own commentaries and opinions, often invoking official statements and releases issued by EU. Nonetheless, the general impression and inescapable conclusion is that the debate surrounding EU was fully positioned in the context of daily politics in Macedonia, as illustrated by the fact that less than 1% of all analyzed items refer to concrete reforms and projects that facilitate the accession to EU. The media presented a lot of information, but in view of the lack of any indepth analyses and the fact that, often, different media presented different, at times contradictory information, the public didn’t get answers to all open question on a number of important topics and subjects. Several media openly stood in defence of Government’s agenda and reserved the bulk of their coverage to Government officials and representatives. Representatives of the international community openly critical of the Government, like Zoran Thaler, Jelko Kacin, ambassadors Reeker (U.S.) and Fouere (EU) were targeted by orchestrated discrediting campaign by journalists and intellectuals close to the Government, while the pro-government media opposed their views with the views of their colleagues, members of European Parliament (MEPs) Posselt and Kukan. The analysis shows that the most striking example of tendentious reporting, with the aim to defocus the public attention, was the coverage of the visit of Jose Manuel Barroso to Macedonia. Before the visit, invoking unnamed sources, pro-Government media announced that Barroso was coming with an offer for a screening process. It became clear after his statements, and the lecture he gave to a wide audience, and especially after the official press releases issued by the EC, that there will be no screening process, nor should we view

6 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 13, 20, and 27.2.2001, on 2,6,13,20,27 and 30.3.2011, as wellas, on 3,4,6,10 и 24.4.2011 7 For technical reasons the monitoring does not include the primetime news on 21 and 30.3.2011

4 the announced pre-accession dialogue on political criteria as some sort of success and achievement.

Lack of Knowledge on EU-related Issues

The analysis of media coverage in the period covered by this report shows an apparent lack of knowledge of EU-related issues. That was especially evident in the reporting of a number of media who failed to make the distinction between the candidate’s status and the recommendation to start accession negotiations. The mistake they made was to inform the public that Macedonia could lose the candidate's status which, from the formal legal point of view, is impossible. What is possible, however, is for the EC to conclude, in the Progress Report to be released in October 2011, that Macedonia, due to the regress in the reforms necessary to move forward in the European integration process, especially in the segments of democracy and human rights, doesn't meet the political criteria which will lead to the suspension of the recommendation to start the negotiations. Another example of that lack of sufficient knowledge is the reporting on EU's financial assistance instruments for Macedonia. Headlines like „Sorensen Promised €98 Million“ leads the public to the conclusion that those are some new funds, not part of the total funding for Macedonia under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), for the period 2007- 2013. The lack of knowledge about European integration processes was evident in the reporting of Zoran Thaler's activities in the preparation of the text of European Parliament's resolution on Macedonia's progress in the integration processes. Some journalists constantly mistook the Resolution for the EC’s progress report, denying the citizens a precise information to which document their coverage referred.

Opposition Boycotts the Parliament, International Partners Express Concerns

At the start of the reporting period, the media focused their attention on the opposition’s boycott of the Parliament, in reaction to the decision of the Court to freeze the accounts of A1 Television. The media reported that the Parliament scheduled a session to discuss the events at Pero Nakov Street (the seat of the broadcaster) and carried the statement by the Speaker of the Parliament Trajko Veljanovski: “I am prepared to open all questions that the opposition has detected as problematic in terms of the democratic capacities of the Parliament and other institutions, and in particular questions related to the media”.8 SDSM stepped up to the challange, saying they had no intention to participate in the work of the Parliament: "SDSM has no intention to take part in sessions of the Parliament that are little more than a cheap attempt to play democracy and paint a prettier picture of the cruel reality. Nikola Gruevski wants a total darkness, total media silence, so that his lies could rule freely” 9. The media also carried the response of the ruling party: “SDSM does not boycott the institutions to protect some political interests or positions, but it does it under the excuse that the political dialogue is lacking and that the government uses undemocratic methods. In

