NGO INFO-CENTRE
IT IS TIME FOR EU! – MEDIA MONITORING
REPORT No. 2 (May – July 2009)
SKOPJE, SEPTEMBER 2009
PROJECT: IT IS TIME FOR EU! MEDIA MONITORING
NGO Infocentre: Nikola Trimpare 18-1/5, 1000 Skopje; Phone/Fax: (02) 3233 560, 3216 690; [email protected], www.nvoinfocentar.org.mk
SECOND REPORT, MAY-JULY 2009
FINANCIAL SUPPORT:
This publication is supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID’s) Civil Society Strengthening Project, implemented by the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC). The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) or United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Furthermore, the mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4 I. QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW 5 II QUALITY ANALYSIS 6 1. THE NAME DISPUTE 6 1.1 WITH REFERENDUM TO "SENSIBLE" COMPROMISE 6 1.2 URGENT SOLUTION FOR THE NAME DISPUTE 7 1.3 HOW TO GET EU ENTANGLED IN THIS STEW? 7 1.4 CONFUSING FOREIGN POLICIES 8 2. VISA LIBERALISATION 9 2.1. POLITICIANS DISCOVER THE PROCEDURE 9 2.2. MACEDONIA HELD HOSTAGE BY FOREIGN INTERESTS? 10 2.3. MACEDONIA MISSES ANOTHER CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE LEADERSHIP 11 2.4. MINI-SCHENGEN AREA – THAT IS THE QUESTION! 12 2.5. EXPERT OPINIONS COME TO ASSISTANCE! 12 3. AMBASSADOR FOUERE’S MANDATE 13 4. EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 14 5. TOPICS RELATED TO BENCHMARKS 14 5.1. DISPUTE WITH EVN THREATENS EU INTEGRATIONS 14 5.2. JUDICIARY – WE IMPLEMENT REFORMS? 15 5.3. PROFESSIONAL AND (A)POLITICAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 15 5.4 MEDIA 16 5.5 BOCEVSKI'S RESIGNATION 17 6. LEARNING THROUGH MISTAKES! 17 III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 3 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
INTRODUCTION
The NGO Infocentre, in cooperation with the Macedonian Centre for European Training (MCET), implement a programme for monitoring of media coverage and treatment of European integration processes in Macedonia, under the auspices of the "It Is Time for EU" project, supported by the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) and the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia. This report covers the period May-July 2009 (the monitoring covers the Mondays’ and Thursdays’ programmes of television broadcasters; and Tuesdays’ and Fridays’ reporting in the daily newspapers). The analyses includes the coverage in seven daily newspapers (Utrinski vesnik; Dnevnik; Vest; Večer; Vreme; Nova Makedonaija and Spic) and the central news programmes aired on seven TV stations that broadcast nationally and over the satellite (A1 TV; Kanal 5 TV; Sitel TV; Telma TV; MTV 1; Alfa TV; and Alsat TV) 1. The monitoring doesn't include the media in the languages of non-majority communities because of the limited financial and human resources. The methodology shows the quality of the published information from the aspect of journalistic standards, whether the media/journalists used named sources, whether they consulted all stakeholders, the genres they used, the dominating genres, the treatment of facts and arguments. The methodology also allows an analysis of the contents of the information on the European integrations presented not just by the media, but also by the Government, the political parties and the expert community. This monitoring programme analyzed the levels of understanding of the European Union and European integration processes, the use of terminology and language.
1 Central news programmes: А1 TV – 19:00 hours, Kanal 5 TV – 19:30 hours, Sitel TV – 18:00 hours, Telma TV – 18:30 h, MTV1 – 19:30 h, Alpha TV – 17:30 h and Alsat TV – 22:30 hours.
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 4 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
I. QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW Total number of published and aired articles - 342.
Number of articles in the print media - 172 (50.2%): • „Utrinski vesnik“ - 37 (11%); • „Nova Makedonija“ - 35 (10%); • „Večer“ - 28 (8%); • „Špic“ - 27 (8%); • „Vreme“ - 17 (5%); • „Dnevnik“ - 14 (4%); • „Vest“ - 14 (4%); Number of articles in broadcast media - 170 (49.8%): • MTV1 – 37 (11%); • Kanal 5 TV – 29 (9%); • Sitel TV – 26 (8%); • A1 TV – 25 (7%) • Alsat M TV – 21 (6%); • Alpha TV - 18 (5%); • Telma TV – 14 (4%); In terms of the used genres, the break-down is as follows: • Reports – 287 (84%) • Statements – 24 (7%) • Commentary/Reports – 10 (3%) • Interviews - 7 (3%) • Commentaries – 6 (2%) • Analyses – 5 (1%) • News – 3 (1%). The coverage of the European integration processes was dominated by five topics: the name dispute with Greece; visa liberalisation; the mandate of EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere; Elections for the European Parliament; topics related to the benchmarks and the expansion of the European Union, including the resignation of Ivica Bocevski, Deputy Vice-President of the Government charged with the European Integration processes. The monitoring aims to determine if the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia have on offer sufficient (in terms of both quantity and quality) information on European integration processes in the country to be able to create their own views and make informed decisions. This report covers the five dominant topics separately, to determine what citizens learned and weren’t able to learn on the given topic.
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 5 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
II QUALITY ANALYSIS
1. THE NAME DISPUTE The dispute over the name of the Republic of Macedonia again dominated the coverage in the print and electronic media during the period covered by this report. The statements by Government officials dominated the coverage, and a bit of change in that trend was the increased presence of statements given by government representatives from the other countries in the region and EU, and statements by representatives of the European Parliament and European Commission. In the majority of media reports, there was notable absence of in-depth analysis of this extremely sensitive and significant issue. Judging from the reports and stories, it could be concluded that the journalists far too often have to rely solely on official statements by political figures, while other information remain off limits to the public and are treated confidential.
