Panel discusses the crisis in Yugoslavia

While apathy is a term commonly used to describe the Penn community's attitude toward world issues, a strong contingent of students and faculty did their part to dispute the stereotype. Political science experts and about 70 other members of the Penn community expressed their thoughts and concerns about the current war in Yugoslavia in a roundtable discussion held in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall Friday. The discussion, sponsored by the Penn Center for International Politics, featured six panel members, each of whom presented their views on the crisis in Kosovo and the current bombings of Yugoslavia. They then opened the discussion to the audience for questions and debate. Many of the participants in the discussion spoke of personal experiences in Kosovo which, they said, were not always consistent with the perspective the media presented. The lone student panelist, College junior Andrew March -- who did research in Kosovo from 1996 to 1998 and co-authored a book on the region -- argued that the media exaggerated Serbia's intentions in order to justify NATO's initial bombings. Other panelists also questioned the media's integrity. "Too many rumors have been broadcast as true," Political Science Department Chairperson Ian Lustick said. "The press has been sensationalist." Speculation about media reliability continued throughout the 1 1/2-hour discussion. "I'm by no means an expert in this area," commented one audience member, "but the news seems to be extremely one-sided." In response to the criticism of and skepticism toward the media, Lustick said that, particularly for those who lived through the Vietnam War, there is a natural tendency to doubt the press. "In my generation there is an ineradicable skepticism [toward the media]," Lustick said. "What happened in Bosnia and Croatia at the hands of the Serbian forces helped convince people like me that this is not a Wag the Dog situation from our point of view. But I personally cannot escape from that kind of question." Other panelists focused away from anti-media sentiment and faulted NATO for its actions. NATO's decision to bomb, and its questionable justifications, panelist member and Political Science Professor Avery Goldstein suggested, reflected good intentions but poor planning. "Clinton and NATO's heart might be in the right place," Goldstein said. "But they're like an incompetent doctor guilty of malpractice. They went about [the Kosovo conflict] in a way that did more harm than good." Lustick pointed out that in spite of the tragic conflict overseas, the positive aspect is that it may continue to generate productive commentary. "There are going to be a lot of fascinating arguments in Stiteler Hall over the next few months," he said. "That's one of the silver linings of a war -- you get lots of great discussions."