My first impression when I entered Yugoslavia was that the country was empty. It appeared that the roads were completely empty. I was travelling in the afternoon and to travel on a motorway which is completely empty on a normal afternoon is very bizarre and strange.

It's quite clear, having come to Belgrade, that the difficulties I had in having a visa were not surprising. There is a sort of siege mentality which is evident here, and there's a great deal of suspicion, and I think understandable. So, I feel being here and experiencing this atmosphere has actually been very instructive. I think I feel much more the pain and difficulty that the people are undergoing here, particularly within the media.

What are your first impressions after the discussions you have had here in Belgrade? You held your first meetings with the representatives of the state media and state journalists' associations...

Well, there is in a funny sort of way a sort of solidarity among all the journalists. There is at least one common understanding and that is that they believe that the bombing of media is a very bad thing which should not have started and which should not continue. There are many disagreements about the approach that should be taken regarding media. I believe that perhaps some elements, certainly of the official journalists' organisation, are too much taken up with a need to make a political statement as part of their reportage. They need to keep their distance, even keep their distance at a time of bombing and of great difficulty. But professionalism means learning to keep your distance and it's extremely difficult.

In my discussions with our member-organisations, the independent journalists' groups here, I find that there is a very sober, serious, and uncertain sort of attitude about the current situation and certainly about the future. I think that independent journalists and independent media here are really wondering what on earth did they do wrong that meant that on the one hand they are criticised strongly by the authorities here for not being in full support of what they're doing, and on the other hand they find themselves on the receiving end of the international community's bombs and attacks. It's very difficult for them. They wonder, you know, what their situation is. They're trying to be professional under very difficult conditions and yet there seems to be no understanding of their position.

Now, I find it extraordinary, I find it incredible: for years we have had the countries of the NATO alliance committed absolutely to democracy, and press freedom and freedom of expression. They have invested a lot of money. They've encouraged independent media and they've encouraged independent journalism, and now, they send a signal, which is that when it comes to war media can be legitimate targets. That's a very dangerous statement to make, because what it means is that the very people they have been supporting these last years, are themselves targets, can be regarded as legitimate targets and so on. That's very dangerous. It's very dangerous at the moment here, but also it raises serious questions about the role of media and the role of journalists in a whole series of conflicts which are going on around the world. IFJ monitors about thirty conflicts taking place at the moment around the world. In central Asia, in central Africa... there are massive problems. In all of these conflicts we say: "Keep the media independent, don't target journalists." And now we see a situation where NATO countries appear to agree that media can be a legitimate target. Now, that's very, very worrying. It goes against everything we fought for in these last years. It goes against also what we thought the international community believed.

For example, a few years ago, during the war in Bosnia, the media here in Belgrade and the media in Zagreb were shocking. They were violently propagandist. The hate speech was appalling. Yet at no time during that period was it regarded as a sensible statement or a sensible policy to bomb the media, and the international community didn't argue for it, it was never put forward. So the question must be asked why is it a problem now. Of course there's propaganda, of course there's whole sections of news story that is missing, particularly the humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo. That's not reported here and that is scandalous. And of course it's true that the state media are supporting the authorities with a language which is unacceptable. But it is not on the same scale as it was during the Bosnian war and I'm extremely worried by why NATO should chose now to decide that media are a major problem.

And I've noticed that the rhetoric about the media has begun to increase. First of all, NATO said they wouldn't target media, they wouldn't target civilians. Then they too said media are a part of the Milosevic machine. Then they said that these were factories of lies. Yesterday, I heard a report that now media can be blamed for extending the conflict. Well, this is absurd! Suddenly, journalists have been transformed into monsters and tyrants in such a way as is completely unacceptable. But also, it is beyond all reason. So, I have this sense that the deep frustration that exists within NATO about this current conflict is actually being reflected in this targeting of media. It doesn't make sense strategically, it doesn't make sense militarily, and it certainly doesn't make sense in terms of defence of democracy within the region.

IFJ has had a very courageous and very principled reaction to the situation where media in Yugoslavia were bombed. When ANEM reacted in a similar manner, a part of the international community was suspicious whether these targets had disseminated hate speech and whether they could be included in those protected by journalistic codes and the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Was IFJ criticised for its position in this particular case and what was its response to that criticism?

Well, no. I'm pleased to know that we have been supported almost universally by our member-organisations around the world, from Asia to Africa to Latin America and throughout Europe, and so on. We have received good support from our member-organisations which makes me think, you know, that it was the right thing to do and the right thing to say. And I suppose the answer is that most journalists recognise that you don't beat propaganda by targeting media and killing journalists. You beat propaganda by supporting alternative voices and creating the conditions for alternative voices to be heard. I think there's a natural feeling that journalists have is that this was a very bad mistake and it sends the wrong message about the role of media in a democracy.

It is clear that the international policy is at a crossroads, that it's entered a sort of precedence, where the current NATO intervention has violated a number of international documents and acts. Journalism has reached a similar position. What is your assessment of the role of the international media, especially the bit international networks, in the reporting on the war in Yugoslavia?

