Shared Victimhood: The Reporting by the Chinese Newspaper the People’s Daily on the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia

Introduction: Chinese Diplomacy and the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia

China played an important role in the diplomacy around the Kosovo conflict between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which ruled Kosovo as a Serbian province and blamed the violence on what it described as Albanian irredentist terrorism, and the Kosovo Liberation Army (Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës, KLA), which fought for Kosovo’s independence and viewed its attacks as a struggle against alleged Serbian persecution of Kosovo Albanians. As the violence escalated between February 1998 and March 1999, NATO threatened to intervene against Yugoslavia, which Russia and China opposed. Despite claims that China took a “backseat role” to Russia, China did repeatedly declare that the crisis was an internal matter for Yugoslavia and occasionally took a harder position than Russia. Russia and China’s veto powers as permanent members of the UN Security Council (SC) ensured that SC Resolutions 1199 and 1203 did not authorise the use of force (Wuthnow 2013; for an example of China’s tougher stance vis-à-vis Russia, see Crossette 1998). After NATO started to intervene militarily without SC authorisation in March 1999, China persisted in opposing the intervention and called for a peaceful political solution, constantly invoking the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity (Bezlova 1999). When the Kosovo War ended, China again stood out by being the only member to abstain from voting on Resolution 1244 because it did not mention “the disaster caused by the NATO bombing” and the lack of restrictions on the potential future use of force (United Nations 1999).

The People’s Daily’s Reporting on the Bombardment

Since 1999, hundreds of academic articles and several books on the Kosovo War have appeared in China, in various disciplines such as international relations, international law, military studies, history, and literature.^[1] Most of these publications intended to draw lessons from NATO’s behaviour and did not deal with China’s own role in the context of the NATO intervention.^[2] Meanwhile, this topic was the main theme in several memoirs by Chinese diplomats,^[3] but the use of memoirs for research requires caution since later circumstances might shape the narration of earlier events. While Chinese diplomatic documents remain inaccessible to researchers,^[4] it is worthwhile to analyse contemporaneous accounts of China’s perspective on the events of 1999 through its media reports.

On the other hand, there has been some rich research on the worldwide media coverage and/or propagandistic narratives of the intervention by NATO. Two volumes, one edited by Goff and Trionfi (1999) and the other by Buckley and Cummings (2001), covered most of the narratives and perceptions of the war in major countries, including China. These volumes, along with other works, focus on media analysis.^[5] Three other, more focused, studies compared Chinese and US newspaper coverage of the war. One compared keywords, tone, sources and editorials (Li et al. 2000); another used quantitative content analysis to identify the overall frames (Yang 2003). Both studies concluded that the newspapers in both countries adopted opposite frames on the conflict, which adhered to the respective governments’ attitudes, suggesting the dominance of national interest in media framing. A third study used critical discourse analysis to examine the discursive construction of national identities in both countries’ press (Li 2009).

In this article, I use the concept of framing to analyse Chinese reporting on the NATO intervention. According to Entman (1993, 52), to

frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. […] the frame determines whether most people notice and how they understand and remember a problem, as well as how they evaluate and choose to act upon it.

Research has shown how media framing influenced public opinion on issues like the War on Terror and Climate Change (D’Angelo and Kuypers 2018).

Compared to the above-mentioned studies by Li et al. (2000) and Yang (2003), which also used a framing analysis, this article employs a text-based rather than quantitative approach that allows it to portray a detailed Chinese media framing rather than merely determining whether it was pro-government. Specifically, I seek to identify a series of framing devices: Who were reported as participants in the events and who were ignored? How were these participants depicted? What facts were highlighted or ignored, including the number and identities of casualties, the positions of governments and the voices of ordinary people? What were the sources of news stories? And what metaphors and allusions were used?

