Looking at two sides of violence: the massacre at Columbine High School creates pause for thought about the bombing strategy in Kosovo. How can we dissuade children from violence if we lightly make war?

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 17, 1999 | by Jamie Dettmer

In a bid to keep hesitant public opinion back of violent intervention, administration officials continue to pound out their bleak cartoon of good vs. evil. Are they now trapped by the imperatives of their propaganda? Their lack of analysis, their failure even to try to understand the warped mind of the outcast Milosevic, to examine the embattled soul of the Serbian people or appreciate the historical trajectories down which the Serbian nation has been sent helter-skelter have resulted in a Washington and NATO mind-set that has become as unforgiving and rigid as the one prevailing in Belgrade. Arguably, a spiraling effect has occurred here, too. Angered Serbs act up as outcasts, an uncomprehending West treats them as such and doesn't take account of their grievances, such as the 1998 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina, and the cycle merely intensities. Rage mounts, as do fears on both sides, and increasing violence is the certain result.

The administration maintains it did everything it could to prevent war in Yugoslavia. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her British counterpart, Robin Cook, among other officials, stress that it was Milosevic who wouldn't sign the Rambouillet peace accord. He was the intransigent one, they say. But other politicians aren't so sure that NATO and the United States weren't contributors to that intransigence by thumping the table and insisting on an agreement the merest tyro must have known the Serb despot couldn't sign. GOP presidential wanna-be John Kasich, for one, argues that and believes the West ignored early-warning signs and tried to foist on the Serbs a provocative one-sided deal.

There is violence in the heart of man and conflict can't always be avoided. Could the tragedy in Littleton have been prevented? Maybe not, but comparison of the different approaches between our response to the Kosovo problem and to America's school-violence problem is instructive. In the last year much has been done to institute techniques and schemes to head off teenage rage before eruptions occur. The series of school massacres that struck in 1997 galvanized education authorities, Congress and the White House to reassess the dangers and develop conflict-resolution plans. There was a recognition that no silver-bullet solution was available and that placing too much emphasis on increased security measures could be counterproductive and just heighten tension. A combination of intelligent vigilance and community involvement was seen as the best way forward. It was understood that it would take time and patience and that there'd be setbacks along the way.

And despite the horror of Littleton many experts believe progress has been made slowly -- last year saw a decline in violent school deaths. Persistence remains the theme. GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer emphasized it when he acknowledged that getting at the cause of school violence "is a long-term project." Administration officials concurred. "I think from the position of the federal government, we would acknowledge that there are limits to what we can do, but there certainly should be no limits on how much we try to do," said White House press spokesman Joe Lockhart.