Well, I think that, as far as the big networks are concerned, there are two things to be said. I think that first of all is that, as I say, I've got a feeling that media, even the big media with resources, are relying too heavily on straightforward NATO sources of information, which have proved to be unreliable. I think big media have got enough resources to be able to dig a bit deeper into the complex and difficult issues that are araised here and I think we are not seeing enough of that investigative, effective journalism. I think that's important. I've got a feeling that if I was sitting here, in Belgrade, using my satellite television, and watching the international community on the various satellite channels, I think I would be a bit concerned about how this is being reported because it is almost entirely from official spokespeople from the NATO side and not enough, I think, not enough challenging journalism which is looking at the difficulties. For instance, I don't think there's been enough coverage of the actual impact that the bombing is having within Serbia. There has been a lot of debate and discussion about whether or not Milosevic is about to fall, whether or not there're divisions in the political leadership, whether the generals are sort of... It's all been, sort of, couched in strategic terms. There's not been enough journalism about what it actually means to the people on the ground, the difficulties that are being experienced. And the problem is that I feel that many international correspondents here in Belgrade, and it's a sense that I've had, some of them feel that they too are isolated. They feel that their reports are not being taken seriously when they get back to home base. They feel as though in some ways some people back home think that maybe they also are becoming too friendly with the enemy point of view. Now, that's an extremely worrying thing. I think, in all of this, we want journalists to be able to do their job. There's not enough evidence that all journalists are doing their job properly and effectively. And that also goes for the big international news media that are covering the event.

A lot of effort has been put into trying to persuade the West that it is essential to develop local media structures, democratic structures, civil structures, rather than impose them from outside as ready-made, instant democracy. Now, after a lot of work a large independent media structure has been established in Yugoslavia, the West has in a way revealed its true face, in a situation when a large part of these local independent media have been closed down or prevented from operation. The Commando Solo project now sends radio and television programs by a military force into Yugoslavia from an aircraft. What is the IFJ's view of that situation?

I actually don't think it will work. I don't think it works very well. I actually do think that when people are confused, when they're ill-informed and when they're fearful, they will not accept an imposed set of communication or information sources. They just won't trust the information. That's the problem. Even if it's good information, it won't be trusted. So therefore, in the end, what you have to do is to build people's confidence, build their confidence that the sources of information they've got access to are worthwhile.

One of the things we learned in the old days of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe: the media was controlled but people learned to read between the lines. They used to learn about what was going on not by believing the words that were on the page but by reading it in a certain way where they mistrusted the intentions of the information that was before them but they could sort of read the signals very well. And that takes a certain degree of sophistication. There is nothing of that sophistication here.

Here you've got people who are scared. People don't know what is happening to them, they don't know what the future holds. This is the moment to try to encourage much more confidence in communication systems in which they can sort of trust, what they hear, what they see and what they read. And that is why we need the independent media, that's why we need independent Serbian media providing these alternative sources of information. And as long as we don't have Serbs in Serbia producing these alternative sources of information, we are not going to create media which people are going to have confidence in.

What are IFJ and similar organisations doing in the situations of large-scale humanitarian catastrophe as currently in Albania, with the inflow of large numbers of refugees from Kosovo? In what ways do you help to provide information to an enormous number of people who are currently living in very difficult conditions, where it is practically impossible to follow media reports?

I think there is a number of practical things we and other international organisations are trying to do. We are in the process of establishing a solidarity program for displaced journalists from the Albanian-language media who are at the moment in Macedonia or in Albania. We are trying to help them find new forms of work. We know other organisations are helping to, for instance, re-launch Koha Ditore, the Albanian-language daily in Macedonia. And there are other initiatives to try and provide good information for the Albanian-language refugees. I think this is extremely important. So we have to look at ways: we've got resources, we've got journalists who've got no jobs to do. We've got to find a way of bringing them together so that they can provide alternative sources of information that people really need. And that's practical work. We have to, sort of, sit down and do much more of that.

What next steps will your organisation take after you leave Yugoslavia? There's going to be an international board meeting of IFJ in a few days' time in Boston, in the United States. And we're going to be looking at what's happened so far and looking at the future actions. I've been talking here about helping to establish a solidarity fund, an emergency assistance fund with the assistance of the local journalists' organisations that are our members. And that will provide humanitarian assistance for people who've been victims of violence from the media, journalists who've been displaced, journalists who are suffering prosecution, and so on. On top of that, we are looking to provide solidarity support for journalists who've been displaced from Kosovo by supporting structures in Macedonia and in Albania to help them.

Those are practical things that we're looking at but we also have to take forward this whole question of targeting of the media in the war. And from our point of view, we want, as quickly as possible, NATO to withdraw from this position of targeting media, to stop the bombing of media and to stop targeting of journalists. That for us, is an essential first step on the road to peace. The sooner that is done the better. So, we're going to be looking at actions that we can take to reinforce that campaign. One of the things we've been heartened by is that some -- I think it's 30-odd -- international press freedom organisations and journalists' organisations have solidly come out against the bombing of media. And I think that's a very clear statement of support that actually NATO, in this particular course that it's taken, is out of step, it's out of line. So, I think that IFJ is going to continue trying to get a change in that policy as a first step.

What is your general feeling, is there optimism after the numerous discussions you have had in Belgrade?

I had a very serious meeting with some 20-odd representatives of different independent media this afternoon and they were very sober about the prospects for the future. I think the situation is very bleak. No one is overly optimistic. And most important question at the moment is how do we survive, how do we get over this current crisis and get into a position where we can think about rebuilding the future. No one is really at the moment thinking concretely about the rebuilding process. Everyone is concentrating their minds on survival. Keeping things in place as best they can. For the future, that's another question, although I have to say those who did talk this afternoon were pretty pessimistic in the long-term that it's going to take many years to repair the damage that's been done in these last few days and I think that most people would agree with that assessment.