1.1 With Referendum to "Sensible" Compromise Unlike the previous period covered under this monitoring programme, this time there was emphasized readyness by Government representatives to intensify the negotiations and reach “sensible” compromise to accept a name that is in accordance with the Constitution. In that context, the media carried the statement by Macedonian negotiator Zoran Jolevski, given before the meeting in Geneva, who emphasized: „Macedonia is prepared to resolve the dispute, but the solution shouldn't be in collision with the Constitution- our sources say. It means that Macedonia wants, as a sovereign state, to regulate its relations with third countries and that there will be no violation of the principle of self-determination”.2 Foreign minister Antonio Milošoski, said: “We have approached the dialogue constructively and we expect from Greece to demonstrate the same constructive approach to move the process forward”.3 President Gjorge Ivanov also maintained that the naming dispute is primarily a Greek problem. “Macedonia has no other option but to be constructive in the negotiations on the problem Greece has with our name. The message we send to our friends is that Macedonia wants to leave this problem behind and continue with the integration processes, which are enough of a challenge even without political obstacles”.4 PM Gruevski remained most reserved in his statements which are dominated by a cloud of secrecy regarding the state's strategy how to approach the dispute and the firm determination of the Government to organize a referendum on the name: “We have made a decision on that issue. We have said that, when the moment comes, the proposed solution for the problem of the name will be taken to a referendum and the citizens would decide whether to accept it. We want a referendum the moment we have a proposal that would be, in the least, acceptable to Greece. That is the first requirement, the proposal has to be acceptable to Greece, and the second is to see if it will be acceptable to the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia”5. The Government, the President of the Republic and the other relevant institutions failed to provide enough information on two aspects of the dispute: (1) what solution to the naming dispute would be acceptable to the state leadership, meeting the requirements of constitutionality and being a "sensible" compromise; and (2) what is the political rationale, what is the legal procedure and the legitimacy of the proposed referendum on the name. In that regard, we registered the following analysis: „If the Government does make that decision (the sensible compromise), it will mean that the Government, depending on the political situation, will be able to swim skilfully in any occasion and use the precedent to call for a referendum on any given issue. The idea is that, if the compromise is confirmed in a
2 Dnevnik, June 23, 2009 3 Nova Makedonija, June 26, 2009 4 Nova Makedonija, June 26, 2009 5 Dnevnik, June 23, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 6 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
referendum, the decision carries more weight because the people decided so on its free will. That may be the reason for the warnings of the international community that the eventual compromise ought to be a political decision, to avoid setting the situation in concrete on our own".6
1.2 Urgent Solution for the Name Dispute The media reported the intensive activities of Macedonian political leadership abroad, the visits and statements by representatives of states in the region and EU member-states, that used every possibility to point out that the naming dispute has to be resolved as soon as possible and the Macedonia should refrain from any provocations towards Greece. Almost all media carried the statement by Slovenian President Danilo Türk: “The name dispute has been on the agenda far too long and it shouldn’t be that hard to resolve. I want to warn the representatives of the Republic of Greece, and especially our Macedonian friends, that in this sensitive times, when sensible compromise is needed, attention should be paid to the context in which certain names are used. The name of Alexander the Great should not be used in a way that will make the process of resolution of the name dispute more difficult”7. It should be interesting to note that only MTV1 and Sitel TV, although they sent reporters to the event, missed to present and comment on the last part of Türk’s statement. There was also the statement by Slovenian Member of European Parliament (MEP) Jelko Kacin, who emphasized, using far stronger words: “Macedonia has not yet resolved the name dispute with Greece, the issue that is a serious burden on internal political scene, poisons the political climate and spreads populism. Macedonia, caught in the narrow straits politically, reaches into the history and usurps personalities from a period before Slavic tribes appeared in the Western Balkans. In his view, these are tragic events that are serious burden on the positive future development of Macedonia”7. Contrary to the position of the Government that the naming dispute is primarily problem for Greece, not Macedonia, an anonymous European diplomat noted that: “While it is true that it is Greece that doesn’t agree with the name, it is Macedonia that has the problem, because it blocks Macedonia, not Greece”.8 Former NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer believes that he did everything possible during his term in office to enable Macedonia to join the Alliance, adding that: “The decision at the NATO Summit in Bucharest was clear – a solution for the name has to be found. I say this openly, directly, as your friend – I want to see your country in NATO and I don’t hide that personal ambition of mine. I need to see greater flexibility than what we had in the past”.9 The media also carried that statement issued by mediator Matthew Nimetz, after the Geneva meeting of negotiation teams of Macedonia and Greece: “The time has come to seek the solution more intensively, which will implicitly increase the security in the region and will allow Macedonia to join NATO and EU. Today, we identified the areas that held the negotiation process behind. This is a good moment to use the coming period of time to push the process forward, having in mind the need to solve the long-standing diplomatic dispute”.10 The statement points out that the negotiator is truly interested to find solution for the long-standing dispute that prevents Macedonia’s integration into EU and NATO.
1.3 How to get EU entangled in this stew? A new trend that appeared in this period, judging on the number of articles and statements by Macedonian political figures and state leadership, was the topic of bilateral disputes among the countries in the region (Slovenia-Croatia and Macedonia-Greece) and the position and the role
6 Nova Makedonija, June 16, 2009 7 Dnevnik, May 19, May 6, 2009 8 Dnevnik, June 26, 2009 9 Dnevnik, June 26, 2009 10 Kanal 5 TV, June 22, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 7 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
EU plays in finding solutions. The majority of statements issued by Macedonian political figures, and the bulk of the media commentaries, referred to the need for EU to mediate in the bilateral dispute between Macedonia and Greece, and especially that EU should make its member-state come to senses: “Macedonia counts on EU’s support in the dispute with Greece, Le Monde daily reported after the meeting Macedonian PM Nikola Gruevski held with French President Nicholas Sarkozy”.11 President Ivanov's statement followed the same line of thought: “So far, it was taken for granted that Greece would abuse its membership in NATO and EU for internal political aims".12 Some media speculated that soon the Slovenian-Croatian dispute will be solved, reporting that: “...the dispute with Slovenia will be resolved bilaterally, as a problem of two neighbouring countries. If that happens, and everything indicates such an outcome, we have the Macedonian paradigm how one country, in this case Greece, abuses a bilateral dispute to block a multilateral process, preventing Macedonia from getting the date for the start of accession negotiations with the EU”.13 The majority of monitored media carried the statement by Slovakian foreign minister Miroslav Lajčak: "We believe that bilateral problems, like the one between Macedonia and Greece, or Croatia and Slovenia for that matter, should not block the integration ambitions of your country. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the problem exists and needs to be solved. In the spirit Slavhood and as members of NATO and EU, we support the efforts of mediator Nimetz to find a solution”.14 The reporting on this topic failed to provide enough information to the citizens so that they could understand that the EU functions, above all, on the principle of solidarity and it will never come forward officially to act against the positions and policies of its member-states, and that it prefers such bilateral disputes to be resolved by the involved countries through negotiations. Regarding Croatia's dispute with Slovenia, the mediation of the European Commission comes at a time when Croatia has already started the accession negotiations process and is at far more advanced stage of integration than Macedonia. Nevertheless, in that dispute, too, EU insists that the solution is found by the two countries involved in the dispute, aware that taking sides and the pressure towards any of the two countries would be counterproductive for the enlargement process. Having in mind all that, we believe that we shouldn’t insist on EU’s involvement in the dispute between Macedonia and Greece. Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister (Sweden presided the EU at the time), confirmed that view and had the following to say on the mandate for resolution of bilateral disputes: “I want to say that the responsibility for solution of bilateral problems lies primarily on the countries involved in a dispute. You shouldn't wait for the world to resolve your bilateral issues. It is you that need to solve them. Of course, the manner in which they are resolved is of extreme importance for the ability to improve regional relations and European agenda. Still, we can’t impose solutions on anybody. We can't do that and we don't intend to do that".15
1.4 Confusing Foreign Policies Having in mind the fact that Macedonian diplomacy intensified its activities during the period covered by this report, the media coverage abounded with statements by Macedonian officials who met with their colleagues from EU and the region. We did register in this analysis that our political leaders are not always fully politically correct in their statements and often make enemies instead of friends in the neighbouring countries, in the region and EU. Therefore, we
11 Večer, May 19, 2009 12 Nova Makedonija, June 26, 2009 13 Nova Makedonija, June 16, 2009 14 Kanal 5 TV, June 25, 2009 15 News programmes on Alsat TV, MTV1, Alpha TV, June 22, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 8 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
have the statement by President Ivanov: “Macedonia and Greece have signed an interim agreement which states that Athens shall not prevent Macedonia’s membership in international institutions under the interim name, provisions that it violated in Bucharest, while Slovenia has not accepted any obligations regarding the border dispute”.16 The media didn’t comment on this “politically incorrect” statement by the President who obviously holds Slovenia's side in the bilateral dispute with Croatia. The media covered the participation of Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) as a guest at the Havana, Cuba Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Alignment Movement. According to the media, MFA participated in the meeting “without mentioning a single word about it in public“, only to explain later that “it was a part of the new strategy in foreign policies to participate in multilateral forums and organisations”.17 In that context, we have to bear to mind that Macedonia, as candidate-country for EU membership, is obligated by the provisions of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement to follow the positions of EU's Common Foreign and Security Policies, which doesn’t include the Non-Aligned countries.