8 Dnevnik, February 1, 2011 9 Dnevnik, February 1, 2011

5 fact, the boycott is a smoke-screen to protect a high ranking party official or some of their powerful public supporters. It is so obvious“.10 Brussels, too, reacted to the political crisis. The Spokeswoman of Commissioner Füle, Butler, quoting the 2010 Progress Report, which emphasized the importance of political dialogue, appealed: "all politicians from the Government and the opposition should work together to restore the dialogue and ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament".11 The media also carried the messages of unnamed diplomats stationed in Brussels: “We expect a certain level of maturity, without the need the need to lead you constantly by the hand (...) Macedonia doesn't demonstrate that it truly fights for a place in EU, and judging from the current situation in the country and the current developments, we can’t truly gauge the real level of interest in European integration processes in Macedonia”.12 The media carried the statement by EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere, who emphasized the need for political dialogue: “It is truly sad that the number of meetings of political leaders has been reduced to the bare minimum. Over the past two years we have had just one or two leaders' meeting and, with the exception of the meeting organized by the President of the country, there were no meetings of political leaders in the last year and a half”.13 The media also reported that Fouere called for a leaders’ meeting, and in his statement, he placed the bulk of the blame on the Government: “I lament the failure by the Government to follow the recommendations made by the EC and to stick to the effort to secure the political dialogue, a fact especially emphasized in the Commission’s report”.14 At about the same time, German Ambassador to Macedonia Ulrike Maria Knotz also appealed for restoration of the political dialogue.15 The media reported the plan devised by VMRO-DPMNE and DUI to call for early elections in April 2011, motivated by the fact that the opposition didn't offer any solutions and has not presented its demands to get the political crisis resolved. The opposition leader Branko Crvenkovski responded: “If Gruevski and VMRO-DPMNE intend to go to elections without proper conditions for fair and democratic vote, he is fooling himself”.16 Another extremely critical statement was made by Christian Hedberg, who concluded there was a lag of reforms in the period after the publication of the EC’s 2010 Progress Report: “If this trend continues, this can be another lost year in the process of European integrations. The state needs to get back to work on all issues”.17 The criticism on the threatened freedom of media were the most common, and the events that have led to that situation were subject to different opinions.18 In the meantime, the media carried, for the first time, the warnings that the recommendation could be questioned, presenting information from the process of drafting of European Parliament's Resolution in Brussels, in the context that Thaler's draft-Resolution puts the name-dispute, quite subtly, in the background, with the main objections referring to the lagging reforms: Brussels started to put obstacles around the recommendation to start negotiations with Macedonia and it is only a question of time when it will take “the bend”

10 Nova Makedonija, February 1, 2011 11 Vreme, February 1, 2011 12 Dnevnik, February 2, 2011 13 Nova Makedonija, February 3, 2011 14 Vreme, February 3, 2011 15 Vreme, February 3, 2011 16 Dnevnik, February 3, 2011 17 Nova Makedonija, February 3, 2011 18 Utrinski vesnik, February 3, 2011

6 before next November and, if nothing changes in current policies, revoke the decision of the European Commission. We have the first sign of that in the radical language of Zoran Thaler's report (...)19The media noted, as priority issues that need the total focus of Macedonia, the freedom of the media, the population census, the public administration, the economy, unemployment and poverty.20 The pro-government media carried the statement by U.S. Senator John McCain, who places the blame for the lagging reforms outside of Macedonia: “I want to say that I am deeply concerned by Greece’s approach to your membership into NATO”.21 Slovenian MEP Jelko Kacin also came forward with some critical messages: “The problem with Macedonia is that, for six years, it not only has not stood in place, but has actually regressed away from the status it already had. The recommendation is worthless if it’s not operational, and Macedonia has done nothing to make it operational".22 MEP Zoran Thaler also presented his comments and made a concrete offer to escape the dead-end in European integrations: “The problem lies in the fact that there is no initiative coming from Skopje to demand greater involvement of EU... I met with the Prime Minister for tete-a-tete discussions on several occasions and I understood what the problem was. So, if the instrument is to accept some sort of compromise, that is obviously a major problem“.23 The media made efforts to consult with U.S. Ambassador Reeker, who appealed to the common sense and democratic capacities: “Nobody outside of the country will solve your problems. This is the 21st Century, you are an independent state involved in the European integration process, you face challenges regarding your membership in NATO and EU, in the areas of economy, institutions, civil society. Welcome to the real world“24.

