"There is always space for Russia's viewpoint in the global media sphere"
Interview with Hassan Haidar Diab
Hassan Haidar DiabCroatian journalist of Lebanese descent who had been working for a major Croatian newspaper Večernji list since 1998 and in his capacity as a war correspondent reported from a number of hotspots of the recent decades- Croatian expert on the Middle East
Hassan Haidar Diab answers PICREADI's questions about his experiences in the war zones and outlook on the Russian foreign policy
Views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily coincide with those of PICREADI
PICREADI: In the early 1980s you left Lebanon for Yugoslavia and settled in Zagreb since then. What prompted you to take that decision?
Hassan Haidar Diab (HHD): I was born in Beirut, the city of interest for a number of imperial states. The part of the city where I resided hosted Palestinian refugee camps; I engaged in politics early and was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The only country whose intentions towards Lebanon could hardly be characterized as imperialistic back then, was the USSR, which was in many ways aiding the population. As a teenager, I dreamed of coming to either Moscow or Leningrad to pursue education in political sciences, however when it came to picking the studying destination, all the spots for the USSR were taken and I had to choose between Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or Romania. I opted to Yugoslavia since its president Josip Broz Tito, who was one of the key persons behind the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement, had a great appeal. My knowledge of the state of relationship between Yugoslavia and the USSR was very limited; Tito-Stalin split was unknown to me. It came as an unpleasant surprise when I finally learned about that, but the decision to go for Yugoslavia had been by that time taken.
PICREADI: You arrived to Zagreb in 1981, one year after Tito died and the internal disputes between the member republics started to emerge. Were your first professional experiences related to the Balkan conflicts?
HHD: I graduated from the faculty of Political Science at the University of Zagreb in 1988. As you mentioned, around that time, the first signs of the crisis appeared, the first nationalistic attitudes were being expressed. It grew increasingly clear that these developments could lead to a full-scale war. Upon graduation I was invited to join a horseback riding tour along the way of Alexander the Great. We headed out in June 1989 but had to alter the itinerary due to the refusal of the Greeks to let us in from the North Macedonian territory. In summer 1991 we reached the Saudi Arabian border and the news arrived, that the war unfolded in the Balkans. We all returned to Croatia and I embarked upon my first journalistic work ever, initially working for the Arab-language, Lebanon-based media, providing them with the coverage of the Yugoslav events.
Hassan Haidar Diab (HHD): I was born in Beirut, the city of interest for a number of imperial states. The part of the city where I resided hosted Palestinian refugee camps; I engaged in politics early and was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The only country whose intentions towards Lebanon could hardly be characterized as imperialistic back then, was the USSR, which was in many ways aiding the population. As a teenager, I dreamed of coming to either Moscow or Leningrad to pursue education in political sciences, however when it came to picking the studying destination, all the spots for the USSR were taken and I had to choose between Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or Romania. I opted to Yugoslavia since its president Josip Broz Tito, who was one of the key persons behind the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement, had a great appeal. My knowledge of the state of relationship between Yugoslavia and the USSR was very limited; Tito-Stalin split was unknown to me. It came as an unpleasant surprise when I finally learned about that, but the decision to go for Yugoslavia had been by that time taken.
PICREADI: You arrived to Zagreb in 1981, one year after Tito died and the internal disputes between the member republics started to emerge. Were your first professional experiences related to the Balkan conflicts?
HHD: I graduated from the faculty of Political Science at the University of Zagreb in 1988. As you mentioned, around that time, the first signs of the crisis appeared, the first nationalistic attitudes were being expressed. It grew increasingly clear that these developments could lead to a full-scale war. Upon graduation I was invited to join a horseback riding tour along the way of Alexander the Great. We headed out in June 1989 but had to alter the itinerary due to the refusal of the Greeks to let us in from the North Macedonian territory. In summer 1991 we reached the Saudi Arabian border and the news arrived, that the war unfolded in the Balkans. We all returned to Croatia and I embarked upon my first journalistic work ever, initially working for the Arab-language, Lebanon-based media, providing them with the coverage of the Yugoslav events.