2. VISA LIBERALISATION While we noted, in the previous report, the absence of detailed analysis of the contents of the document listing the steps Macedonia has to implement to ensure liberalisation of the visa regime, this time around the media seem to have don a much better job of explaining the whole procedure and providing the public with clear, precise and relevant information on the whole process. In addition, the media covered the regional approach to the visa liberalisation that the European Union could choose to apply when deciding which countries will be included in the white Schengen list. During this period, the issue of the „mini-Schengen zone” between Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia again was put in the spotlight. Another issue that got great attention was the report by the think-tank European Stability Initiative, while some media presented expert views on the lack of research of the benefits and negative effects that the visa liberalisation will bring to Macedonia.
2.1. Politicians discover the procedure Almost all media included in the monitoring reported the procedure, with some offering a more detailed overview. - The (expert) opinions will be sent to all capital cities tomorrow or the day after, diplomatic sources say. The purely expert opinions offer a detailed overview of the progress of reforms in each country candidate for the abolition of the visas. There are no conclusions or assessments, just the overview. The member-states will then compare those opinions with the opinions of the monitoring missions that roamed the Balkans in March and April to assess the reforms in the field. When all those opinions are collected and reviewed, we could expect from the European Commission to propose a visa liberalisation to the member- states".18 It is worth noting that political leaders finally decided to present to the citizens the procedure for visa liberalisation for Macedonia. As a result, the media presented an abundance of statements by Government and Parliament officials. Prime Minister Gruevski said: “At the joint meeting of the working groups, member-states should present their views on changes in regulations, for the transfer of one or several states from the negative to the positive so-called Schengen list. In accordance with the procedures listed in the European Community Treaty, the
16 Špic, May 19, 2009 17 Dnevnik, May 26, 2009 18 A1 TV, May 18, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 9 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
Council will decide, upon a proposal made by the European Commission and after conducting consultations with the European Parliament, with qualified majority".19 A number of members of parliament also made statements, albeit not always completely correct. - “European Commission will give positive opinion on the request by Western Balkans countries to abolish the visa regime. I expect that the Council will confirm the decision. It will also confirm that Macedonia has met all the set criteria - Spasenovski says".20 As we know, Macedonia was marked with 4 out of possible 5 points in two areas, which means that not all criteria were fully met. “Nova Makedonija” daily offered a more detailed analysis: “We need an urgent solution for the problem with Roma and ethnic Albanians that lack personal identification papers, such as birth certificates and health insurance papers. The implementation of strategic plan for the Roma and the Roma Decade Action Plan progresses slowly and suffers from weak institutional coordination and lack of dedication of competent ministers... Border control and supervision need further improvements. Also, the infrastructure and technical equipment in all border crossings needs modernisation and upgrading, the Commission's experts report”21.
2.2. Macedonia held hostage by foreign interests? During the period covered by this report, the media reported on the regional approach applied by the European Union in the visa liberalisation process, pointing out that Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro will be considered as a package. “As of late, we received from the European leaders that the Union will decide to postpone the visa liberalisation for a couple of months and that it intended to favour a regional approach, at Macedonia's expense”.22 The media carried the position of the Government on the matter: “Macedonia will not be held hostage to other countries’ interests. I don't think we will be held hostage to the fact that other countries in the region have earned lower marks on the visa liberalisation (PM Gruevski)”23, or: "Macedonia believes that the individual approach to each country, based on the achieved criteria, should be the correct approach in the process of making political decisions on visa liberalisation (foreign minister Milošoski)".24 Journalists offered similar comments on the regional dimension of visa liberalisation: “The Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn believes that the recommendation should be given to several countries. It means delay for the decision on Macedonia, the only country that has met all conditions, a fact confirmed by high-ranking European officials. If the recommendation is given for several countries at the same time, Macedonia will have to wait for Serbia and Montenegro”.25 Some media went so far to openly accuse EU of double standards: "Should we expect for Macedonia to be separated from the Western Balkans regarding the visa liberalisation or we may see again the double standards and the influence of some EU member- states to stop the process without formally invoking a veto?"26 Some media, in fact, used the same terminology the Government uses: “As we all know, Macedonia got the highest remarks on the visa liberalisation from the European Commission. We also know it has advanced farther from the other countries in the region, yet, there is speculation in the public that we are held hostage by our neighbours, which are not prepared for visa liberalisation and the abolishment of the visas will go as a package, not on individual merits”.27
19 Alpha TV, May 4, 2009 20 Vreme, May 15, 2009 21 Nova Makedonija, May 22, 2009 22 Vreme, June 5, 2009 23 Večer, June 2, 2009 24 Nova Makedonija, May 19, 2009 25 Večer, May 19, 2009 26 Nova Makedonija, June 9, 2009 27 MTV1, June 1, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 10 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
2.3. Macedonia Misses another Chance to Demonstrate Leadership There is still not enough information on regional cooperation, not just from the political leaders, but also by the press. The media regularly carry the statements by European officials related to regional cooperation: “The Council has in mind that regional dimension of visa liberalisation for the Western Balkans, therefore, it emphasizes how important it was for all countries involved to get the visa liberalisation as soon as possible, states the draft-conclusion of the Czech Presidency".28 As with the other examples listed above, the interpretations of what regional cooperation means were totally inappropriate: “In that regional approach, the ministers go so far to call us, together with the others, to achieve the requirements fully and to continue the reforms to that end. It means that Macedonia will have to wait for the other countries, first of all Serbia and Montenegro, or that Brussels is buying time until there is more favourable moment to announce the decision"29. Even the statement by the Swedish Presidency makes an impression that regional cooperation covers just a number