Internet Ban in Yugoslavia?

If anything, what the war in Yugoslavia has demonstrated is the danger of information overload

In its war against Yugoslavia, NATO had done its utmost to try and bring Milosevic to his knees, using all the technological toys at its disposal. Now, in a desperate attempt to try and force an endgame, there is talk that Yugoslavia will be cut from the Internet.

In an appeal to keep this line of communication open with the outside world, NGOs from Yugoslavia released a statement calling on all sides to help and ensure that there is not an Internet ban. Signatories include the Belgrade Circle, the Center for Transition to Democracy, the Student Union of Yugoslavia, Women in Black, Union for Truth About Anti-Fascist Resistance, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Group 484, and others.

As a tool for multi-faceted communication, it remains to be explained how banning the Internet from Serbia will achieve any of the military or political objectives of NATO. Indeed, if anything, it would have the opposite effect. As the NGO press release points out, "it is important [for Belgrade] to shut up all independent voices for which reason they banned the radio B92 and put under control other independent media."

Those supporting the idea of a ban point to the fact that the Internet has been used in an overly negative, even hostile, manner. Propaganda and the hacking of certain web sites, including the NATO web site, are frequently cited as examples. Also, it has been revealed that the Internet is now being used in ways which impede NATO's activities. According to an Associated Press report of April 24, 1999, a web site has been used as an early warning system of NATO attacks, whereby Serbs outside Serbia or others from the former Yugoslav republics like Slovenia, as well as countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic, send messages to the site about the movement of aircraft. As Andras Riedlmayer related to the Nettime mailing list (to where he forwarded the press report), "the current crisis in Kosovo has brought other dimensions of war to the Internet, including the first Internet airplane spotters. Whether they're of any real use to the Yugoslav military may be open to debate, but it's a phenomenon worth recording."

This so-called "web early warning system" may sound unique and savvy, but in reality it's not. A similar "system" can be set up using simple telephones, albeit the organisation of such a system is a little more complex than with the web. However, considering that most people don't have access to the Internet anyway, a simple phone-based system is most probably more effective. In addition to this, spotting aircraft heading for Yugoslavia is one thing; knowing where they will strike is another. Thus, it's hard to see how the Internet can pose any sort of threat to NATO and its activities. Moreover, banning the Internet because of propaganda is futile. A government with sufficient technical resources, not to mention sympathisers living outside the country, can easily circumvent the ban. In fact, it would make Yugoslavian government propaganda that much more effective, for most people would be then under the illusion that Yugoslavia is hermetically cut off, thus making them more receptive to "enemy" propaganda.

Furthermore, the notion of protecting the Internet from hostile communication and propaganda contains more than a trace of hypocrisy: propaganda flows in both directions; thus, the Internet ban against Yugoslavia sounds ominously like an attempt to control the flow of information. If this is indeed the case, it's bound to fail like so many other NATO plans.

Some, however, see the threat of an Internet ban not so much as the desire of NATO to control of the flow of information but to manipulate it to their advantage. As one observer noted, "the West officials might not care, since it fits their picture of barbarian state of Serbia." The NGO press release is even more damning: "For NATO it appears important to cut off all dissenting people and groups from Yugoslavia in order to maintain the image of Yugoslav society as if it is totally controlled by Milosevic regime and made only of extreme nationalists who therefore deserve punishment by bombs." Without doubt, there are those who will argue that the Internet has actually added a positive, if not revolutionary, dimension to the war in Yugoslavia, providing us with information about what has been happening, and for this reason it must not banned.

Yet this, too, is wishful thinking. The Internet has done nothing of the sort. As with the student demonstrations in Serbia and the downfall of Suharto in Indonesia, Internet influence in the turn of events proved minimal. If anything, what the war in Yugoslavia has demonstrated is the danger of information overload, and how truth gets easily buried under a miasma of assertions, rumours, and propaganda thanks to the speed of computer mediated communications. For sure, the real truth is out there - somewhere - but it will take time to carefully dissect fact from fiction. Only after the event has safely passed into the realms of history and the wounds of war, even if not healed, are at least bandaged, can an objective assessment of the conflict be made.

So then what does it matter whether the Internet in Yugoslavia is banned or not? As the NGO press release explains, "for us who are long time activists of human rights, minority rights, union rights, free press rights, women rights, peace and democracy activists, it is vital to maintain Internet connection to the world in order to get information and communicate with people about our situation." Whether such information coming from Yugoslavia is accurate or not can only be ascertained if it exists in the first place.