Route of Alexander the Great, ~ 334-325 BC
PICREADI: Was it easy for you, as a Croatian citizen, to remain objective and not take a side, or did you sympathize with one party?
HHD: No, I very much regretted what had happened. It is fair to point to Slobodan Milošević's desire to create a "Greater Serbia", but it takes two sides to every war. Objective reporting is rare nowadays.
PICREADI: As you were working for the Lebanese media, did you experience a great interest of the Arab audiences towards the Balkan issues?
HHD: Yes, there was a lively interest, primarily because the Tito-founded Non-Aligned Movement comprised many Arab states. Particular attention was drawn by the Bosnian war. I have been around reporting from the battlefield up until the Macedonian insurgency of 2001, but the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was understandably followed by the Arab-speaking audiences more closely. I would say that the Islamic radicalism was emerging there at that time.
HHD: No, I very much regretted what had happened. It is fair to point to Slobodan Milošević's desire to create a "Greater Serbia", but it takes two sides to every war. Objective reporting is rare nowadays.
PICREADI: As you were working for the Lebanese media, did you experience a great interest of the Arab audiences towards the Balkan issues?
HHD: Yes, there was a lively interest, primarily because the Tito-founded Non-Aligned Movement comprised many Arab states. Particular attention was drawn by the Bosnian war. I have been around reporting from the battlefield up until the Macedonian insurgency of 2001, but the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was understandably followed by the Arab-speaking audiences more closely. I would say that the Islamic radicalism was emerging there at that time.
PICREADI: Balkan peninsula is not the only region you were involved in. Did your intensive coverage of the Middle Eastern turmoil start with what is known as the Arab Spring?
HHD: My origin and proficiency in Arabic paved the way for me to become a Middle East expert. I remember travelling to Tunisia for my summer vacations and witnessing the unrest. It did not seem serious at that time, President Ben Ali was forced to leave in January 2011 and on the surface, situation appeared settled. I have to admit, that was also my perception of the first incidents in Egypt, however the true nature of the uprisings came to light shortly. One factor was the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. The US apparently held on to its stakes in the region and supported various groups, oftentimes engaging indirectly via its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States. The so-called "deal of the century", put forward by the Trump administration, is another example of destabilizing effects of American policy on the Middle Eastern politics.
PICREADI: Do you subscribe to the assessment, given by President Assad in his interview with the NBC News, according to which the Americans were well aware of the ISIS emergence in Iraq, watched it growing but never did anything to prevent it?
HHD: As the war in Afghanistan was formally terminated, many of the Arab recruits who served there headed to the Balkans, transiting through Saudi Arabia. They aimed at joining Bosnian Muslims in the fighting; among them there were people close to Osama bin Laden. Later the same fighters arrived to Chechnya, among them those involved with creation of ISIS. It is no use to grow paranoid and give in to conspiracies about the US setting up ISIS. However, with the CIA documents increasingly being disclosed, it becomes apparent that the Americans knew of the jihadists' relocation and did nothing to stop it. It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia, as the US ally, would leave those migratory flows undisturbed if not the American approval.
HHD: My origin and proficiency in Arabic paved the way for me to become a Middle East expert. I remember travelling to Tunisia for my summer vacations and witnessing the unrest. It did not seem serious at that time, President Ben Ali was forced to leave in January 2011 and on the surface, situation appeared settled. I have to admit, that was also my perception of the first incidents in Egypt, however the true nature of the uprisings came to light shortly. One factor was the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. The US apparently held on to its stakes in the region and supported various groups, oftentimes engaging indirectly via its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States. The so-called "deal of the century", put forward by the Trump administration, is another example of destabilizing effects of American policy on the Middle Eastern politics.
PICREADI: Do you subscribe to the assessment, given by President Assad in his interview with the NBC News, according to which the Americans were well aware of the ISIS emergence in Iraq, watched it growing but never did anything to prevent it?