of specific areas: “Carl Biltd also emphasized the need for improved regional cooperation on a range of practical issues, like energy or transportation, at a lower political level that would make working on those issues easier”.30 On a note of reminder, the EU Council adopted the Strategy for Regional Approach to the Western Balkans in 1997, with a set of political and economic conditions for the development of bilateral relations of the countries of the Western Balkans.31 However, soon after (in May 1999), pressured by the countries of the Western Balkans, the European Commission abandoned the regional approach and proposed the so-called Stabilisation and Association Process, which presents the strategic framework for reforms in the Western Balkans that will guide the countries to EU members once they meet the requirements and recognizes the need for more flexible approach to allow each individual country to move at its own speed. Therefore, the regional approach was transformed into regional cooperation, which meant that the countries will develop the bilateral and regional cooperation, but there will be no need for one of the countries to wait for the others to round-up its integrations in any area. While the experience in Central and Eastern Europe showed that the regional approach was a motivating factor, with countries competing with each other, in the Western Balkans „self- importance“ prevailed, with abundance of statements like the following: “Serbs and Montenegrins, failing to meet any of the technical conditions for visa liberalisation, try to down- grade Macedonia to their level, with diplomatic means”.32 Government officials demonstrate similar lack of understanding. On one hand, they talk about “Serbia and Macedonia lobbying together in Brussels to get the recommendation for abolition of the visa regime for travel to EU. Macedonia promised all possible assistance and expert knowledge to Serbia to assist its integration in NATO and EU"33, and then on the other hand, we have "Unlike Serbia, which sent a delegation of lobbyists to Luxembourg, led by the Deputy Prime Minister for European Integrations Božidar Đelić, Macedonia wasn’t represented at all. Deputy Prime Minister Bocevski believes that the debate on Macedonia has been exhausted and it is now for Brussels to do its part of the job”.34
28 Utrinski vesnik, June 5, 2009 29 Utrinski vesnik, June 16, 2009 30 Kanal 5 TV, June 22, 2009 31 The regional approach is popularly known as treatment of all states as a group, while regional cooperation implies that the states have signed bilateral cooperation agreements, but are not conditioned with the achievements of other states 32 Sitel, May 18, 2009 33 A1 TV, May 7, 2009 34 Alpha TV, June 25, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 11 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
2.4. Mini-Schengen Area – That is the Question! During the period covered by this report, the media reported on the idea presented by certain political structures to establish a visa-free travel regime between Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo. This is an older proposal and, just as we thought the whole debate has been completed, it recommenced again, especially in the Albanian political block. Quite obviously, that story didn’t end, especially having in mind that the whole concept was expanded from free movement of travellers, to the fields of economy and foreign policies: “In addition to unrestricted travel for citizens of the four countries, Topi and Seidiu propose common economic and foreign policies, similar to the Benelux model".35 There was notable absence of analysis of the matter in the media, in spite of it constantly being resurrected by Albanian political parties in Macedonia. In spite of the consensus among Albanian political parties on this matter, the Government and the opposition have not considered the proposed mini-Schengen area and the possible implications it could have for Macedonia. From the viewpoint of European integrations, the mini-Schengen area makes no sense at all. The free movement of people is already regulated with the visa liberalisation in the Western Balkans, and the common economic policies are covered by the project CEFTA that EU tries to implement through Regional Cooperation Council. As far as common foreign policies are concerned, having in mind the fact that all the said countries aspire to EU membership, for the time being they will have to implement the common positions and views of the European Union towards the other countries in the world. What is possible is strengthen the regional cooperation between the countries and yet, every strengthening of cooperation has to be initiated by the Regional Cooperation Council. It means the EU will be involved in any initiative, an obligation accepted by Macedonia in the Stabilisation and Association Agreement: “Whenever the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia foresees to reinforce its cooperation with one of the countries mentioned below in Articles 12 (Cooperation with other countries having signed a Stabilisation and Association Agreement), 13 (Cooperation with other countries concerned by the Stabilisation and Association Process) and 14 (Cooperation with countries candidate for EU accession), it shall inform and consult theCommunity and its Member States according to the provisions laid down in Title X.”36
2.5. Expert Opinions come to Assistance! Experts and analysts also reviewed the visa liberalisation process. In addition to Macedonian experts, foreign specialists and diplomats were also consulted. Almost all media reported on the debate organized by EU Mission to Skopje, on the occasion of the 5th anniversary of EU enlargement in 2004. The report of the European Stability Initiative (ESI) that ranked the countries of the Western Balkans according to its own set of indicators of achievement of benchmarks in the Roadmap for Visa Liberalisation created great interest and, at the same time, great confusion. The too vague information presented by the media wasn’t sufficient for the citizens to get a clear picture which parts of the analysis were views of ESI, which were positions of the EC, even after the European Commission came forward with a denial: “We are talking about non-issue, having in mind that the report will be presented to the member-states this afternoon. We will hear their comments and only then we may have an official report, said Michele Cercone, Spokesman of the European Commission”.37 Macedonian experts also presented their views on the visa liberalisation. Some of them showed in their statements that they don't fully understand what visa liberalisation was. The statement by professor Dimitar Mirčev, advisor to the President of Macedonia – “I don’t think we
35 Špic, June 26, 2009 36 Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement 37 A1 TV and Alpha TV, May 25, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 12 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
have seen a simulation of what it will all mean. Will we have a repeat of the situation of some countries which lost huge numbers to immigration. Could we have falling numbers of both unemployed and employed people, which will be a serious problem for the national economy. We need to study those matters well and act preventively” 38 – is questionable, having in mind that the visa liberalisation doesn’t include a freedom of movement for labour. Such a statement indicates that Macedonia has not conducted serious analysis of gains and consequences of the visa liberalisation.
