The "balance" of readers' letters

One of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, The New York Times, has on the whole reported on the conflict in Croatia without much visible influence of anti-Croatian propaganda. The New York Times unambiguously condemned the Serbian aggression from the beginning, which is evident just by looking at the titles of editorials:

"Serbia vs. the New World Order" (August 14, 1991);
"The Sacking of Croatia" (September 22, 1991);
"Serbia's Spiteful War" (November 6, 1991);
"De-Recognize Yugoslavia" (December 18, 1991).

Of course, the editorial position of the New York daily newspaper was underscored by the official American position that Serbia's conduct represented "out-right military intervention against Croatia," as Secretary of State James A. Baker described the conflict before the Security Council of the United Nations:

However, the editors at times apply a "balanced" principle to the letters of readers. This is understandable, since letters as a rule show events from one side, while newspapers should show both sides in a conflict. So, for example, two letters about the war in Croatia are published in The New York Times on September 16, 1991. The first, from a Serb, has the larger title "Serbs Remember Who Sided With Nazis." In this letter, poet and translator Charles Simic does not write about the devastation of Croatia. Instead he criticizes The New York Times' editorial "Serbia vs. the New World Order," which, in Simic's opinion, "could have come from the World War I Viennese press".

It is interesting and significant that in the context of the "New Order" Simic mentions Serbia in the First World War, and not in the Second World War. Why is that? The answer comes from the historical reality that Tudjman also wrote about. That is, Serbia did not fit into the Austro-Hungarian "New Order," but it fit perfectly in Hitler's "New Order." General Milan Nedic, leader of "New Serbia" (1941-1944) had the honor of personally assuring Hitler of this on September 19, 1943. That historical meeting of the leaders of the Third Reich and "New Serbia" has been preserved for posterity in a photograph. (See Tomislav Vukovic, Mozaik izdaje (Zagreb: HKD sv. Cirila i Metodija, 1991), p. 63). Therefore, Simic's memory (about who sided with Nazis) is either very selective or else suffering from partial amnesia.

In the other letter, with the smaller headline, "Supporting Croatia," Stanimir Vuk-Pavlovic, a Croat, questions the balance of blame between Tudjman and Milosevic advanced by Bob Djurdjevic in The New York Times of August 17, 1991.

The New York Times offers a similar "balanced" approach to the letters of readers on January 3, 1992. This time the Croatian letter has the larger title, and the Serbian one smaller. In the first letter, "Croatia's Tudjman Is Really a Moderate," Katarina Mijatovic polemicizes with Anthony Lewis's description of Tudjman as an "apologist for racism." (This is the letter we discussed above.)

In the Serbian letter "Still Time to Forgive," emeritus Professor Alex N. Dragnich asks a question which ends without a question mark: "Who is to say that forgiveness by the Serbs would not have come if they had been asked to forgive." While The New York Times reports every day on the number of Croatian civilians who have perished from Vinkovci through Karlovac to Sibenik and Zadar, Dragnich writes that the Croats should be asking the Serbs for forgiveness. If Dragnich has no respect for ethical principles, does he at least respect principles of logic? By what logic should the Croats who are perishing, have to ask forgiveness of those who are making war against them? Dragnich considers that the contemporary Croats are responsible for the Ustashe crimes committed fifty years ago and that the Croats, in a way, deserve to be punished for those crimes today. We could call this logic a "time-shifted logic."