In an astonishing display of ignorance and bias, The Economist has once again proven its ability to misinform and mislead its readers. The publication’s decision to publish an opinionated piece without attaching an author’s name only adds to the contemptible nature of its content. What makes it even worse is the publication’s attempt to shift blame onto the Albanians of Kosovo, a nation that has long been subjected to territorial and constitutional aggression from the Kremlin-aligned Serbia, led by the despicable Aleksandar Vucic—a former minister of propaganda in the notorious Milosevic regime.
Screenshot of the Economist Newspaper’s Print Online.
Let us not forget that Vucic’s tenure coincided with one of the darkest chapters in Balkan history, marked by the deaths of over 150,000 innocent people and the perpetration of crimes against humanity and genocide within a mere decade. These atrocities were not confined to Kosovo alone but extended to Bosnia and Croatia as well. The Economist’s audacity to lay blame on the very people who have been the primary victims of Serbian aggression is not only a gross misrepresentation but also a testament to its lack of integrity.
One must question whether The Economist’s editorial team endorses an autocratic leader like Vucic, who is plagued by countless allegations of organized crime and corruption as reported by the New York Times. By insinuating that blame lies with the Kosovo Albanians, are they indirectly endorsing aggression? If that is indeed the case, then perhaps The Economist should align itself with Serbia and join the club of those who endorse Putin’s brazen adventures in Ukraine. Serbia’s alignment with Putin and its endorsement of Moscow’s aggressive narrative against Western democratic values raises serious concerns about its true intentions.
Furthermore, The Economist conveniently overlooks Serbia’s refusal to invoke Western-imposed sanctions against Russia, following its blatant act of aggression. This refusal speaks volumes about Serbia’s priorities and its willingness to align itself with those who defy international law. The Economist’s willingness to turn a blind eye to Serbia’s transgressions and disregard the real threat it poses to the stability and security of the Balkan region, not only in Kosovo but also in Bosnia and Montenegro, is deeply troubling.
The situation in northern Kosovo has been simmering with tension for some time now, and The Economist fails to provide the necessary context. Last year, under the dictates of Belgrade, Kosovan Serbs boycotted local institutions in response to a dispute over vehicle registration with Serbia’s regulated license plates. Instead of addressing this issue diplomatically, Serbia chose to orchestrate a campaign of obstruction, exacerbating tensions further.
The publication conveniently overlooks the fact that militias backed by Belgrade attacked the local election commission office, leading to the postponement of elections. Serbia’s grip on paramilitary-cum-criminal groups in northern Kosovo has been suspect, with a concerning lack of action from the Serbian government under Vucic’s leadership.
The article briefly mentions an agreement brokered by Gabriel Escobar and Miroslav Lajcak, which aimed to grant Serbia the ability to treat Kosovo as a state in all but name. However, it fails to mention Serbia’s subsequent breach of this agreement by attempting to block Kosovo’s accession to the Council of Europe. Instead, The Economist lays the blame solely on Albin Kurti, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, who is attempting to bring about progress for the Albanian majority and challenge the status quo.
The Economist’s feeble attempt to divert attention by bringing up Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a transparent ploy to deflect from the real issues at hand. By attempting to shift blame onto Kurti, The Economist engages in a dangerous exercise of distortion, allowing Vucic to evade scrutiny for his own misdeeds.
It is essential to remind The Economist that Serbia’s alignment with Russia, evident from the foreign policy alignment agreement signed with Lavrov in New York last September, has only served to exacerbate tensions in the region. Serbia’s encouragement of Serb boycotts, support of armed militias, and endorsement of the creation of a Srpska Republica are not only anti-constitutional but also directly undermine Ahtisaari’s plan for Kosovo. These actions not only endanger the fragile peace in the region but also provide fertile ground for Putin’s foothold, exemplified by the troubles Dodik is creating in Bosnia.
In my view, the Economist’s decision to publish an opinionated piece without an author’s name is a disservice to its readers and a violation of journalistic principles. Its biased account of the Kosovo-Serbia tensions, absolving Serbia of its responsibility and unfairly blaming the Albanians, is deeply troubling. The publication’s silence on Vucic’s autocratic regime, alleged crimes, and his alignment with Putin’s Russia further erodes its credibility. It is high time for The Economist to reevaluate its editorial standards and adhere to a more balanced, factual, and responsible approach to reporting.
You’re currently a free subscriber to THE FRONTLINER. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Together, we can shed light on the stories of voiceless men, women and children of war and contribute to raising awareness and generating positive change.
Redaksia, diplomacia. dk nuk e merr përgjegjësinë për pikëpamjet e autorit në shkrimin e botuar!