3. AMBASSADOR FOUERE’S MANDATE During this period, the media reported the alleged request by the Government to EU to revoke its ambassador to Macedonia Erwan Fouere. After “Koha” daily first published the information that “PM Gruevski already asked from various diplomatic representatives in the country to support his request to end the mandate of EU Office in Skopje", there was a flood of reactions from both the Government and the opposition, but also from EU Mission in Macedonia. The media carried the statement by Ilija Dimovski, MP for VMRO-DPMNE, who spoke on the behalf of the Government: "The ruling party says that it will cooperate with all EU representatives offices, adding that that was a national interest. We have no competence in that matter and we consider those mere speculations. The Government will cooperate with all EU represenatives".39 The media carried the position of VMRO-DPMNE’s coalition partner DUI, its representatives saying: “...EU and America a signatories of the Ohrid Agreement and they have the role of facilitators, observers of its implementation. That is how we view the role of Mr. Fouere, who I think is steel needed to support the Framework process, as facilitator and we don't se anything 40 negative in that regard”. Opposition parties also had their comments: “...Fouere leaving may be a wish of PM Gruevski. This is not about a wish of one political party like VMRO-DPMNE. The point is that we are late in achieving the criteria set by EU, which is why I think EU considers it logical to have Solana's special representative in the country" (Andrej Petrov, General Secretary of SDSM).41 Fouere himself explained that EU alone has the competence to revoke his mandate: “The decision on the mandate of EU's special representative is made in Brussels, not Skopje. In the meantime, I will continue pursuing my mandate. We have a lot of work ahead of us“.42 The media missed the chance to explain that the Ambassador of EU wears two hats - the mandate entrusted on him by EU Special Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, and the mandate of the European Commission. The unification of the two mandates into a single person allows Fouere to react and influence state policies on which Macedonia's progress in EU integrations depends. “Utrinski vesnik” daily alone offered specific information: “As we learned unofficially from our sources in the diplomatic corps stationed in the country, that (Fouere’s) position will not be terminated until the full implementation of the Framework Agreement, i.e. the incomplete decentralisation and border management provisions. The political dialogue is another monitoring obligation for the special representative of the EU. Our sources say that, “the political dialogue in Macedonia, being as it is", allows EU to keep that position open for as long as it wanted".43
38 Sitel TV, May 26,2009 39 А1 TV, July 2, 2009 40 А1 TV, July 2, 2009 41 А1 TV, July 2, 2009 42 Špic, July 3, 2009 43 Utrinski vesnik, July 3, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 13 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
4. EUROPEAN ELECTIONS In the period covered by this report, Macedonian media reported on the Elections for the European Parliament. Citizens were treated with extensive reports and analyses of European Elections. Elections were viewed from several points of view: Turnout of voters and the actual voting on ballot day44, the new composition of the European Parliament45, opinions of European leaders on the results46, the views of Macedonian experts47, European Elections and Macedonia48, European Elections and Greece49, and, finally, the various possibilities regarding the election of the new European Commission in Brussels.50
5. TOPICS RELATED TO BENCHMARKS The media also covered a number of topics related to benchmarks that Macedonia needs to achieve to ultimately get EC’s recommendation to start accession negotiations. The most common of those were the dispute with EVN – under the benchmarks of judiciary and business environment, corruption, public administration, media, police and the fifth component IPA funds. It seems that PM Gruevski „forgot“ that the annual progress report for Macedonia is concluded in mid-September, when he said in Brussels: “We didn’t discuss the negotiation date today, having in mind that we are at a half-year point...”51
5.1. Dispute with EVN Threatens EU Integrations Both Macedonian media and Brussels administration focused on the dispute with EVN. Warnings never ceased: “Brussels has spoken – such treatment of one of the biggest foreign investors will threaten the progress of the country towards EU membership”.52 The European People's Party, the sister-party of VMRO-DPMNE, also issued its warning: “We will follow the EVN case closely and it will be the main topic of the next report on Macedonia”, Otmar Karas, Vice-President of European People’s Party, demands a legal system that would be transparent, fair and impervious to Government influence”.53 The media reported the conclusions of the 6th Council of Ministers of the Energy Community, held in Sarajevo, June 26, where the dispute with EVN was the main topic on the agenda: “Some issues that need changing include: - The competences of the regulatory authority are not fully in compliance with the obligations listed in several directives. The public services obligations and consumer protection practices should continue. Corrections are needed in division of tasks, the provisions for access by third parties need to be regulated in accordance with the energy and gas directives, and the same is true of the rules on new infrastructure in those sectors... - notes the report on deficiencies in the Law on Energy”.54 The media also reminded the Government that the dispute with EVN was related with the two benchmarks – on the judiciary and business environment: “Austria is determined to pressure Macedonia through the European Commission to solve the problem with the Austrian company, so we could get minuses on at least two benchmarks - independence of the judiciary and
44 Sitel TV, Telma TV, Alpha TV, Alsat TV, June 2, 2009 45 Kanal 5 TV, Telma TV, Alpha TV, Alsat TV, June 2, 2009; MTV1, Telma TV, June 8, 2009; Dnevnik, Špic, Nova Makedonija, Utrinski vesnik, Vreme, Večer, June 9, 2009 46 Nova Makedonija, June 5, 2009; Sitel TV, Alsat TV, June 8, 2009; Sitel TV, June 18, 2009 47 Kanal 5 TV, Sitel TV, June 8, 2009; Vreme, June 9, 2009 48 А1 TV, May 28, 2009; Telma TV, June 8, 2009; Nova Makedonija, June 9, 2009 49 Kanal 5 TV, MTV1, Sitel TV, Alpha TV, June 8, 2009 50 Nova Makedonija, June 12, 2009; Utrinski vesnik, June 15, 2009; Sitel TV, June 18, 2009; Nova Makedonija, Utrinski vesnik, June 19, 2009 51 MTV1, Alpha TV, Alsat TV, June 18, 2009 52 Alpha TV, May 4, 2009 53 А1 TV, May 11, 2009 54 Alsat TV, July 2, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 14 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
improved business environment, our sources in Brussels say... High ranking diplomat in Brussels says that EU is viewing Greece with growing sympathy, believing Athens has been flexible, while Macedonia remains the non-constructive party in the dispute”.55