Diplomatic Scandals: Fouere Leaves, Sorensen Arrives

The period covered by this report coincided with the farewell meetings held by EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere. The media reported his meeting with the foreign minister Milososki, who “expressed his gratitude for his personal engagement and contributions and lamented the fact that they didn't achieve the common goal"25. The media also reported the cancellation of Fouere's scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister26, and Gruevski offered the following explanation: “The meeting with Mr. Fouere was cancelled because of my full schedule and in that context, I have to say that, if I find the time over the next period, I will meet with him, and if I don't find the time, I will thank him for his work and efforts in this way"27. The media reported on Fouere's meeting with the President Ivanov, who said on the occasion: “Over the past five years, we had many developments of extreme importance for Macedonia's European aspirations, we had two positive Reports and two recommendations

19 Utrinski vesnik, February 3, 2011 20 Utrinski vesnik, February 3, 2011 21 Vecer, February 3, 2011 22 A1, February 11, 2011 23 Alsat, February 11, 2011 24 Utrinski vesnik, February 10, 2011 25 Vecer, February 12, 2011 26 A1, February 23, 2011 27 Alfa, February 23, 2011

7 from the European Commission to start the accession negotiations with EU, and we had the liberalisation of the visa regime".28 Some media commented the Government's treatment of farewell meetings with EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere: “If we followed the rule that we should judge the work on its results, it seems that the Government spared no effort to make EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere remember Macedonia as a bad episode of his career. The way things are, Fouere’s successor, the Dane Peter Sorensen, will face the similar fate and his first criticism of “her Highness” will destroy the good accord”.29

In spite of the criticism, Fouere remained open: “I am not the only one that is subject to criticism... However, we are here to help Macedonia. Even when we are critical, we do it in such a way to attract the attention of the leaders and the Government to some areas that need attention".30 The media reported that Gruevski did find some time for Fouere31, who said after the meeting that he presented Gruevski, at the meeting, with the autobiography of Nelson Mandela, a man who, in his view, was "a living example of the promotion of reconciliation, political dialogue, and I hope will give Prime Minister Gruevski direction and inspiration in his dealing with the challenges faced by the country”.32 After Fouere left, the media were preoccupied with the arrival of new EU ambassador Sorensen, who had his first meeting with minister Milošoski. He didn't address the media after the meeting.33 The media reported that Milošoski emphasized Sorensen's great experience and knowledge of the region.34 Next on Sorensen's agenda was the meeting with President Ivanov, to whom he presented his credentials, and the media carried the following statement: “The wide support the integration into EU has among the citizens of the country is a great advantage in the integration process and will make my work even more appreciated".35 When reporting on his first meetings with the state leadership and Government officials, the media noted that Sorensen didn't use the name "Macedonia" and didn't speak to the media36, while some media put special emphasis on the fact that he met similar treatment in Serbia to the one reserved for Fouere here.37 Before his meeting with the Speaker of the Parliament Veljanovski, pro-government media commented: “Let’s hope that he will now honour the media with a statement and explanation why he avoids using the constitutional name of Macedonia”.38 The start of Sorensen’s term in Macedonia coincided with the open letter by a group of Macedonian journalists (Mirka Velinovska, Dragan Pavlovic-Latas, Milenko Nedelkovski and Darko Janevski) to the Mixed Parliamentary Committee EU-Macedonia, which strongly criticized Fouere, Thaler and the Dutch Ambassador Simone Filippini39, and Velinovska

28 Vreme, February 24, 2011 29 Vreme, February 24, 2011 30 Dnevnik, February 24, 2011 31 A1, February 25, 2011 32 Sitel, February 25, 2011 33 Kanal 5, March 2, 2011 34 Vecer. March 3, 2011 35 MTV1, March 4, 2011 36 Sitel, March 4, 2011 37 Spic, March 5, 2011 38 Sitel, March 7, 2011 39 Spic, March 10, 2011

8 announced she intended to continue with the attacks: “I will continue to write. I will bombard Brussels with letter and excerpts from articles published in the media so they can see what has been written and what is being done in the country, so they can understand what sort of things were are being sold as democracy".40 Immediately after that, there was the criticism by Risto Nikovski, advisor to President Ivanov, who said: “Majority of ambassadors in Skopje, or some of them, go well beyond their term and prerogatives to tell us what we need to do. That goes beyond their mandate and is not a part of the diplomatic practice. For an ambassador to tell you in the country who should enter a coalition with whom after an election, or to tell you publicly that you need to change the name is quite unusual”.41 The third attack came from the Mayor of Bitola Vladimir Taleski, who compared the current policies of EU towards Macedonia with the Holocaust of the Jews: “Wasn’t the story of the Jews a serious warning for contemporary policies? What gives some people the right to deny and dispute the rights of others? Doesn't the tragic story of the Jews bring about associations to the desired outcome of a contemporary policy that takes place in the European countries"42. Although the media carried the statements of Foreign Minister Milososki, who tried to play down those attacks with an explanation that everybody has the right to individual opinion, which has no effect on the strategic directions of the Government43, opposition representatives saw the series of attacks as a part of a synchronized and well designed tactics: “I fear this is not just personal mannerism, but a system. We are seeing a collective, organized campaign by Government officials and people close to the Government to produce enemies of Macedonia, with a clear goal. The failures to meet our strategic goals - the membership in NATO and EU should be covered with diplomatic scandals“44 (Ilinka Mitreva, SDSM).

