Analyst: "Media gets it wrong on Disputed Territories"

Among those singled out by Averko: 'Der Spiegel', which took the position that adhering to a U.N. resolution "is unrealistic"

On Saturday 10 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the United States ignores the basic principles of international law and is striving to impose its own rules on other countries.
" - We are seeing increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law," the Russian president calmly noted as an undisputed matter of fact during a weekend gathering in Munich.

Saturday's Feb. 10, BBC telecast to the US portrayed an "aggressive" Russian President Vladimir Putin "lashing out" at the US during a weekend gathering in Munich. The White House was then quoted as being "disappointed" with Putin's comments. This BBC segment had an excerpt of an interview it conducted with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Ivanov claimed a one sided American approach to handling global trouble spots.

No example was given to support Ivanov's view. The BBC frequently utilizes this tact, leaving not so informed viewers with unanswered points of relevance. To fill in the blank on this particular: an American official recently visited Moscow with the brazen attitude that Kosovo could be independent and that the basis for such didn't apply to pro-Russian former Soviet territories in dispute, including Transdniester (or Pridnestrovie, its official name). There's nothing "aggressive" about that stance? Forget about the BBC doing a comparative breakdown to review whether Kosovo has the best case for independence (which it doesn't, as those familiar with my previous commentary know).

The mentioned BBC segment ended with Arizona Senator John McCain welcoming Putin's candor, while believing that the Russian president was aggressive. Talk about role reversal! Those on the Russocentric side who are familiar with McCain, are well aware of his overtly Russia and Serbia unfriendly statements over the course of time.

A Sunday Feb. 11, New York Times article uncritically described CIA Director Robert Gates' statement after Putin's address as taking a high road for seeking an end to what Gates termed was Cold War language on Putin's part. This makes no sense whatsoever. With two competing superpowers during the Cold War, there was less of a uni-polar world. Putin's Munich commentary is against one power dictating to the rest of the world (not to be misread as Putin seeking a return to the intense bi-polar rivalry of the Cold War).

At the Munich meeting, Putin firmly stated that any solution on Kosovo must have the full support of Serbia. Too bad he didn't add that Trans-Dniester should receive prompt international recognition as an independent state. How many times have the Bush Administration and leading American foreign policy pundits claimed that Kosovo has a "unique" case for independence unlike Trans-Dniester and some of the other disputed former Soviet territories?

Ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia, German mass media at large has been decidedly anti-Serb in its slant. Arguably more so than what's evident in Anglo-American mass media. The Serb population in Germany is small when compared to that country's Croat and Muslim populations. Germany's being on the losing side in two world wars against Serbia might further explain the bias as well.

This slant was shown in a recent Der Spiegel interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. When Lavrov noted how UN Resolution 1244 calls for a return of Serb border personnel to Kosovo, Der Spiegel shot back with the opinion that it was "not realistic". The interview left that point without follow-up. To fill in the blank: it's not unreasonable for Serbia to have border troops and government staff on Serb territory. UN Resolution 1244 calls for both. Kowtowing to the law of the jungle is a bad model (in this instance, basing one's decision on how Albanian nationalists will behave if they don't see their agenda supported).

A related bias is shown in the Western non-sympathy for Trans-Dniester's view. Romania is a recently inducted EU member which actively backs Moldova's hypocritically applied Soviet era border claim on Trans-Dniester. Unlike Trans-Dniester, Romania was an ally of Germany during World War II.

In the background of these biases is the Berlin-Moscow relationship. The present reveals how the two can be on relatively good terms with each other, while maintaining different historical sympathies towards some others on the European continent. The last decade saw Germany re-ignite its WW II relationship with Croatia as Russia showed its historical favoritism with Serbia. In some instances, the vestiges of two world wars appear to linger on.

The Tiraspol Times' integrity has come into question by several Russia unfriendly sources. Why? Where has it been factually wrong? One can easily find material in The Tiraspol Times which is straight forwardly critical of Trans-Dniester's government. In comparison, just how accurate are other English language sources covering Trans-Dniester? I defy anyone to come up with the goods. Rather than do this, is the out of sight, out of mind mode employed by many a media powerbroker.

For calculated reasons, a number of establishment venues selectively prop certain sources over others. Over time, the promoted sources acquire "acceptance" with this method. Related to this mechanism is how "the other side" (as in the one being unfairly represented) is periodically given limited space. As I've communicated elsewhere, Soviet propaganda failed in believability because of its overtly one sided approach. The sophisticated propagandist is adept at formulating a believable enough (at least for some) image of objective reporting.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. In addition to The Tiraspol Times, his commentary has appeared in the Action Ukraine Report, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson's Russia List, Russia Blog, Serbianna and The New York Times.

See also:
» The former Moldavian SSR: A non-country which broke in two
» Kosovo precedent takes shape as USA rules out return to the past