HHD: As the war in Afghanistan was formally terminated, many of the Arab recruits who served there headed to the Balkans, transiting through Saudi Arabia. They aimed at joining Bosnian Muslims in the fighting; among them there were people close to Osama bin Laden. Later the same fighters arrived to Chechnya, among them those involved with creation of ISIS. It is no use to grow paranoid and give in to conspiracies about the US setting up ISIS. However, with the CIA documents increasingly being disclosed, it becomes apparent that the Americans knew of the jihadists' relocation and did nothing to stop it. It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia, as the US ally, would leave those migratory flows undisturbed if not the American approval.
In 2017 our guest had a chance to hold an interview with the President Bashar al-Assad
The set-up wherein everything American is painted white while everything Russian — black, is far from being objective or constructive
PICREADI: How did your perception of Russia and its foreign policy evolve throughout the years of unrest in both the Balkans and the Middle East?
HHD: The world only benefits from powerful Russia. They call me a russophile in Croatian media, but what I do is I simply try to remain objective. I tend to question the situation in which everything American is considered positive while everything emanating from Russia is labelled bad. Russian foreign policy proved its coherence throughout years of complex conflicts. Russia seeks stabilization, rather than de-stabilization, unlike the US. Russia abstained from voting for the UN SC 1973 resolution on Libya, did not take part in the intervention and criticized it. I visited Libya before the war and witnessed a rich, prosperous country. Most of the menial jobs were taken by the migrants from the neighboring countries, including Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania. Libyan people are not skilled at concerted actions and combat. Today the country is devastated, every city block belongs to a different paramilitary group, approximately 1450 of them operate across the country. So much for a democratic ideal! Not to say Moscow was always on the same page with Gaddafi, it still proceeded much more wisely.
HHD: The world only benefits from powerful Russia. They call me a russophile in Croatian media, but what I do is I simply try to remain objective. I tend to question the situation in which everything American is considered positive while everything emanating from Russia is labelled bad. Russian foreign policy proved its coherence throughout years of complex conflicts. Russia seeks stabilization, rather than de-stabilization, unlike the US. Russia abstained from voting for the UN SC 1973 resolution on Libya, did not take part in the intervention and criticized it. I visited Libya before the war and witnessed a rich, prosperous country. Most of the menial jobs were taken by the migrants from the neighboring countries, including Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania. Libyan people are not skilled at concerted actions and combat. Today the country is devastated, every city block belongs to a different paramilitary group, approximately 1450 of them operate across the country. So much for a democratic ideal! Not to say Moscow was always on the same page with Gaddafi, it still proceeded much more wisely.
PICREADI: What would be your take on the Syrian situation in this respect?
HHD: Libya is an oil-rich country with a proven record of attempts at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Syria matters in the first place due to its central geostrategic location at the heart of what is called the Shiite axis, stretching from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. The US allegedly betted on ISIS to put down Hezbollah and thus bring about the decline of Iranian influence in the region. After in 2006 Israel admitted its defeat against Hezbollah for the first time in history, the latter group felt emboldened and attacked Israel again, causing its retaliation to the Lebanese territory. It was made clear in those years that Hezbollah is gaining strength and Israelis sought to create a rift within the movement. At the same time the investigation of the circumstances of assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, who was part of the anti-Syrian opposition in the country, was advancing. When several Lebanese Hezbollah members were indicted, it resulted into a Sunni-Shia crisis in Lebanon. Syrian army announced its withdrawal in 2005 and the diplomatic relations between the countries were restored in years 2008-2009. However, new Sunni battalions were building up in Lebanon, and the government passed the law on disarmament of Hezbollah. Its leaders reacted against this initiative strongly; Hezbollah came to Beirut and disarmed the troops that were intended to be used against them, swiftly. Condoleezza Rice, who served as the US Secretary of State back then, admitted the grave mistake committed by the US: they invested around $500 million to arm the Sunni military groups but heavily underestimated the capabilities of Hezbollah. Eliminating Assad would mean undermining Hezbollah; controlling Damascus would mean keeping tabs on the weapons transit. Looking back at how Syrians lived prior to war, one starts suspecting external forces immediately.