The People’s Daily (人民日报, Ren min ri bao), the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, is at the centre of my analysis. Its significance lies not only in its extensive distribution but also in the fact that it is representative of Chinese media: various provincial and city newspapers at the time had a highly similar coverage of the Kosovo conflict. In fact, they often republished the People’s Daily’s articles. I examine the newspaper’s reports and commentaries on the NATO intervention between 15 January, the eve of the discovery of the Račak/Reçak massacre in which 45 Kosovo Albanians were killed by Serbian security forces, which became an important factor in NATO’s decision to launch air strikes on Yugoslavia, and 10 June 1999, the end of the NATO campaign and the war. The analysis is divided into sections pertaining to the participants of the conflict as identified in the People’s Daily: Yugoslavia, NATO countries, China, Russia and other countries, with a final section on the aftermath of the bombing of the Chinese embassy.

Yugoslavia as a Victim of Aggression

From the start of the Kosovo crisis, Yugoslavia was presented in the People’s Daily as a potential victim of NATO and US aggression. Months before the intervention, an analysis already claimed that “[the West] continues to use airstrikes and harsher sanctions to threat and suppress Yugoslavia […]. The CIA has a top-secret document that indicates that it would like to topple the Yugoslav regime by every possible means”.^[6] After the start of the bombing, Yugoslavia’s suffering occupied a significant share of the news reports. A typical news report included the following pieces of information: the time, duration, and locations of the latest NATO bombings; consequences for the civilians, including destroyed buildings and casualties; condemnations of atrocities and accusations of violations of international law from the Yugoslav authorities; the bravery of the Yugoslav army and people; the latest speeches, communications, diplomatic meetings of the Yugoslav leadership. The exclusive source of information was the Yugoslav government or state media, except when Chinese journalists sent back reports from the scene of airstrikes and interviews with Yugoslav leaders.

These reports stood out for their highly expressive and sentimental narration. In a story on the Grdelica train bombing, where “the South Morava river is singing a soul-striking lament with the blood and tears of innocent civilians”, the journalist quoted a railway official: “[The bombing] is the shame of the entire humanity. […] the Yugoslav people will never surrender!” Civilians at the scene were described as “having tears all over their faces, crying miserably and being stunned”. One of them was quoted as saying: “[The bridge] was never destroyed during the World Wars. NATO is even more vicious than Hitler’s fascists”. The correspondent ended his story with another emotional paragraph: “South Morava, you are the witness to history. Today you saw NATO’s atrocity; tomorrow you will surely see how NATO is nailed to history’s pillar of shame!”^[7]

While the media in Yugoslavia were under heavy censorship during the Kosovo War, those field trips were facilitated by the authorities, a fact that was indeed mentioned in the report. These “at the bombardment scene” stories showed the atrocity of the bombardment and the defiance of the Yugoslav people and were consistent with Yugoslavia’s own narrative around NATO’s intervention. Two features characterise the stories: they always fit a clear binary of good against evil with fixed roles for victims and aggressors, and both officials and civilians spoke predominantly in political slogans and historical metaphors. In other words, these news stories read like parables.

NATO as Barbaric Hegemon

Just as Yugoslavia was the hero in the People’s Daily’s reporting, so NATO was given the role of villain even before the bombing started. When the Rambouillet talks reached an impasse in mid-February 1999, it was reported that the “NATO war machine accelerated”.^[20]

China’s Official Position

The People’s Daily reported China’s official position on the bombardment by quoting from statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and speeches by political leaders. There was little reporting on the opinion of ordinary people prior to the embassy bombing. Friendly activities between China and Yugoslavia were reported.^[38] Connections were made between China’s historical suffering from colonialism and Yugoslavia’s current situation: “The Chinese people once suffered deeply from the bullying by [colonial] powers in history […]. For this reason, the Chinese people are deeply sympathetic to the current sufferings of the Yugoslav people”.^[39] Notably, a humanitarian discourse was used to criticise NATO for causing “a great number of Yugoslav refugees pouring into neighbouring countries”.^[40]

Foreign politicians’ positive comments on China’s position were duly reported, even when they themselves supported the NATO bombardment, for instance when a Belgian politician praised China for “expressing a clear position on major international issues”.^[41] Meanwhile, the newspaper also reported that Chinese leaders were diplomatic about the differences in positions: it reported that Premier Li Peng praised the “humanitarian spirit” of Turkey, a NATO member, for not directly participating in the airstrikes and for deciding to accept 20,000 Kosovo refugees.^[42]

Russia’s Role Exaggerated

The number of Russia-related articles in the People’s Daily’s reporting of the NATO bombing was only slightly less than those covering NATO. These articles also stood out for their length and structure: until the bombing of the Chinese embassy on 7 May, news from Russia tended to be given separate articles, while various pieces of news from several NATO countries were usually lumped together in one text.

