CENTER FOR DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION ON MINORITIES IN EUROPE - SOUTHEAST EUROPE

CENTER FOR DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION ON MINORITIES IN EUROPE – SOUTHEAST EUROPE (CEDIME-SE)
P.O.Box 51393, GR-14510 Kifisia, Greece
Tel. 30-1-620.01.20, Fax 30-1-807.57.67
e-mail: office@greekhelsinki.gr web page: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr

(Presented by Nafsika Papanikolatos, Coordinator of CEDIME-SE and Spokesperson of Minority Rights Group – Greece, at the Seminar on “The Role of Minorities in Electronic Media and Transfrontier Broadcasting,” Szeged, Hungary, 29-30/10/1999, in the framework of the Joint Program between the European Commission and the Council of Europe on “National Minorities in Europe”)

In his seminal study Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1992) Benedict Anderson shows how the advent of print helped “create the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation” (p. 46). Already “the Reformation (…) owed much of its success to print-capitalism. Before the age of print, Rome easily won every war against heresy in Western Europe because it always had better lines of communication than its challengers” (p. 39). Thanks to Gutenberg’s invention, however, “Luther became the first best-selling author so known. Or to put it another way, the first writer who could ‘sell’ his new books on the basis of his name” (p. 39). The imagined community of Christendom was forever shaken. Its decline was subsequently helped by “the elevation of [various] vernaculars to the languages-of-power” (p.42) replacing Latin.

“These print-languages laid the bases for national consciousness in three distinct ways. (…) Third, print-capitalism created languages-of-power of a kind different from the old administrative vernaculars. Certain dialects inevitably were ‘closer’ to each print-language and dominated their final forms. Their disadvantaged cousins, still assimilable to the emerging print-language, lost caste, above all because they were unsuccessful (or only relatively successful) in insisting on their own print-form. (…) Hence the struggles in late-twentieth-century Europe by certain ‘sub-’nationalities to change their subordinate status by breaking firmly into print – and radio” (p. 45).

Indeed, the development of electronic media has made it possible for ‘subordinated’ groups to reach wider audiences. Moreover, as the technological development made printing and broadcasting cheaper, minority media started emerging in large numbers. For example, minority or migrant radio stations thrive in numbers in many Western countries. Nevertheless, they are usually local which limits their access to their potential audiences. As for the print media, distribution is still expensive, which means that minority or migrant newspapers cannot again reach easily their target groups. Finally, and most importantly, all scholarly studies by communication analysts have shown that access of disadvantaged groups to the mainstream media, where they have a chance to present their arguments to mass audiences, is limited if non-existent.

Enter the Internet revolution, which can be for all modern subordinate cultures almost what the print revolution was at the time for the vernaculars in their struggle with the dominant Latin culture: a means to achieve parity with (rather than replace as in the case of the print revolution) majority cultures in the Third Millenary. The key reason is that access to Internet is almost free or in any case very cheap. Computers with the necessary software can be purchased for less than $1,000. Telephone costs for the necessary e-mails are usually lower than those of a four-member household with teenage or young children. If one accepts some advertising, or better if s/he finds some provider or server with a sense of mission, listserves and web pages can come for free.

Such facilities mean that a piece of news can be distributed literally around the world through an electronic message (e-mail) instantly and almost for free. If it is well documented and newsworthy, it can quickly lead to a spiral of reactions, perhaps even an electronic campaign, that, in some instances, may even change the course of events shortly after the message is sent. Should the messenger prove his/her credibility, future such messages will be automatically considered credible without much additional research, and lead to similar reactions and campaigns.

On the other hand, when such information is stored in web sites, easy and –again- free access to them makes the work of all those who want to react in a comprehensive and credible way much simpler, as it secures instant access to crucial background information. Powerful search engines tend to make access to minority sites very easy. Nowadays, even photographs (worth a thousand words as it is well known) may be easily available in such sites (though they need much more space than texts).

So, for example, imagine a journalist dedicated to the cause of minority rights and justice who wants to write a powerful front-page story on a massacre of Serbs or Roma today, or of Albanians yesterday, in Kosovo. S/he needs to show it is not an isolated case but is linked to previous atrocities in this region, whether of the last year or the last century. There is a lot of relevant information available in the Internet, and, ten years from now, it is expected that s/he would be in fact “embarrassed by the vast choice of available material.” It needs be mentioned here that the Internet has been used extensively during the Kosovo crisis and many NGOs from the embattled Yugoslavia managed to make their voice heard only through that medium, even when eventually some of their statements were published by traditional print media.