HHD: Libya is an oil-rich country with a proven record of attempts at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Syria matters in the first place due to its central geostrategic location at the heart of what is called the Shiite axis, stretching from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. The US allegedly betted on ISIS to put down Hezbollah and thus bring about the decline of Iranian influence in the region. After in 2006 Israel admitted its defeat against Hezbollah for the first time in history, the latter group felt emboldened and attacked Israel again, causing its retaliation to the Lebanese territory. It was made clear in those years that Hezbollah is gaining strength and Israelis sought to create a rift within the movement. At the same time the investigation of the circumstances of assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, who was part of the anti-Syrian opposition in the country, was advancing. When several Lebanese Hezbollah members were indicted, it resulted into a Sunni-Shia crisis in Lebanon. Syrian army announced its withdrawal in 2005 and the diplomatic relations between the countries were restored in years 2008-2009. However, new Sunni battalions were building up in Lebanon, and the government passed the law on disarmament of Hezbollah. Its leaders reacted against this initiative strongly; Hezbollah came to Beirut and disarmed the troops that were intended to be used against them, swiftly. Condoleezza Rice, who served as the US Secretary of State back then, admitted the grave mistake committed by the US: they invested around $500 million to arm the Sunni military groups but heavily underestimated the capabilities of Hezbollah. Eliminating Assad would mean undermining Hezbollah; controlling Damascus would mean keeping tabs on the weapons transit. Looking back at how Syrians lived prior to war, one starts suspecting external forces immediately.
Referendum on a new constitution in Syria, 2012
PICREADI: Do you imply there was no precondition for rebellion, all the protests were arranged artificially?
HHD: Clearly, there were no prerequisites. Syria was a fully secular state where various ethnic and religious groups coexisted peacefully. The state was one of a Socialist type, with plenty free of charge public services of a high quality, basic goods subsidies, developed international ties. Even today, 90% of the Syrian army people are Sunnis, and not Alawites, who nevertheless are loyal to Assad and consider the demands of the opposition unrealistic. I remember travelling to Syria in March 2011, when the war had just begun. Assad was only in partial control of the center of the huge city of Damascus, and the opposition suddenly obtained substantial supplies of equipment overnight. Back in 2011, not thinking of myself too highly, I should emphasize that the degree of support to Assad I witnessed prompted me to predict in writing that the president is to stay in power. Undoubtedly, the Syrian army, Iran, Hezbollah, diverse Shiite military groups at first glance would not stand a chance against adversary sponsored by circa 190 countries. Foreign Minister of Qatar in his interview with BBC put it bluntly, saying that the whole world (Qatar included) works to make Assad fall.
PICREADI: What about ISIS, was it not the primary target of the Western coalition? Does the narrative, according to which the West, the US in particular, both supports the democratic opposition and fights ISIS, sound to you unconvincing?
HHD: These are different sides of the same coin: peaceful opposition does not exist. In Damascus, Aleppo, Idlib jihadists abound, whereas moderate civilians are hard to spot. The majority of those had long ago taken all the valuable possessions and moved to Turkey. In Idlib, circa 70 000 jihadists reside, as it follows from some sources: al-Qaeda, ISIS, Salafi, Wahhabi grouping are taking root. It is in Russia's interests to prevent their growth: around 4-5 thousand people who are now part of terrorist forces came from the post-Soviet space, and their return would pose a threat to Russia's internal security; moreover, no peace in Syria is possible until Idlib falls. There is no moderate opposition in Syria — this is just the West's propaganda.