Gruevski’s meetings with Countryman, Füle and Barroso. The Events on the Skopje's Kale

During the period covered by this report, the media covered the visit by the Principal Deputy Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Countryman, the visit by President Gjorgi Ivanov to Washington, and the visit by PM Gruevski to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in Washington45. The media carried the comments by several experts and political figures who interpreted the activities of high-ranking White House officials as a negative sign, with Nano Ružin noting that: “Washington sounded the alarm because of the fact that Macedonia is a candidate for membership in NATO and EU. It all has to do with the latest developments, such as the lack of political dialogue and undermined political processes” 46. The media carried the statement by Countryman on his expectations regarding the direction of the talks: “We will discuss our concerns regarding the political situation in Macedonia, our wish to see that the country has progressed towards the standards required by EU, and we shall express our concerns about those areas in which progress has been lacking recently” 47. The significance and the meaning of the meeting were subject to many

40 Utrinski vesnik, March 5, 2011 41 A1, March 9, 2011 42 Utrinski vesnik, March 10, 2011 43 Telma, March 9, 2011 44 Alfa, March 9, 2011 45 Dnevnik, February 8, 2011 46 Vreme, February 8, 2011 47 Utrinski vesnik, February 10, 2011

9 comments, after the meetings were concluded. According to some members of the press, Countryman described the talks as hard and expressed his concerns that Gruevski was making promises, but acted quite differently: “This emerges from the last meetings held by Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Countryman in Macedonia. Countryman, we learn, was very precise when he expressed his concerns about the developments in the country behind closed doors, and in particular with the fact that whenever Washington or Brussels demanded from the Prime Minister, they saw that he was doing quite the opposite"48. Journalists commented that similar information were coming from Brussels, where officials didn't see the point of a more active involvement in the name-dispute, having in mind that there was no real wish on the Macedonian side to resolve and close that matter. “EU increasingly question the promises made by the prime minister, who tried to convince them, before the recommendation to start negotiations were made, that should that recommendation was given, it would help him resolve the name-dispute more easily. “We trusted him and we still don't have a solution”, says the source, adding that EU officials are busy people who get involved in a problem only when they consider where their involvement would be the most productive (...)49. Before Gruevski’s trip to Washington, the attention of the media focused on the incident on the Skopje’s Kale (the Fortress), where massive fistfights erupted between opposed groups of Macedonians and Albanians, over the plans to build a church there.50 The media carried the reactions from Brussels: “These are interethnic tensions and they need to be resolved peacefully in the Government and in the Parliament, where all communities are represented” 51. The media reported on the demand presented by Deputy Foreign Minister from the Dutch Ambassador Simone Filippini to distance herself from the actions of her advisor Artan Grubi, who took part in the incident52. Some Albanian analysts saw the case as violence over the Albanians. “Gruevski applies institutional violence on Albanians. He simply provokes the Albanians to react so that they would later look like the culprits”.53 (professor Imer Ismaili). On the eve of Gruevski’s meetings in Washington, the media reported that interethnic relations and freedom of the media will be on the agenda, and also presented the view of Tito Petkovski, who said: “The U.S. won’t be ambivalent towards the events in the Balkans, especially in Macedonia, and will make strong demands from Gruevski to meet the promises he made to the citizens in 2008” 54. The opinion of former prime minister Vladimir Bučkovski also attracted a lot of attention. "Evidently, the patience of the whole international community, and above all the patience of Washington, is at such a level that even Gruevski can't rely on his old tricks to make a promise and do something else altogether"55. The media carried Ambassador Reeker's opinion that, after the meetings, Washington is even more concerned than before, and Denko Malevski commented: “Some years ago, when the current opposition was in power, the then NATO representative in Macedonia complained to me that Macedonian politicians don't understand the language of diplomacy. “It is embarrassing how direct we have to be when we talk to them!”.56 The media reporting differed in terms of the assessment of Gruevski's visit to Washington, with the contents ranging from it being a "historic visit" to "we were reprimanded over the current situation in the country". Zvonimir Jankulovski