5.2. Judiciary – we implement reforms? The judiciary was another topic that dominated the media coverage during this period. The media report on events related to the reforms of the judiciary. The difference in views on this matter between European Union and Macedonian Government was quite striking. While EC representatives in Skopje noted that “the judiciary and the reforms of the public administration are the main weaknesses in Macedonian's EU integrations (Fouere)”56 and noted that the “judiciary is one of the main elements of the accession process and our relations. It will be in the focus of the future progress reports (Patrik Pake)“ 57, Government officials talked about the achievements of the now transparent and corruption-free judiciary: “Satisfied with the last Transparency International ranking which places Macedonia 72nd in the world and leading country in the region, Gruevski says that the Action Plan has resulted in major improvements in terms of corruption in some state institutions, especially in the judiciary... In 2007 and 2008 the courts, in addition to other fines and sanctions, ordered confiscation of property to compensate for damages to the total of 2,600 million MKD or 43 million Euro" (Nikola Gruevski).58 Justice minister Mihajlo Manevski also claimed there was significant progress in the judicial system: "I believe we have moved forward, knowing that we prepare the judges to get used to the (European) law even before our accession to EU, so that they will easily implement it in practice"59, and yet he forgets - intentionally or not - that Macedonia will join EU only after the full harmonisation with the European legislation. It means that at the moment of accession, the litigation practices of the European Court of Justice will have to be adopted and the judges will have to be able to use it. Regardless of statements made by the European Commission and the Government, the media pointed out at the obvious problems in the judiciary: “The length of the litigations is a major problem for the Macedonian judiciary and needs to be solved urgently"60, while some media, in commentary/report articles, assessed the implemented reforms: “The last nomination of 31 prosecutors last Friday discovered two cases of people who got in by mistake. We can't really think of greater disgrace!”61 The press also noted the importance of the Office of Public Prosecution in the reforms of the judiciary: “Without efficient investigation conducted by the Public Prosecution Office, there will be no efficient closure of the cases of torture victims. I accuse the Prosecution Office for taking its time to complete the investigation, knowing it has cases that go back to 2006".62
5.3. Professional and (a)political public administration The importance of a reformed, apolitical and professional public administration was another point of interest for the media. They presented the commentaries of the members of diplomatic corps stationed in Macedonia, especially those who invest, under the auspices of the bilateral cooperation, in the reforms of the public administration: “For an efficient and professional public
55 А1 TV, June 25, 2009 56 Vest, July 3, 2009 57 Vreme, May 15, 2009 58 Kanal 5 TV, June 15, 2009 59 Sitel TV, May 14, 2009 60 Vreme, June 30, 2009 61 Utrinski vesnik, July 3, 2009 62 Špic, June 27, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 15 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
administration, it is important to have a firm institutional framework that will ensure its independence. This includes clear provisions on elimination of the influence of political parties on the administration - Key said".63 The Government admitted the importance of professional public administrations, which it put in direct relation with the fight against corruption: “Administration is the first barrier for corruption, being most vulnerable to corruption penetration, with citizens coming in contact with the administration daily to apply for documents or fulfil some obligations. Therefore, we constantly talk about the roles that state and local administrations play and the importance that they present that first barrier to corruption (minister Manevski)".64 Brussel’s comments on the public administration are well known to the public thanks to the media coverage of meetings the Government held with EC officials. The media covered the presentation of reforms in Macedonia by the Government team at the meeting of the Committee for Stabilisation and Association in Brussels: “The key topic this year, according to the same sources, will remain the overstaffed politicized public administration, with special emphasis on the recent appointment of a member of the ruling party at the head of the independent Energy Regulatory Commission".65 The media also carried the comments about the public administration voiced by the Macedonian public, commonly related to the changes of civil servants at every change of government and appointments of party soldiers in positions of extreme importance for the European integrations in the Republic of Macedonia: “Changes of government in Macedonia bring about changes in personnel that have cost thousands of Euros from European funds to get properly trained. Millions of Euros spend by EU to train the public administration in Macedonia go to waste”.66 Therefore, the reactions from the European Commission were quite expected. The media report: “The remarks from Brussels... refer to the public administration and the way it uses the personnel that was trained with EU funding".67
5.4 Media The media are a new topic of interest for this report. Due in part to the events that transpired during the period covered by this analysis, in part to the voiced reactions by the International Federation of Journalists, the freedom of media gains importance for Macedonia, not only in terms of the EU integrations, but also because of future development of democracy in the country. This especially having in mind the fact the Macedonia didn’t get the recommendation because of failure to meet political criteria. The situation of the media in the Balkans in general is seen as cause of concern: “...and it would be so even more were it not for the great authority OSCE and the Council of Europe enjoy in these countries...” and some solutions are offered: “The International Federation of Journalists already demanded to bail out the media just as the banks are being bailed out”, said William Horsley from the European Association of Journalists. He pointed out the problems of media concentration, penetration of government and financial interests in the media sphere, falling confidence in journalism all over the place, the increasingly frequent cases of illegal wiretaps and following of journalists, the ties between business and politics, the growing challenges to the right to publish secret and confidential documents posed by the authorities, in spite of the public interest, and the public portrayal of journalists as enemies".68 The general impression is that the situation of the media is worse than ever and that we need to democratize the media sphere: “The media, tired of the internal crisis and hampered by the lack of big journalistic names, pressed by the down-to-earth interests of political leaderships,
63 Špic, Vest, May 29, 2009 64 Alsat TV, June 15, 2009 65 Alpha TV, June 18, 2009 66 Nova Makedonija, June 19, 2009 67 Kanal 5 TV, June 18, 2009 68 Utrinski vesnik, May 5, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 16 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
have found themselves in a much more difficult situation than ten years ago”.69 Free and professional media are key necessity for effective fight against corruption: “You need independent media – strong independent media, without which those stories (on corruption) will not be published and there will be no pressure on such cases, and, of course, you need to promote the participation of the civil sector to ensure that governments and other state institutions will be transparent and accountable to the public (Marshall)".70
5.5 Bocevski's Resignation The majority of the print media reported that the new candidate to take the place of the resigning Deputy Prime Minister for EU Integrations Ivica Bocevski was Vasko Naumovski. Some media provided an overview of the academic profile of the professor at the New York College. There was absence of in-depth analysis of the reasons for Bocevski’s resignation in the media, and the citizens never received the true information why Bocevski decided to resign his seat in Gruevski’s Government. Some media ignored the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister for EU Integrations resigned at the key moment for Macedonia's accession to EU and tried to present the appointment of Naumovski as another step of the Government to meet the EC recommendations: “That will allow the Government to meet the recommendations of the European Commission to fill in the vacancy in the important sector, on the very eve of EC's decision on visa liberalisation and the October's Progress Report for Macedonia".71 The media demanded from Bocevski to come out and say the reasons for the resignation personally, but he didn’t feel the urge to explain his actions to the citizens, in spite of the fact that his mandate resulted from their trust and confidence: “The public has the right to know why Ivica Bocevski submitted an irrevocable resignation. ... He offered no explanation for his resignation to the press or the public, unlike his usual practice to present all his activities. He avoided the public and left behind many doubts and unanswered questions”.72