HHD: Clearly, there were no prerequisites. Syria was a fully secular state where various ethnic and religious groups coexisted peacefully. The state was one of a Socialist type, with plenty free of charge public services of a high quality, basic goods subsidies, developed international ties. Even today, 90% of the Syrian army people are Sunnis, and not Alawites, who nevertheless are loyal to Assad and consider the demands of the opposition unrealistic. I remember travelling to Syria in March 2011, when the war had just begun. Assad was only in partial control of the center of the huge city of Damascus, and the opposition suddenly obtained substantial supplies of equipment overnight. Back in 2011, not thinking of myself too highly, I should emphasize that the degree of support to Assad I witnessed prompted me to predict in writing that the president is to stay in power. Undoubtedly, the Syrian army, Iran, Hezbollah, diverse Shiite military groups at first glance would not stand a chance against adversary sponsored by circa 190 countries. Foreign Minister of Qatar in his interview with BBC put it bluntly, saying that the whole world (Qatar included) works to make Assad fall.
PICREADI: What about ISIS, was it not the primary target of the Western coalition? Does the narrative, according to which the West, the US in particular, both supports the democratic opposition and fights ISIS, sound to you unconvincing?
HHD: These are different sides of the same coin: peaceful opposition does not exist. In Damascus, Aleppo, Idlib jihadists abound, whereas moderate civilians are hard to spot. The majority of those had long ago taken all the valuable possessions and moved to Turkey. In Idlib, circa 70 000 jihadists reside, as it follows from some sources: al-Qaeda, ISIS, Salafi, Wahhabi grouping are taking root. It is in Russia's interests to prevent their growth: around 4-5 thousand people who are now part of terrorist forces came from the post-Soviet space, and their return would pose a threat to Russia's internal security; moreover, no peace in Syria is possible until Idlib falls. There is no moderate opposition in Syria — this is just the West's propaganda.
PICREADI: Just as it is now the case in Syria, there were certain disagreements between the NATO members and Russia as to how best tackle the Balkan crises. The most obvious, consequential and frequently cited example is Russia's condemnation of the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia, the act whose legitimacy is questioned to this day. How do you assess what then happened?
HHD: This is a complicated question. On the one hand, he who is against separatism leading to secession and independence, is by principle against Kosovo's separation from Serbia. On the other hand, there is a clause in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution, that provides for the right to self-determination for every people. So according to the law, Kosovars can secede, however Western interference is not as easy to justify. It is widely known these days, that the White Helmets, or Syria Civil Defence organization, essentially fabricated the news about possession and use of chemical weapons by Assad. I travelled to Syria myself and can confirm: this is not true. The same goes for the Račak massacre in 1999: NATO allies staged the incident, where 45 Kosovo Albanians were killed and then used it as a pretext to invade Serbia. The scenarios as well as the narratives attached to them are identical. We see now in hindsight, what was all of that made for: the US wished for a military base in Kosovo, and ultimately they got it. The base was established in the aftermath of the bombing, it is the biggest American base in Europe and there is no money involved between the hosting country and the US, it is all free. Today Camp Bondsteel base is an actual spy hub.
HHD: This is a complicated question. On the one hand, he who is against separatism leading to secession and independence, is by principle against Kosovo's separation from Serbia. On the other hand, there is a clause in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution, that provides for the right to self-determination for every people. So according to the law, Kosovars can secede, however Western interference is not as easy to justify. It is widely known these days, that the White Helmets, or Syria Civil Defence organization, essentially fabricated the news about possession and use of chemical weapons by Assad. I travelled to Syria myself and can confirm: this is not true. The same goes for the Račak massacre in 1999: NATO allies staged the incident, where 45 Kosovo Albanians were killed and then used it as a pretext to invade Serbia. The scenarios as well as the narratives attached to them are identical. We see now in hindsight, what was all of that made for: the US wished for a military base in Kosovo, and ultimately they got it. The base was established in the aftermath of the bombing, it is the biggest American base in Europe and there is no money involved between the hosting country and the US, it is all free. Today Camp Bondsteel base is an actual spy hub.
PICREADI: One frequently invoked counter-argument here is that after all, Kosovars, even if acting out of passion or having been misinformed, chose or at least allowed that to happen. Assad keeps saying, and rightly so, that the Western powers were never invited to come to Syria, and thus reside and operate in the country illegally, whereas Russia, on the contrary, was officially invited by the Syrian government. Would it not be correct to regard NATO's expansion as a mere result of the exercise of free will by its new members?