48 Utrinski vesnik, February 12, 2011 49 Utrinski vesnik, February 12, 2011 50 Kanal 5, February 14, 2011 51 Alfa, February 14, 2011 52 Vecer, February 15, 2011 53 Vreme, February 15, 2011 54 Nova Makedonija, February 15, 2011 55 Nova Makedonija, February 17, 2011 56 Utrinski vesnik, March 5, 2011

10 commented on that occasion: “The U.S. insist on a stable region. The issues in Macedonia – the situation in the judiciary, interethnic tensions and civil society – are again tied to the security".57 Stevo Pendarovski had his own view of the messages coming from Washington and the events on the Skopje’s Kale: “The interethnic tensions are the most painful spot for the country. Macedonia has managed those tensions weakly, and if similar events to that were to happen, they would bring about the question of stability, something that is of great interest to the U.S.".58 Of great interest are the critical comments that hinted at previous manipulations of messages arriving from Brussels and Washington: "VMRO sees the Democrats (in the U.S.) as pro-Greek administration, and should be lucky that they have not yet become pro-SDSM administration. Therefore, the effects of the messages coming from the U.S. will be the same with the effects of EC’s report” 59. The media reported on the visit by European Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle, who made the following announcement: “I intend to assess not just the political climate, but the political development in the country. I want to present the results of my assessment to both the ruling political party and the opposition” 60. Interestingly enough, the media also carried Füle's statement on the events in North Africa and the parallels he drew to the Balkans: “I believe that no country should feel untouchable by this process of historic proportions. As far as the rest of Europe is concerned, I believe nobody is and should be considered untouchable”. 61 Füle’s visit to Skopje was replaced with Gruevski’s visit to Brussels, to discuss the Government’s willingness to go to early elections without the opposition. Some media and experts commented on that change of plans: “Some experts interpret it as an indicator that Brussels believes that the Government is an obstacle to the political dialogue"62. After the meeting, the media interpreted the messages of the press release issued by Füle’s Office. According to A1 TV, “Gruevski, with his policies, denies Macedonia her European future", and Füle “demands from the country to return to the European agenda and criticizes the lack of dialogue, the violent action against the media, the meddling of executive in judicial branch, the lacklustre fight against corruption, and unprofessional public administration".63 Contrary to that, according to Kanal 5 TV, "the meeting with Füle focused on the political dialogue and the efforts that the Government and the opposition need to make”, while the press release didn't say that Macedonia was in a bad position.64 According to the LDP (the Liberal Democratic Party), EC's release was the last call to Gruevski and Crvenkovski to sit down and reach an agreement.65 The press also carried the commentary by Slobodan Čašule: “There is nothing new, you know. Under Greek pressure, EU constantly repeats the same. We have somehow reached this position, regardless of the performances of the country” 66. The media also carried excerpts from EC's press release issued after the meeting: “As far as political dialogue is concerned, I call on PM Gruevski and opposition leader Branko Crvenkovski to increase their efforts to find a solution for current misunderstandings. I expect that they will renew the serious talks that took place recently. It is of crucial importance to have elections that will meet all international standards. The country has to maintain its

57 Nova Makedonija, February 19, 2011 58 Nova Makedonija, February 19, 2011 59 Utrinski vesnik, February 19, 2011 60 A1, March 4, 2011 61 Alsat, March 4, 2011 62 Spic, March 24, 2011 63 A1, March 25, 2011 64 Kanal 5, March 25, 2011 65 Telma, March 25, 2011 66 Alsat, March 25, 2011