6. LEARNING THROUGH MISTAKES! Following are some of the common mistakes the media made in the period covered by this quarterly report. The aim or our analysis of the mistakes is to assist the journalists to identify their weaknesses and correct them. Most mistakes were of “institutional” type again, resulting from lack of knowledge of institutions and their functioning. Following is the list of mistakes, ranked by frequency of occurrence, not how serious they were:
1) “The dispute between Macedonia and EVN is another additional condition for EU integration”.73 –The dispute is covered by two benchmarks – the judiciary (in the part on transparent judicial system) and the development of business climate (in the part on independence of regulatory bodies). 2) “Whether Macedonians will be able to travel without visas next year, that will depend on how the Germans and the French feel about it. The two countries control between them almost one quarter of the European Parliament - France with 78 and Germany with 99 MEPs. If we added Greece here, which almost certainly won’t support our bid, there are already more negative than positive votes”.74 –The decision on the visa liberalisation is not adopted by the
69 Utrinski vesnik, June 23, 2009 70 Telma TV, June 15, 2009 71 Večer, July 3, 2009 72 Utrinski vesnik, July 3, 2009 73 А1 TV, May 4, 2009 74 Sitel TV, May 11, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 17 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
European Parliament, but by the EU Council, upon consultation of the EP. In more detail, here is the actual procedure in the European Parliament: The European Commission submits the proposal to the Council, which refers it to the General Secretariat of the European Parliament. Under the consultation procedure, EP has to adopt an opinion on the proposal before the vote in the Council. The General Secretariat sends the proposal to the competent Committee on Civil Freedoms, Justice and Internal Affairs (LIBE), and the Committe on Foreign Affairs (AFET) could also play a role in the procedure. The LIBE Committee appoints an EP’s rapporteur who shall monitor the proposal's way through the committees and to the plenary session vote. The rapporteur accepts the opinions of the other committees, including AFET. 3) “The procedure for a country to be listed on the white list doesn’t start with recommendation, but with a formal proposal by the European Commission”.75 - The legal procedure starts with an official proposal of the Commission for changes into the Schengen Regulation 539/2001, Annex I (black/negative list) and Annex II (white/positive list). Before that, the European Commission presents the evaluation reports to the member-states and makes a recommendation to abolish the visas for the qualifying country/countries. If there is general agreement that one or more countries meet the criteria, the desk officer of the Commission or a team of clerks prepare the draft-Amendment. In any case, there is no expert debate, as some media reported: “Today the expert debate on the visa waiver start in the European Commission"76. Similar mistakes were noted in the other media: “Macedonia is expecting from the European Commission to recommend to the Parliament to allow visa liberalisation for Macedonian citizens”.77 –The European Commission doesn’t make recommendations to the Parliament. Also: “The European Praliament almost unanimously recommended to the European Commission to abolish the visas for the countries of Western Balkans”.78 4) “After the ministerial meeting, the recommendation will be announced and then ratified by the European Parliament”.79 –The European Parliament doesn’t ratify anything (see the procedure above). The EU Council adopts decisions with qualified two-thirds majority (228 of 309 votes, Ireland and the UK don’t vote). Therefore, the following quote is wrong: “The European Parliament adopts its opinion on recommendation of the European Commission, and the decision is made by the European Council with qualified majority vote80"; or “The European Commission notes that, after the consultations with the member-states, the opinions will be submitted to the governments of the candidate-countries, but the shedule is decided by the European Counil” 81; or “...the decision (on the visa liberalisation) should be adopted by the European Parliament by the end of the year” 82. 5) “Jacques Barosso, the President of the Commission, was among the evacuees".83 –In fact, the article refers to Jacques Barrot, EU Commissioner of Justice and Internal Affairs. Similar mistake was made in: “There is infighting in the Commission between Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn and EC President Jose Manuel Barosso whether Macedonia should enter the white Schengen-list alone or in a package with Serbia and Montenegro”.84 –That battle was fought by Olli Rehn and Jacques Barrot. Then again: “the vice president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barosso”85 – Barosso is not the Vice-President by President of the European Commission. The most frequent mistake regarding the titles of EU officials was the following: “This report, in the opinion of European Commissioner for Security and Foreign Affairs Javier Solana, reflects, above all, the clear progress the countries made in terms of
75 MTV1, May 18, 2009 76 MTV1, May 25, 2009 77Telma TV, May 18, 2009 78 Nova Makedonija, May 19, 2009 79 Večer, May 19, 2009 80 Večer, May 22, June 5, 2009 81 Kanal 5 TV, May 25, 2009 82 Večer, May 16, 2009 83 Špic, May 19, 2009 84 Nova Makedonija, May 19, 2009 85 Vreme, May 19, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 18 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
requirements for visa liberalisation”.86 Worth noting is that some media, unexplicably, changed the name of Slovakian Ambassdor to Macedonia Robert Kirnag into Igor Furdik.87 6) “The payments agency IPARD, which will manage the funds, got the national credentials in a record time...".88 –The IPARD Agency has not been accredited yet. Similarly: “Although those funds are available since last year... Although the date approaches when the country will start using the first funds from the Union through the IPARD programme, Macedonia will have some 45 million Euro at its disposal”.89 –The IPA funds, including the V component for development of agriculture, have been available since 2007 and are not the first EU funds available to Macedonia. The mentioned figure, 45 million Euro, is also unclear, having in mind that the Multi-annual Indicative Financial Framework – MIFF lists the following amounts for Macedonia under Component V: 2007 - 2.1 million Euro, 2008 – 6.7 million Euro, 2009 – 10.2 million Euro, 2010 - 12.5 million Euro, 2011 - 14 million Euro, 2012 - 16.927 million Euro, or a total of 62.428 million Euro. 7) Reporters seem to not understand the changes in the Lisbon Treaty, therefore the following comments: "The Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn could become the first foreign minister of the EU in the new European Commission”90 - the position of the foreign minister, with the changes, is not a part of the European Commission; or "Barosso pays the price of the un-adopted Lisbon Treaty, so there is the dilemma whether he should be elected in accordance with the rules from Nice or the rules listed in the new constitution... the Lisbon Constitution"91 - the Counstitutional Agreement for EU failed and the Lisbon Treaty is the "consolation” that doesn't list all changes agreed in the Constitutional Agreement. 8) “EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere faces investigations by the very institution he represents”.92 –Erwan Fouere represents the European Commission and one can complain about his work to the European Ombudsman. The article doesn't make it clear what it was about.