The problem, though, for this person will be to sort out what is and what is not credible. Especially when the topic is not as hot as the Kosovo conflict, but rather as obscure as, say, to use current examples from Greece, the forthcoming trials of a Buddhist meditation center in Halkidiki (1 Novemebr 1999) and of a Pentecostal priest from Salonica (5 November 1999) -both charged with illegally operating houses of worship- or of an Aromanian (Vlach) activist accused of having spread false information by distributing a publication of the European Bureau of Less Used Languages that mentioned the (officially unrecognized) minority languages in Greece (9 November 1999). It is a sure bet that all of you will find these -unbelievable for a democratic country- trials newsworthy but could not really ‘sell’ them to publishers or directors if you fail to explain what kind of sensitivity and past history makes such human rights violations possible.

A quick glance at the joint web site of Greek Helsinki Monitor and Minority Rights Group - Greece could provide the answer. A report on Greece’s Vlachs or on religious freedom in that country would give you the missing information. Let us now turn to a brief presentation of the CEDIME project, along with its Balkan Human Rights Web Pages and Balkan Human Rights Listserve. The Center of Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe (CEDIME) aims to provide comparable, comprehensive and continuously updateable information in the Internet on, ideally, all ethnonational, ethnolinguistic, and religious minorities in Europe. To secure high quality, these presentations will be reviewed by many area experts before final publication. On the one hand, there will be presentations of accumulated credible scholarly knowledge about each minority, along with extensive bibliography and contact addresses of minority institutions, including media and web sites. Plus, in a listserve will be distributed daily postings on minority related credible information, including of course human rights violations, that will serve as updates of the presentations and will be eventually incorporated in them.

At this stage, the project is seeking the necessary funding for the creation of a European seat (possibly in Geneva) and some half-dozen regional teams. Among the latter, the Southeast European one is already functioning on an experimental basis with the Web Site and Listserve mentioned above. In the coming weeks, the first comprehensive presentations of religious and ethnonational minorities in Bulgaria will be made available at the web address: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/CEDIME-Reports-Minorities-in-Bulgaria.html
In the meantime, a presentation of the project and some general articles about minorities and minority rights in Europe are available at the web address: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/organizations/cedime.html while information about minorities and minority rights in Greece, in different formats, is available at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/Minorities_of_Greece.html. Finally, again in the coming weeks, state reports to the Council of Europe pursuant to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, along with corresponding alternative, ‘shadow’ reports prepared by NGOs, will be available at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/CEDIME-FCNM.html   .

In this effort, as well as in all other efforts of minorities and minority rights-oriented NGOs to make optimal use of the revolutionizing Internet so as to help achieve in the end equal access between minorities and majorities, the crucial term is ‘credibility.’ Majorities have fully benefited for over a century of their domination of the print media, so that today, although they are still producing ample and often gross propaganda, they have also achieved a high level of scholarly work that sets the standard of credibility, both in scholarship and journalism. Minorities that are now given a means that may help them bridge the gap have a serous handicap. They cannot afford to first go through the broadcasting of what looks today as primitive, vulgar propaganda, and then reach a similar level of scholarship and credibility with the majorities. If they do so, they will miss the opportunity. Instead they must very quickly adapt to the demanding norms of this end of the second millenium.

In the nineteenth century, when modern nations were emerging, nationalism was everywhere very aggressive, intolerant and oppressive. That meant that even academic scholarship was busy in constructing myths and inventing traditions, both perceived then as necessary for the survival of the new nations. One century, dozens of wars, and millions of victims later, this primitive form of nationalism is considered unacceptable. This may be seen as somewhat unfair for the contemporary, reactive and defensive minority nationalisms. On the other hand, the mellowing of most majority nationalisms in contemporary Europe makes it possible for minorities to voice their concerns and advocate passionately their rights without resorting to archaic, inward-looking, self-congratulatory, but totally inefficient if not outright counter-productive means. The large number of international human rights documents and mechanisms available, along with their interplay with international politics, provides a formidable arsenal to minorities and human rights defenders.

