The BBC's Yugoslav Service

P. J. D. Wiles, I. Robb-King

Franco's Spain Sherawn Lynam. JOU' it. llalbontin The Ultimatum Erskine B. Childers Boycott or Levy? Tennyson Makiwane Crime and Sin Professor D. W. Brogan The Boycotters • James Tucker Christopher Robin's World Elizabeth Lloyd Unit Trust Prices E. W. I. Palamountain

THE BBC's YUGOSLAV SERVICE

SIR,—It was no surprise to see the attacks on the BBC's Yugoslav service. Investigating the Russian service (Spectator. January 3, 1958), I could not but hear complaints from the firm next door. Their tenor has not changed in'two years.

I have not seen the files of the Yugoslav service, but it seems that, unlike the Russian, it makes very little comment on the internal affairs of the country concerned; so whereas in the Russian case the main criticism was the contents of these comments, in the Yugoslav case it is their total absence.

The principal failure of the Russian- service was that its comments on Soviet affairs were far too favourable to Communism. Clearly, either such com- ments. should he strictly objective and completely unafraid of giving offence to the loCal Communist government or else they should not he given at all. The former policy might be christened that of the 'alternative Home Service.' the latter, that of 'merely projecting Britain.'

No third way would seem to be acceptable, but does the Yugoslav service nevertheless fall between two stools, perhaps in a different way from the Russian? 'Merely projecting Britain' is not neces- sarily bad if we want not to offend a par- ticular regime; and in this case it would Abe right, for instance, not to broadcast extracts from Djilas, who is not a Briton. But if that is our -policy, we mast say so repeatedly. A Yugoslav listener will naturally believe that the BBC is providing an 'alter- native Home Service,' as during the ,war; and it Djilas is not broadcast he will suppose that the BBC —or Foreign Office—has been taken over by fellow- travellers. The BBC. must tell him frankly Why its policy has changed since the war.

Moreover, the BBC must be clear about its own intentions and about what its various sections are in fact doing. To what extent are the widely divergent policies of its various sections due to particular per- sonalities and historical chance? What is the justifi- cation for employing Yugoslav citizens who must, whatever their personal opinions, be the agents of their totalitarian government? Mr. Pick has men- tioned Foreign Office influence. Now the FO deny that they have covert control, and this I have come to believe: the BBC really is independent, but obviously the FO has some influence. Suppose their temporary needs demand a policy which is bad for the long-run goodwill of the BBC, but agrees with the personal inclination of some particular officer? Then each side can say that the other is responsible.

Obviously if 'an alternative Home Service' is the chosen policy, all Yugoslav citizens (whether or not agents of the Security Police) must be cleared out of the section, and the long-run goodwill of the listener built up irrespective of tempOrary—and fluctuating—FO needs. But even if , we are 'merely projecting Britain' the same in fact applies, since the FO is not Britain and cannot in the- nature Of things Want to present a convincing image of the whole of Britain; and Yugoslav citizens are still unacceptable, since the Communists are very interested in precisely What bits of Britain arc projected. A mere account of our labour relations or of our parliamentary 'democracy implies a criticism of the Yugoslav system. A Yugoslav citizen will thus be either an active inter- nal censor or in trouble with his. government. The same applies a fortiori to the selection of 'articles for the preSs round-up; for, of course, British com- ment on Yugoslavia is a part of Britain that has to be projected. I understand,, for instance, that, very logically, British comment on Djilas was broadcast, while Djilas himself was not. But has• the selection of articles and press comment never had a Titoist bias'? Is it true that for a long time there has been no press round-up at all? Again, Yugoslav visitors. when in Britain, are constantly asked to give their impressions over the BBC to the folks at home. But the folks at home include the Security Police, so we may be very certain that whatever these visitors say, they are not 'merely projecting Britain.' British visi- tors have not the same privilege in Belgrade, so what is the point of this exercise? Still worse, Yugoslav visitors arc asked to comment on Yugoslav affairs, and that, too, is broadcast. What kind of policy is that?

The suspicion must be voiced, then, that the BBC has failed 'merely to project Britain' by pulling as punches, by employing Yugoslav citizens and by adjusting itself too frequently to immediate Foreign. Office needs, It has, of course, failed utterly to pro- vide an 'alternative Home Service,' but for that it can hardly he blamed. It may, however, also have- tried to achieve some comprornse between these aims, and that is merely self-deception.

This is the second BBC service to come under fire. Both services arc in one department, the East European. I am also familiar with the BBC's Hun-. garian broadcasts in 1955 and 1956 and, to a lesser extent, with the Polish broadcasts of 1956 and 1957 These were utterly different--and note that this was so .before the Hungarian revolution. May I, then, ask

(a) what political_ decision made these services so different?

(b) was it because they belong to another de- partment?

(e) what changes were brought about in the Russian service?

(d) why Was not the Yugoslav service reformed when the Russian service was reforthed?

(e) are the specific accusations of Mr. Marn and 'N.N.' true?

(f) what are the general aims of the Russian and of the Yugoslav services?

It is time, too, that there was a proper external inquiry into all these broadcasts to Communist countries. Will the BBC accept one? If they do so, it means they have a good case; if they continue not to reply to this correspondence, they must know they are guilty.—Yours faithfully,

New College. Oxford P. J. D. WILES