HHD: Clearly, there is a big difference between the case of Syria and that of Kosovo. Assad leads a legitimate government of the internationally recognized state. Kosovo, on the other hand, was non-existent as a state at the time of intervention. Nobody asked the US to interfere. Take a look at the relationship between Syria and Russia: there is an agreement on political, military, economic and cultural cooperation between the two. Syrian and Kosovar scenarios are incomparable.
HHD: Clearly, there is a big difference between the case of Syria and that of Kosovo. Assad leads a legitimate government of the internationally recognized state. Kosovo, on the other hand, was non-existent as a state at the time of intervention. Nobody asked the US to interfere. Take a look at the relationship between Syria and Russia: there is an agreement on political, military, economic and cultural cooperation between the two. Syrian and Kosovar scenarios are incomparable.
PICREADI: Would you say there is a risk of reviving tension today? In Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example?
HHD: Tension is present in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. At this moment, in Montenegro especially, as is made clear by the popular protests over the last months. The recent law that was passed there, the so-called law on the freedom of religion, is a prime example of divisive policy. The problem in Bosnia is that the Dayton Accords of 1995, whose signing marked the end of the Bosnian war, left two of the three ethnic communities, namely Bosnian Serbs and Croats, unsatisfied with the settlement. That treaty froze the conflict without liquidating its roots. There are no clear-cut rules that would make the Bosnian state function properly. Unlike in Lebanon, where ethnic, religious and political affiliations do not necessarily confront or contradict each other and the state is integral, in Bosnia the existence of two entities, those of the Muslim-Croatian Federation and Republika Srpska, make for an inherent conflict. The growing influence of Turkey and Erdogan personally, in the region, spark fears of Islamic radicalism and tilt the inter-ethnic alliances. Bosnian Croats would like to dispose of their own entity within the state. In the current circumstances, since in the end of war Croatia granted its citizenship to many Bosnian Croats, those people are citizens of the EU and emigrate massively. As a consequence, Bosnian Muslims outnumber Bosnian Croats and seek to gain an upper hand over those inside their common federal entity. Take the city of Mostar: it is split into two parts on the basis of inhabitants' ethnicity and the people abstain from crossing the river to avoid the other group. Prejudices and hatred are running really deep, the city cannot elect its mayor for 5 years already. In 2014, the tensions were so high that the war almost unfolded. Bosnia and Herzegovina is often referred to as banana republic; if not the international protectorate, it would surely fall apart. Americans benefit from the status quo, they have nothing to lose from it. The EU, on the contrary, has reasons to worry, and many do, although not expressing it publicly. Macron has voiced his concern in an interview recently, saying that he is worried about the rise of the radical Islam. These thoughts are fully justified; if we look at the proportion of population by country, that joined ISIS forces as volunteers, we will see that Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with Kosovo, are on top of the list. Turkish imperialistic outlook on the Balkans only worsens the situation.
HHD: Tension is present in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. At this moment, in Montenegro especially, as is made clear by the popular protests over the last months. The recent law that was passed there, the so-called law on the freedom of religion, is a prime example of divisive policy. The problem in Bosnia is that the Dayton Accords of 1995, whose signing marked the end of the Bosnian war, left two of the three ethnic communities, namely Bosnian Serbs and Croats, unsatisfied with the settlement. That treaty froze the conflict without liquidating its roots. There are no clear-cut rules that would make the Bosnian state function properly. Unlike in Lebanon, where ethnic, religious and political affiliations do not necessarily confront or contradict each other and the state is integral, in Bosnia the existence of two entities, those of the Muslim-Croatian Federation and Republika Srpska, make for an inherent conflict. The growing influence of Turkey and Erdogan personally, in the region, spark fears of Islamic radicalism and tilt the inter-ethnic alliances. Bosnian Croats would like to dispose of their own entity within the state. In the current circumstances, since in the end of war Croatia granted its citizenship to many Bosnian Croats, those people are citizens of the EU and emigrate massively. As a consequence, Bosnian Muslims outnumber Bosnian Croats and seek to gain an upper hand over those inside their common federal entity. Take the city of Mostar: it is split into two parts on the basis of inhabitants' ethnicity and the people abstain from crossing the river to avoid the other group. Prejudices and hatred are running really deep, the city cannot elect its mayor for 5 years already. In 2014, the tensions were so high that the war almost unfolded. Bosnia and Herzegovina is often referred to as banana republic; if not the international protectorate, it would surely fall apart. Americans benefit from the status quo, they have nothing to lose from it. The EU, on the contrary, has reasons to worry, and many do, although not expressing it publicly. Macron has voiced his concern in an interview recently, saying that he is worried about the rise of the radical Islam. These thoughts are fully justified; if we look at the proportion of population by country, that joined ISIS forces as volunteers, we will see that Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with Kosovo, are on top of the list. Turkish imperialistic outlook on the Balkans only worsens the situation.