11 reform course. I emphasized the need for Skopje to achieve progress in the areas of political dialogue, the judiciary, public administration, fight against corruption and freedom of media”.67 The media reported that EU Ambassador Sorensen assessed the meeting as very good.68 On the eve of the visit by the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, Government officials denied that the visit was related to the current events in the country.69 We received quite different messages from Brussels: "We would like to see political unity and stability, and greater dedication to reforms” 70. Regarding the expectations from the meeting, the media most often consulted Deputy Prime Minister for European Integrations Vasko Naumovski: “This and previous visits demonstrate that enlargement remains high on the EU agenda”.71 The public showed great interest in the announcements made in pro-government media that, on request of the Government, Barroso will grant Macedonia with a screening process72, while new messages arrived from Brussels that it will require a historic agreement on the strategic consensus and compromise on the future of the country.73 Barroso presented those messages in the public lecture he gave. However, it wasn't seen as sufficient reason to minimize the totally opposed interpretations of the meaning of the meeting. The media assessment of the announced accession dialogue ranged from "historic agreement for Brussels, historic for Skopje“74 to "the monitoring can't be seen as a success”.75 Žarko Trajanovski, in one of his last weekly columns in “Dnevnik” daily, strongly commented on the messages Barosso presented in his speech: “Leave the past behind and turn to the future” can be seen as the point of a humiliating lesson. Will we have the stomach to digest the disappointing message that the main obstacle on our way is the incompetent leadership that produces an illusion of the past instead of a real future?”76 On the opposite side, the media carried the statements by Deputy PM Naumovski and his persistent effort to convince the public that, although it wasn’t really a screening, the effects of the dialogue will be quite similar: “We aim to achieve all goals that are measured with the “screening” itself, i.e. to monitor the synchronisation of legislation and implementation of reforms that would mean we met the criteria”.77 Natasha Butler, the Spokeswoman of Commissioner Füle, came forward to clear up all the controversies that appeared after the meeting and confirmed that the increased frequency of high-level meetings between EU and Macedonia and the dialogue do not confirm the start of the screening: “This dialogue between the EC and Macedonia is an instrument that has not been used previously with other countries. The Commission made that decision to allow for “regular structured debate to support the reform process in the country, especially judicial reforms, reforms of public administration, political dialogue, fight against corruption and freedom of expression and media will face serious criticism”.78

67 Dnevnik, March 26, 2011 68 MTV 1, March 28, 2011 69 Sitel, April 4, 2011 70 Dnevnik, April 5, 2011 71 Vest, April 5, 2011 72 Sitel, April 8, 2011 73 Spic, April 9, 2011 74 Kanal 5, April 11, 2011 75 A1, April 11, 2011 76 Dnevnik, April 13, 2011 77 Kanal 5, April 13, 2011 78 Dnevnik, April 14, 2011

12 The Resolution of the European Parliament and Thaler's Resignation

In the period covered by this monitoring, the Resolution on Macedonia's Progress of the European Parliament was constantly in the focus of interest of the media, and that interest peaked on two occasions. The media followed carefully the debate on the Resolution at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament and the replies by Greek MEPs to Deputy Prime Minister Naumovski, who insisted that Greece should act responsibly, noting that “it was hardly a secret which was the country that prevented Macedonia from getting the invitation to join NATO”.79 On the Greek side, the most vocal was MEP Maria Kopa, who tied the candidate's status with the wish of EU to stimulate a quicker solution for the name dispute.80 MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis was equally critical and openly asked: “Was it Greece’s fault that you had difficulties with the early elections, the selection of SEC president, or feuds regarding the voting of the diaspora”.81 The media also reported the concerns voiced by Thaler: “This can’t go on like this. We are in a dead-end and it is not true that we have a status quo. This situation produces frustrations, negative developments in the country and in the region, and I call for all sides to act more responsibly”.82 The media reported on the amendment battle in which, of a total of 152 submitted amendments, compromise was reached on 14 amendments, including the new amendment calling on EU to take more active role on the name-dispute.83 According to media reports, there were efforts by Bulgarian and Greek MEPs to delete the term “Macedonian language” through amendment interventions.84 In conclusion, the media reported that the draft- Resolution was adopted, the recommendation was not questioned, but the old objections remained - on the political dialogue, interethnic relations, judiciary and the media.85 In the meantime, the media carried the information that EP’s Rapporteur on Macedonia Zoran Thaler was caught in a corruption scandal86 and that he resigned, offering the following explanation: “My resignation should enable an investigation of all facts and circumstances of this attempt to compromise my name, without any pressure. In accordance with my ethical standards, I would like that the truth comes out and that it shows who acted legally and who illegally”.87 The media presented different views and opinions on the resignation. Andrej Zernovski commented as following: “Thaler’s resignation means Macedonia lost one of her greatest supporters, a proven friend, MEP that stood for our Euro- Atlantic aspirations".88 The views of the Government were evident in the commentaries of one of its media mouth-pieces, Sitel TV's editor Dragan Pavlović-Latas: “So, the big friend of Velija Ramkovski and B.C. (Branko Crvenkovski), Zoran Thaler, who has worked for them for a long time, gut stuck into a corruption scandal".89 The media reported that the social-democratic MEP Vigenin of Bulgaria was named the new ad hoc rapporteur for Macedonia.

