Editor’s note: The Daily hopes to complete its series on the Kosovo issue with a final story about the Albanian perspective of the conflict. However,

As the fighting in Kosovo continues, two Iowa State faculty members debated Wednesday about the long history surrounding the conflict.

About 50 people attended the event, which was held in the Memorial Union.

Richard Mansbach, professor of political science, took the pro-NATO side, while Nenad Kostic, professor of chemistry, argued the Serbian stance.

Mansbach said he believes NATO is concerned with the fighting in Kosovo because of its location and the possibility of the disputes leading to further conflicts.

“Anyone who has studied the area is not surprised by the fight in Kosovo,” he said.

Kostic said the Rambouillet Agreement, which NATO proposed to Albanians and Serbs on Feb. 6, was not an acceptable solution to the conflict.

“It was not a peace plan but six Western countries that just wanted to suppress the conflict their way,” Kostic said. “There was no negotiation; instead NATO said, ‘Here it is: Read it, and accept it.'”

Kostic also mentioned the inherent pressure that NATO instilled with the Rambouillet Agreement.

“It was often repeated that if the Albanians signed [the agreement] and not the Serbs, the Serbs would be bombed,” he said.

Another area of contention was the various international laws broken by NATO.

Kostic accused NATO of hypocrisy, using as an example its failure to seek approval for the bombing from the United Nations Security Council.

“About a year ago, the U.S. bombed Iraq using the excuse that Iraq went against the will of the United Nations,” Kostic said. “This time, NATO bypassed the U.N. because NATO knew the U.N. would have vetoed the action.”

Mansbach pointed out there are no specified enforcers of international laws.

“I don’t think the true problem lies in international laws,” he said. “[International law] is like the Bible because you can find anything; it just depends what you want to cite.”

Mansbach said he believes that NATO’s reputation is on the line.

“What solution is there that NATO can come out of this relatively unscathed?” he said. “After eight days of fighting, NATO’s reputation is already scathed.”

Mansbach also addressed the issue of NATO’s identity since the end of the Cold War.

“An institution doesn’t seek suicide, so NATO must now seek a new role,” he said. “NATO felt influenced by [Yugoslavian President Slobodan] Milosevic’s actions and used the threat of force but never expected to have to drop bombs. Frankly, NATO doesn’t know what to do next.”

Mansbach said President Clinton also may have hoped the Serbian Army would rebel against Milosevic, ending the conflict.

Regarding the current American intervention, Mansbach believes Clinton was reluctant to use military force, and Secretary of State Madeline Albright was the more militant leader.

Both debate participants said the bombings create horrific situations.

“Nobody is better off after rounds of bombings,” Kostic said.

In closing, Kostic reminded the audience about the human side of the crisis.

“[Wars] give us the material for poets and epics,” he said. “After [the Kosovo crisis] is said and done, atrocities will be remembered along with acts of kindness and bravery.”