Bosnian war remembrance graffiti, Mostar
People-to-people interactions do change the already formed perceptions of the country. World Cup 2018 provided for a breakthrough in that respect.
PICREADI: At PICREADI we investigate soft power-related issues and seek to revitalize Russian public diplomacy. Against the background of disagreements between Russia and the Western states, how would you evaluate our country's efforts towards making itself heard and understood?
HHD: Russia is and will remain a major international player that acts as a guarantor of global equilibrium. Your culture is vibrant and alluring. Russian media, such as RT and Sputnik, are powerful, as confirmed by the fact that many international media outlets are quoting them. However, in one way or another, Russia will always be disliked, since prejudices against it are profound. The World Cup provided for a splendid opportunity for a great number of foreigners to experience your country first-hand; many of them changed their attitudes towards Russia as a result. Being a journalist, I prefer not to discuss my personal sympathies, however if you ask me, I am of a positive opinion of President Putin. He gave back to Russia its pride and strength, and in the end, the whole world benefits from it. One reason for Russians to feel confident is that it was Russian interference in Syria that brought about the failure of radicalists and the victory of the secular forces. Since the very beginning of the Syrian events in 2011 I was covering them from an angle differing from that of the vast majority of mainstream media in Croatia and the EU. Those whom I called terrorists were praised by the Western media as "the revolutionaries". They labelled me as a russophile, a person sponsored by Assad, sympathizer of Hezbollah or even Iranian agent. Time passed, and many journalists adopted my point of view that now became the new mainstream.
PICREADI: Would you say that the mediasphere is just so awash with pro-Western discourses that Russia's attempts at expressing its own stance are doomed to fail and Russia is simply being edged out?
HHD: No, there is always space for Russia. Ordinary people in Croatia and across the EU like Russia, however the narrow-mindedness of some politicians is hard to fight. It is fair to argue that Russian diplomacy has to navigate in an unenviable context, especially after the events in Ukraine. Double standards are apparent: whenever there is clear evidence of misconduct on the American side, hardly does anyone mention it in the media, whereas when it comes to Russia, any unliked activities are pointed out immediately. Stereotypical thinking is entrenched indeed. Both Croatia and Serbia invaded neighboring countries to defend their ethnical minorities, and this is fine, however when Russia seeks to do so, this is called an aggression.
PICREADI: Russia is a nuclear weapon state with significant, on a global scale, military might and a recent history of dominance over other countries. These factors must be adding fuel to the fire of the negative perceptions.
HHD: The USSR's decision to invade Afghanistan might have been a mistake. Other than that, Russia always sought to pursue a balanced foreign policy, unlike NATO, that killed a huge number of civilians in the course of its numerous military interventions. Not to mention the US-dropped nuclear bombs. Russian officers at the airport examine my passport calmly and do not get unnerved by the visas of various Islamic countries, what was not the case for me at the airports of many states. One must be able to distinguish between the emotional, superficial perception of reality and the rational, in-depth understanding. Luckily, at Večernji list, my newspaper, that happens to be one of the largest media of its kind in Croatia, out of 100 staff members only two follow an outright hostile approach towards Russia. I take pride in having been awarded many prizes for my independent journalistic work. However, I feel most fulfilled when, as it often happens in Zagreb, people recognize me in the streets and ask to have a coffee and a talk. It is a great pleasure to see people read my texts and appreciate my work, and it feels good to contribute to the constructive changes in people's views.