79 Kanal 5, March 16, 2011 80 A1, March 16, 2011 81 Utrinski vesnik, March 17, 2011 82 Telma, March 16, 2011 83 Dnevnik, March 17, 2011 84 Kanal 5, March 16, 2011 85 Alsat, March 16, 2011 86 A1, March 21, 2011 87 Kanal 5, March 21, 2011 88 Telma, March 21, 2011 89 Sitel, March 21, 2011

13 The media expressed great interest in the debate and the vote on the Resolution at the EP Plenary Session. They reported that the Resolution demands urgent start of membership negotiations, while it denoted the language with the terms “official” and, albeit rarely, "Macedonian language"90. The media reported that nine of the submitted amendments referred to the use of the constitutional name and the adjective “Macedonian” 91. The Resolution was presented by the ad hoc rapporteur for Macedonia Vinegin (MEP from Bulgaria), who appealed to Macedonian authorities: “The name-dispute should not be used for internal political gains. I hope that the Government and the opposition will reach an agreement that it should be treated as a common national cause. After June 5, there will be no excuses. Regardless of who will form the Government, it will have a clear mandate to work on the issue”.92 The main topic of interest for the media, after the vote, were the adopted amendments to delete the adjective, while nobody would admit that it was a matter of questioning the identity, but a technical problem arising from the unresolved name- dispute.93 After the adoption of the Resolution, the media joined the emotional debate on the reasons that led to such an outcome. “A debacle of the orange antiquisation and diplomacy that was placed in the hands of incompetents with the right party membership card” 94, “EU makes shameful decision"95, "Balcanization of Europe"96 - are the illustrative qualifications used by politicians, journalists and analysts to express their disappointment. On the other hand, the media reported that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its satisfaction that the attempt to prevent the vote failed, and that the majority voted for the Resolution.97 University professor Ljubomir Frčkovski commented on his expectations what the next moves by PM Gruevski may be: “I don’t think he will comment either way. He will let the satellite parties to debate, to get angry at Greek and Bulgarian MEPs, or at Füle and Barroso, when they visit the country. Anyhow, in any major commotion, such as this, when he completely lost legitimacy in spite of his 83 MPs, Gruevski decides in favour of a ‘party’, like these elections”.98

Diplomatic Activities

During the period covered by this monitoring, the media registered a series of diplomatic activities by Macedonian officials and EU representatives in Macedonia. Their attention focused on the visit of Deputy PM for European Integrations Vasko Naumovski and foreign minister Antonio Milososki to Brussels, where they met with Zoran Thaler99 to discuss the draft-Resolution of the European Parliament.100 According to Naumovski, the visit aimed to ensure that the European Parliament Resolution will stay on the position to recommend the start of membership negotiations with Macedonia: “The Republic of Macedonia hopes that, over the coming period of time, the European Parliament will, in the upcoming Resolution, reiterate its support to start negotiations for full membership".101

90 MTV 1, April 6, 2011 91 Dnevnik, April 7, 2011 92 Sitel, April 6, 2011 93 Utrinski vesnik, April 7, 2011 94 A1, April 8, 2011 95 Alfa, April 8, 2011 96 MTV 1, April 8, 2011 97 Telma, April 8, 2011 98 A1, April 8, 2011 99 Sitel, February 9, 2011 100 Vecer, February 10, 2011 101 MTV 1, February 9, 2011