Unfortunately, when one surfs the Internet, s/he will find countless primitive nationalistic pages in alleged defense of minority rights. Their web masters believe that they are thus providing historical service to their minorities. Nevertheless, by being instead masters of deceit, they make their pages useless to those who want to advocate minority rights. Often, they motivate the creation of pages of majority counter-propaganda and listserves or chats where the hate speech exchanged sometimes rivals the one produced by the racist, xenophobic if not neo-nazi pages. In reality, their only achievement may be a virtual and verbal fighting over again of the turn of the century bloody battles for the emancipation of modern states.

One may finally wonder whether the Internet is becoming a new medium or more a modern tool to disseminate widely information to be used by the print and electronic media (radio and television). It seems that the trend is for the web to incorporate other media. Already many newspapers have full electronic editions, which -for the more sophisticated ones- is more developed than the traditional print editions. While radio and television stations can now broadcast though the Internet as well. This access to the web helps these media reach audiences they had no chance to be exposed to before. But, in the future, when better software will dramatically improve the ability to listen to and/or watch electronic media, ‘traditional’ media will become just part of the immense menu of the Internet.

So, here are some recommendations to minorities, minority rights groups and minority media how to make best use of the new powerful medium of the Internet to help promote the rights of these minorities and eventually contribute to the development of multicultural societies in the European states.

When reporting a human rights problem, stick to the facts. Do it in such a way that independent cross-checking could confirm the veracity of the story. Include ‘journalistically’ detailed information (date, names of actors, place, exact quotation of crucial excerpts from a statement, an indictment or a verdict). Add, when available, independent confirmation (by a local reporter, some state agent, etc.). If not an isolated incident, briefly summarize related background. Avoid emotional, ideological or otherwise loaded language. If the local incident appears to be in contrast with the prevailing trend, do mention it (it will make the authorities less defensive in their answer). If you want to make it an action alert, provide names, titles and addresses and/or faxes and/or e-mails of those to whom complaints need be sent. Finally, if useful background is available in the Internet provide the full (not just the main page) address.

Have a list of e-mail addresses ready to which you will distribute the statement. Include all related listserves that could redistribute and web sites that could post. Put a short but self-explanatory title in the subject line. Try to discover servers that may offer you possibilities of free access for your own listserve or make space available for your own web pages. If you have the latter, make such statements easily accessible with a ‘what’s new’ page for recent statements and a chronological and/or thematic subdivision and/or index.

If you have your own web pages, try to post there only material that is credible. In rare cases when something is important to make available though not so credible or even polemic, post it with an introductory note distancing yourself from the content. Background historical and cultural material about your and other minorities is very useful if it can meet an independent scholar’s test of objectivity. When referring to controversial historical events, always include the other versions even if not favorable to the culturally ‘authorized’ one.

In your texts, if you want to be considered a bonafide minority rights advocate, you must always ‘side’ with the international norms with universal value, rather than with the usually parochial policy of your ‘kin state.’ Sometimes this even means challenging the prevailing national myths in the latter. For example, Turkish minorities in Bulgaria, Greece and Macedonia must understand that their struggle is closer to that of the Kurds in Turkey, as well as of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, the Greeks in Albania and Turkey, and the Macedonians in Albania, Bulgaria and Greece, rather than the oppressive policy of Turkey towards its own minorities.

Minority media are urged to make their information available in web sites. Modern software allows swift Internet adaptation of texts and layouts prepared for broadcasting of printing. Many scholarly studies of minorities have used past issues of minority newspapers as an invaluable source of information, even when they had obvious one-sidedness. Sometimes, minority media were the only ones reporting minority-related events that majority media ignored deliberately or out of lack of sources. Such references allowed researchers to help trace related developments that have in some cases provided very important insights to minority issues.

Since the Internet is not yet totally free, especially for large web sites as the regional and the media ones, sponsors, including the Council of Europe and the European Union, as well as their ‘common offspring’ the Stability Pact, are urged to provide funding for such projects. They should include the necessary training for inexperienced minority activists or journalists to help them use software that has become indeed very friendly to all users and no longer requires computer experts. The Balkan Human Rights Web Pages have indeed been developed by three consecutive web site managers who had no knowledge of how such work was done before they started working on them, following a rudimentary few-day training backed at the beginning by an occasional outside advisor.