HHD: Russia is and will remain a major international player that acts as a guarantor of global equilibrium. Your culture is vibrant and alluring. Russian media, such as RT and Sputnik, are powerful, as confirmed by the fact that many international media outlets are quoting them. However, in one way or another, Russia will always be disliked, since prejudices against it are profound. The World Cup provided for a splendid opportunity for a great number of foreigners to experience your country first-hand; many of them changed their attitudes towards Russia as a result. Being a journalist, I prefer not to discuss my personal sympathies, however if you ask me, I am of a positive opinion of President Putin. He gave back to Russia its pride and strength, and in the end, the whole world benefits from it. One reason for Russians to feel confident is that it was Russian interference in Syria that brought about the failure of radicalists and the victory of the secular forces. Since the very beginning of the Syrian events in 2011 I was covering them from an angle differing from that of the vast majority of mainstream media in Croatia and the EU. Those whom I called terrorists were praised by the Western media as "the revolutionaries". They labelled me as a russophile, a person sponsored by Assad, sympathizer of Hezbollah or even Iranian agent. Time passed, and many journalists adopted my point of view that now became the new mainstream.
PICREADI: Would you say that the mediasphere is just so awash with pro-Western discourses that Russia's attempts at expressing its own stance are doomed to fail and Russia is simply being edged out?
HHD: No, there is always space for Russia. Ordinary people in Croatia and across the EU like Russia, however the narrow-mindedness of some politicians is hard to fight. It is fair to argue that Russian diplomacy has to navigate in an unenviable context, especially after the events in Ukraine. Double standards are apparent: whenever there is clear evidence of misconduct on the American side, hardly does anyone mention it in the media, whereas when it comes to Russia, any unliked activities are pointed out immediately. Stereotypical thinking is entrenched indeed. Both Croatia and Serbia invaded neighboring countries to defend their ethnical minorities, and this is fine, however when Russia seeks to do so, this is called an aggression.
PICREADI: Russia is a nuclear weapon state with significant, on a global scale, military might and a recent history of dominance over other countries. These factors must be adding fuel to the fire of the negative perceptions.
HHD: The USSR's decision to invade Afghanistan might have been a mistake. Other than that, Russia always sought to pursue a balanced foreign policy, unlike NATO, that killed a huge number of civilians in the course of its numerous military interventions. Not to mention the US-dropped nuclear bombs. Russian officers at the airport examine my passport calmly and do not get unnerved by the visas of various Islamic countries, what was not the case for me at the airports of many states. One must be able to distinguish between the emotional, superficial perception of reality and the rational, in-depth understanding. Luckily, at Večernji list, my newspaper, that happens to be one of the largest media of its kind in Croatia, out of 100 staff members only two follow an outright hostile approach towards Russia. I take pride in having been awarded many prizes for my independent journalistic work. However, I feel most fulfilled when, as it often happens in Zagreb, people recognize me in the streets and ask to have a coffee and a talk. It is a great pleasure to see people read my texts and appreciate my work, and it feels good to contribute to the constructive changes in people's views.
Interviewed by Madina Plieva, PICREADI editor-in-chief, and
Alexander Pivovarenko, RIAC and Valdai Club expert, Eurasia.expert columnist
Edited by Madina Plieva
Alexander Pivovarenko, RIAC and Valdai Club expert, Eurasia.expert columnist
Edited by Madina Plieva
Contact us
If you have any recommendations, questions or any projects of your own as well as suggestions concerning international youth cooperation, russian "soft power" and public diplomacy development, feel free to contact us. We also accept expert analytics of good quality for publications.
Creative diplomacy is always open for creative people and ideas!