According to the People’s Daily, Russia consistently asserted its position vis-à-vis the NATO countries on nearly all issues at all stages of the Kosovo crisis. Therefore, Russia was presented not only as an international power comparable to the US but also as the peace-loving antithesis of the war-mongering NATO. Russia’s position was reported as being, almost word for word, the same as China’s, with an emphasis on “sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Many reports followed a pattern: First, Russia’s peace efforts were reported, then came the report that “the West rejected Russia’s appeal for peace”. Some articles listed Russia’s diplomatic efforts and NATO’s bombing side by side.^[43]

Russia was also portrayed as an ally of Yugoslavia. It was reported that Russia provided material aid to Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds and “firmly opposed” NATO’s decision to enforce an oil embargo against Yugoslavia.^[44] In early April, a potential Russian military support to Yugoslavia was reported: a reconnaissance ship that Russia sent to the Mediterranean Sea.^[45] Chinese commentators were enthusiastic about Russia’s involvement in the crisis, describing Russia’s stance as “firm” and “strong”. An analysis written by the People’s Daily’s correspondent in Russia mentioned recent Russian military exercises and even hinted at Russia’s readiness to use nuclear strikes. It also claimed that “ordinary Russians” were “strongly discontent” with NATO’s actions and cited Russian volunteers as evidence. Among the reasons for Russia’s strong reaction, the article listed NATO’s threat to Russia, Russia’s traditional interests in the Balkans, and Russian–Serbian Slavic and Orthodox brotherhood.^[46] Commentators believed the Kosovo crisis was merely one instance of a deeper Russia–NATO conflict, linking the intervention to NATO’s eastward expansion, claiming that both actions were part of a strategy intended to harm Russia’s security and geopolitical environment.^[47]

A request by the Yugoslav Parliament to join the Union State of Russia and Belarus appeared in the People’s Daily in April. Reports stated that Yugoslavia had “high hopes” of joining, and that Russian and Belarusian leaders supported the request.^[48] A commentator took this as proof that Russia and Yugoslavia had an “exceptional” relationship.^[49]

Russia’s actual willingness to defend Yugoslavia was more limited than what the People’s Daily presented. Despite occasional strong words from its politicians, Russia was not ready to get involved militarily on the side of Yugoslavia and pressured Milošević to ease the situation (Ker-Lindsay 2009, 12–3). After NATO’s intervention started, the Russian president Boris Yeltsin repeatedly dismissed military involvement despite heavy pressure from the nationalist and communist opposition (Buckley 2001; Fossato 1999). The idea of Yugoslavia joining the Union State of Russia and Belarus was in fact promoted by Yeltsin’s opponents, and the proposal never yielded anything substantial (Wines 1999). Although the People’s Daily did report Yeltsin’s rejection to provide weapons to Yugoslavia, it did not provide any more context about Russia’s political dynamics, and the overall “ally” narrative remained in place.^[50]

The World Against NATO

There was a distinct category of articles that appeared almost daily from the start of the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia until the bombing of the Chinese embassy on 7 May 1999. These were news reports around a loosely defined theme: the opposition to NATO’s military intervention. Often, one article was a combination of several news items, summarising various things like media commentaries, political speeches, and demonstrations from different parts of the world. Reporting protests was the most common item in this category. Protests were reported in both NATO and non-NATO countries and were described as “large scale”. Usually, the participants were called “the masses”, “the residents”, “the citizens” in these articles. Only rarely were the political affiliations of the organisers named. One such case was a protest by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (Liberal’no-demokraticheskaia partiia Rossii, LDPR), whose ultranationalist ideology was not mentioned.^[51] Even the labour rights aspect of the 1999 May Day demonstrations was downplayed (“some requests related to their own interests”) to highlight its anti-NATO aspect.^[52] In several reports, Serb diaspora protests were indifferently lumped together with other anti-NATO demonstrations.^[53]