14 Furthermore, the media followed carefully the debate on the Resolution at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament102, and some media carried the statement by Charles Tannock, who was very critical of Fouere: “European representative Fouere plays some sort of viceroy or governor of the country. I believe that we should say here that a diplomat should not interfere in internal political affairs in a country, which he obviously does".103 Another interesting fact reported by the media was the creation of the Club of Friends of Macedonia in the European Parliament, led by the German demo-christian MEP Martin Kastler, with 20 MEPs applying voluntarily for membership104. During the same period, pro- government media dedicated great attention to the statement by Darja Babler, Chairwoman of the Slovenian Parliament's European Affairs Committee, who criticized the way Greece treats Macedonia at a conference in Budapest: “We gave financial assistance to Greece, and the country continues to block the Republic of Macedonia without reason"105. The media also reported the concerns in Greece after the creation of the Friends of Macedonia Club at the European Parliament.106 The media paid great attention to the messges presented by MEP Edvard Kukan, during his visit to Macedonia. The pro-Government media carried just those statements that see solely the name-dispute as an obstacle for the progress of European integrations in Macedonia: “If the name-dispute was resolved today, I believe Macedonia will get the start of negotiations date”107. The same media reported his message to the opposition: “It is only normal for the opposition to criticize the Government (...).However, all those activities should take place in the democratically elected institutions in the Parliament” 108. The media paid the greatest attention to the statement by Deputy PM Naumovski, who had the following to say to Greece in the joint press-conference with Kukan: “They could reiterate their red line hundred more times, and we shall, if needed, repeat one thousand times that the Republic of Macedonia shall never yield to blackmail"109. Some media carried Kukan's critical messages, invoking the Progress Report, that reminded of the need "to continue the reforms of the judiciary, the fight against corruption and the independence of the media"110, and he said, in an interview for "Dnevnik" daily, that EU "follows the situation with utmost care and encourages the Government to do more on the issues like the rule of law, judicial reforms, cooperation with civil society and freedom of the media".111 The media covered the visit by Naumovski and a group of civil servants from the SEA (Secretariat for European Affairs) to Zagreb, to the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the aim to exchange experiences with their Croatian colleagues.112 The Croatian hosts joined the appeals for quick resolution of the name-dispute: “I know it won’t be easy, we had to go through a similar situation which we resolved through a compromise, and I believe that Macedonia will have the necessary knowledge and ability, preparedness for agreement and

102 Vecer, February 10, 2011 103 MTV 1, February 11, 2011 104 Utrinski vesnik, February 10, 2011 105 Nova Makedonija, February 12, 2011 106 Utrinski vesnik, February 12, 2011 107 Kanal 5, February 21, 2011 108 MTV 1, February 21, 2011 109 Sitel, February 21, 2011 110 Alfa, February 21, 2011 111 Utrinski vesnik, February 22, 2011 112 Kanal 5, February 25, 2011

15 compromise, to resolve that matter (the dispute with Greece) and become full-fledged member of NATO and EU".113 The media announced the two-day visit of Slovenian foreign minister Samuel Žbogar to Macedonia and his planned visits with Gruevski, Ivanov, Veljanovski, Crvenkovski and Ahmeti.114 The media carried his message to the Macedonian leaders: “I call on the political leaders here and in other places to return the political life to the Parliament. I appeal to both the opposition and the Government to reach an agreement for the former to return to the Parliament, to restore the political dialogue where it belongs, in the Macedonian Parliament” 115. At the same time, the media reported his call to the new Government to resolve the name- dispute: “The newly elected Government should make the resolution of that issue one of its main goals and tasks. The closure of that issue will help resolve the other open issues related to Macedonia's integration into NATO and EU"116. During the period covered by this monitoring, the media covered the visit by Turkish Minister of European integrations Egemen Bagas, to his Macedonian colleague Naumovski.117 After the meeting, Bagas expressed his support, emphasizing that “the whole world knows that this country, where I stand today, is the big country of Macedonia (...)There are difficulties, but I am positive a solution will be found, and Turkey will remain on your side"118. The media also dedicated great attention to the visit by President Ivanov to Hungary, where he met with President Pal Schmitt and Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The media reported that Ivanov demanded that the Croatian-Slovenian model of conflict resolution is applied to the Macedonian-Greek dispute119, and he was promised that Hungary, during her EU Presidency, will put on the agenda the start of the negotiation date in the next session of the Presidency.120 According to President Schmitt, the bilateral problems in EU “should be resolved by the date of accession to the European Union. Therefore, there is no obstacle that prevents the decision to award Macedonia with a start of negotiations date. The negotiations can take three to four years to complete, and the solution to the problem could be found during that time” 121.

113 Sitel, February 25, 2011 114 Kanal 5, March 7, 2011 115 Telma, March 9, 2011 116 Sitel, March 9, 2011 117 Kanal 5, March 23, 2011 118 Nova Makedonija, March 26, 2011 119 Sitel, April 11, 2011 120 Dnevnik, April 12, 2011 121 Sitel, April 11, 2011