III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS During this period, the media coverage of EU integration processes in Macedonia was dominated by five topics: 1) the name dispute with Greece; 2) visa liberalisation; 3) the mandate of EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere; 4) Elections for European Parliament; 5) topics related to the benchmarks and the expansion of the European Union, including the resignation of Ivica Bocevski, Deputy Vice-President of the Government charged with the European Integration processes. The coverage leads to the following conclusions:
• Compared to the previous report, this time the media demonstrated improved coverage of the subjects related to EU integrations and more analytical approach, especially in the coverage of Elections for European Parliament and visa liberalisation. The key remains to improve the investigative aspect of journalism, especially on topics that maintain constant presence and are of extreme importance for the state and the citizens. Again, the journalists mostly present information on reported events and processes, as well as statements by political and public personalities. There were mistakes in the reporting, due to the media’s limited knowledge and understanding of European integration processes; they often rely on irrelevant sources
86 MTV1, June 15, 2009 87 А1 TV, May 11, 2009; Vreme, Vest, May 12, 2009 88 MTV1, June 1, 2009 89 Alsat, June 1, 2009 90 Nova Makedonija, June 12, 2009 91 Utrinski vesnik, June 16, 2009 92 Nova Makedonija, June 5, 2009
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 19 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
of information of dubious merit because of inaccessibility of relevant sources of information; lack of time and capacity for proper research and analysis; editorial policies that demands from journalists to cover several different topics simultaneously, which prevents them from acquiring competence and specialise on the given subject matter. • Having in mind the sensitive nature of the name-dispute and the secrecy that surrounds the package offered by the UN Facilitator, the media de facto lack proper access to official information, preventing the public from following this important matter properly. The media, within their capacity, continued to be proactive and tried to open up the issues on which politicians kept silent. The Government, the President of the Republic and the other relevant institutions failed to provide enough information on two aspects of the dispute: (1) what solution to the naming dispute would be acceptable to the state leadership, meeting the requirements of constitutionality and being a "sensible" compromise; and (2) what is the political rationale, what is the legal procedure and the legitimacy of the proposed referendum on the name. • Another topic that appeared during the period covered by this report refers to the bilateral disputes between different countries in Southeast Europe and EU’s role and position in the process of their resolution. The reporting on this topic failed to provide enough information to the citizens so that they could understand that the EU functions, above all, on the principle of solidarity and it will never come forward officially to act against the positions and policies of its member-states, and that it prefers such bilateral disputes to be resolved by the involved countries through negotiations. • If we noted, in the previous reporting period, an absence of detailed analysis of the contents of the document listing the steps Macedonia has to implement to ensure liberalisation of the visa regime, this time around we registered that both the contents of the said documents and the procedure were well covered by the monitored media. However, there is still a lack of information on the obligations of Macedonian citizens travelling to EU without visas (for example, the fact that they will have to prove they have enough money to cover the costs of their stay, that they have insurance polices, that they will not be able to stay for more than 90 days per year in the countries of the Schengen Area, that they won't be able to work there, can be returned at the border crossing, etc.). • One of the key topics that lacks proper analysis - the coverage also exhibits total lack of understanding of the matter - is the issue of regional cooperation as integral part of the Stabilisation and Association Process. It was especially evident in the reporting on the visa liberalisation process, in the contest of relations with Serbia and Montenegro, but also on the issue of the mini-Schengen Zone that would include Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo. The media obviously confuse the regional approach that EU applied before 1999 and regional cooperation which is part of the strategy for Western Balkans' association to EU, which makes it an integral part of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements as contractual instrument for realisation of the strategy. • Government representatives, too, seem to not understand fully the regional cooperation, with the media continuing to report discrepancies in the foreign policy (the tendency to say one thing when visiting European leaders, and completely another when we host them on their visits to Macedonia). If the Government were capable to refraining from statements that Macedonia is held hostage by foreign interests and truly helped Serbia and Montenegro, through joint lobbying efforts in Brussels, Macedonia could have demonstrated leadership in the region, at least on the issue of visa liberalisation. Similarly, the media reported the efforts of the Government to resurrect the idea to join the Non-Alignment Movement, without prior public debate on the acceptability of such policies, especially in view of the fact that Macedonia, as candidate-country for EU membership, is obligated to follow the positions of EU's Common Foreign and Security Policies towards third countries.
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 20 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
• Possibly the most “politicized” of all topics was the mandate of Ambassador Fouere, could have been avoided by the media if they only consulted the right sources in time. Presenting the views of the political parties, without proper analysis of his mandate, the media contributed to the confusion in the public. The same could be said of the article about the alleged investigation of Fouere, which is also confusing and failing to provide the information who complained of his work in Macedonia, why and to whom. • The media also covered a number of topics related to benchmarks that Macedonia needs to achieve to ultimately get EC’s recommendation in the Progress Report. The most prominent of those were the judiciary, the dispute with EVN, the public administration and Bocevski’s resignation, although the direct relation with the benchmarks wasn't always established. The media also put emphasis on the fact that the public didn't get an explanation of the reasons the pushed Deputy Prime Minister Bocevski to resign after his return from the U.S. • As in the previous report, the media's knowledge of the functioning of the IPA financial instrument is superficial, presenting vague and provisional figures regarding the funds available for Macedonia. During the period covered by this report, it was especially noticeable in the reporting of the Fifth component for development of agriculture, administered by the IPARD Agency.
Therefore, the following recommendations regarding the media coverage of matters related to EU integration processes:
1. Training for the journalists The need remains to create a sustainable form to build the journalists' capacity to follow the EU integration processes in Macedonia. The training needs to be continuous and a part of some sort of institutional framework with stable financial construction. The need for continuous training will become more pressing at the moment Macedonia starts the accession negotiations. To improve the quality of information, the editorial offices need to promote investigative and analytical approach with their reporters, especially in view of the fact that the start of negotiations will make EU a matter of internal affairs, not foreign policy issue.
2. Capacity building strategy for the media The media can secure the funding for additional education and professional training for their reporters through European funds. In addition to IPA, which has earmarked significant funds under the Multi-User IPA (better known as regional IPA) programme, funding is available from Community Programmes (in addition to the dedicated Media Programme, there are LIFE+, Progress, Europe for the citizens, which all have public communications components). If editorial offices admit the need for such continuous training on EU related issues, the funding could be easily available from the bilateral assistance secured for Macedonia.
3. Better Access to Information The Government and the European Commission need to improve the access to information and documentation relevant to European integrations, at least on the most burning issues. For example, the Government and the European Commission could organize a conference on the subject “How to facilitate cooperation between Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo”, under the auspices of the Regional Cooperation Council, and invite journalists from the Western Balkans to participate. At the same time, the Government should organize regular briefings (both its own and in cooperation with the European Commission) on current policies, processes
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 21 NGO Info-centre, September 2009
and activities, in which it will openly discuss the matters and inform the press. The Government needs to organize such briefings on all technical issues, such as IPA, accrediting of structures for decentralized IPA management, the IPARD agency, the National programme for adoption of European legislation. We would, therefore, remind the Government and the European Commission about the provisions of Article 93 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement: “The Community and the Republic of Macedonia will take the measures necessary to stimulate the mutual exchange of information. Priority will be given to programmes aimed at providing the general public with basic information about the Community and professional circles in the Republic of Macedonia with more specialised information”.
4. Need for Public Educational Campaign on Visa Liberalisation To avoid unpeasant surprises for the Macedonian citizens once the visa liberalisation is adopted, the Government needs to start a true education campaign to inform the citizens about their obligations when travelling to the Schengen area. The ongoing campaign of the Government is promotional and addresses only the benefits of the visa liberalisation.
5. Promotion of Debate In the absence of quality relevant debate on key social and political issues, there was notable pro-active action by the media. Some media and journalists again tried to provoke a debate on a number of issues of key importance for the future of the state, like the resurrection of the Non- Alignment Movement. Having in mind the fact that the media are a part of civic society, they need to continue to promote and initiate public debate, together with civic association, experts and intellectuals in general. We should not forget the crucial role of the Government and the European Commission which should initiate and participate constructively in the public debate. The Parliament may also need to discuss the changing course (or the attempts to change the course) of Macedonian foreign policies, having in mind that the Non-Alignment Movement wasn’t mentioned in the election campaign of the ruling VMRO-DPMNE, nor were part of the Government’s Programme adopted by the Parliament.
It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 22 NGO Info-centre, September 2009