Critical voices from politicians from non-NATO member countries were duly reported. They were collectively called “many countries of the world” or “the international community”. There were differences in tones between statements from different countries. Some (mostly countries in South America) only called on NATO to stop the bombing and appealed for restarting negotiations; others (such as North Korea and Cuba) used much harsher words in condemning NATO. But those differences were not highlighted by the reports, which merely listed all those anti-bombing statements and speeches together, without differentiation, and the word “condemnation” was usually used in the titles.^[54]

The newspaper also quoted articles from foreign newspapers that expressed opposition to NATO’s bombing. Various opinions were lumped together: doubts about the effectiveness of NATO’s bombing; concerns about the refugees; arguments that the bombing caused the Serbian people to unite around Milošević. The People’s Daily called the authors of these articles “people of insight”. Even tabloids like the British Sun were quoted.^[55] On the other hand, no pro-bombing stance of the non-NATO governments and politicians was reported; none of the commentaries, op-eds, or letters to the editor that spoke in favour of the bombing or criticised Yugoslavia’s government were quoted.

The Bombing of the Chinese Embassy

Conclusion

The story of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia that the People’s Daily presented to its readers was as follows: The root of the problems in the world was hegemonism and power politics. In the 1990s, the United States was the hegemon, and NATO was merely the tool used by the US to pursue power politics; the Balkans were strategically a hotly contested spot and historically “the powder keg of Europe”; Yugoslavia was drawn into conflict because it was the target of NATO’s expansion. Despite being the victims, “the Yugoslav people”—a term used interchangeably with Serbs—were heroic, freedom-loving, and patriotic. Kosovo Albanians were either separatist terrorists or victims of NATO’s bombing. Despite being a main party in the Kosovo conflict, the Albanian rebels were seen as the tools or puppets of “countries with ulterior motives”, rather than as defenders of their own interests. The primary effect of NATO’s bombing was enormous civilian casualties rather than damage to Yugoslavia’s military facilities. “People from all over the world” were staunchly against NATO’s “savage acts”, while the governments of China and other non-NATO member countries, especially Russia, fought for justice. Even within NATO, the bombing was not popular. The US used the military campaign against Yugoslavia to weaken EU countries so that it could dominate Europe.

From the start of the bombardment, the newspaper emphasised the connection between the two countries: since China was historically a victim of the Western (colonial) powers, it was natural to support Yugoslavia against the current evil of American hegemonism. Nonetheless, until the night of 7 May, Yugoslavia was in the international news, and this focus on Yugoslavia was contingent on NATO’s intervention. With the bombing of the Chinese embassy, the historical victimhood of China became a contemporary one. The anti-NATO protests and the commemorations made the event a pivotal moment in China’s domestic history. In the newspaper’s discourse, a shared victimhood now bonded the two countries: “The Yugoslav people expressed strong indignation over NATO’s savage acts […] which embodied the deep friendship between the peoples of China and Yugoslavia”.^[76]

The reporting of the People’s Daily contributed greatly to the way the memory of the Chinese public evolved with regard to the event. Today, for many Chinese people, the first thing the word “Yugoslavia” reminds them of is the 1999 bombing. The remembrance of the bombing remained highly symbolic during Chinese president Xi Jinping’s visit to Serbia in 2016, when the two countries agreed to start the construction of the Chinese Cultural Centre on the location of the former embassy and to rename a roundabout the Square of the Serbian-Chinese Friendship (Predsednik Kine stigao u trodnevnu posetu Srbiji, Radio Televizija Srbije, 17 June 2016).