How can we be neutral about the abuse of human rights?

The endemic lack of interest in foreign policy in Ireland is underlined by the present serious crisis in Kosovo. Europe, and especially the European Union, face some crunch decisions. The lack of an effective common foreign and security policy is taken for granted here rather than regretted.

As Europeans our greatest shame is that the initiative to prevent a second Bosnia had to be taken by NATO with strong support from the President of the United States. NATO is still a sort of four-letter word in Ireland and as a result a lot of people are immediately suspicious of NATO's motives. The question I ask such people is whether they are satisfied to have another Bosnia, to have hundreds of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of refugees and further prolonged misery and terror for Albanian Kosovars young and old?

Appeasement of tyranny in the mid and late 1930s was the principal cause of a horrendous world war that might have been contained at much less cost if Hitler had been confronted and dealt with firmly at an earlier stage. In Milosevic we are faced with a tyrant who is no less evil and no less devious than Hitler. He may lack the resources to fight a widespread war but Milosevic is capable of drawing others in and broadening the conflict in a way that could have profound repercussions for all of Europe.

The two statements issued on Wednesday night and Thursday morning by the heads of government at the European Council in Berlin are eminently reasonable. This country can and should give its wholehearted support to the sentiments of the Council. We are not caught between a rock and a hard place. Our duty is to oppose tyranny, or at the very least, to support those who are prepared to oppose it.

I continue to be amazed by the repeated references in this debate, such as it is, to our neutrality. In the context of Kosovo between whom are we neutral? How can any one be neutral about tyranny and the grossest abuse of human rights? The low key and rather perfunctory debate in the Dail yesterday featured a series of bleeding hearts from the left complaining about the international community's efforts to put a halt to the gallop of one of the ugliest fascist dictators that Europe has thrown up this century.

My feelings of nausea reached their peak when Sinn Fein's Deputy Caoimhghin O Caolain got up to complain that NATO was breaking international law. I suppose that in supporting Milosevic at least he was consistent with Sinn Fein policy which has never tried to shield the civilian population from brutality or violence.

Let us not forget that the real target of Milosevic in Kosovo is the civilian population. The KLA is simply his excuse. His objective is ethnic cleansing and as far as he is concerned if ethnic cleansing has to be achieved by genocide, so be it.

If the likely outcome of Milosevic's policies were speculative there might be some case for waiting. Unhappily we do not have to speculate. We have the proof of what happened in Bosnia. The Croats fought a bitter and prolonged war to free their territory of Serbian control. Bosnia has been permanently dismembered but at least is ostensibly peaceful due to the presence of foreign troops to keep that peace. Montenegro, not surprisingly, wants to secede from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which is totally Serbian-dominated. Macedonia is in a perilous position and may well be Milosevic's next target.

A genuinely democratic regime in Serbia with freedom of speech and respect for minority rights would bring the crisis to an end but regrettably will not be achieved by diplomatic or peaceful means.

It is worth remembering that under the communist regime of Tito, Kosovo had a degree of autonomy which made its position perfectly tenable. Milosevic removed that autonomy 10 years ago and began his policy of direct attacks on the Kosovar civilian population 12 months ago. Unprecedented efforts have been made, culminating in the Rambouillet accords, to bring about a diplomatic and peaceful settlement and to give Milosevic the opportunity to cease his harassment and aggression against the Kosovars. Never has a tyrant been more fully warned. The threats from NATO and the West of the consequences of his continued actions became almost boring in their constant repetition.

The United Nations' inability to act arises from its Charter which demands it must act in security matters through the Security Council where each of the five permanent members has a veto. Any one of them can block even the most obviously necessary action and can do so for their own national reasons, irrespective of the damage that this will cause internationally.

A good example is the fact that a UN force known as UNPREDEP, comprising more than 1,000 troops which was established in Macedonia several years ago to patrol the borders with Kosovo and Albania and to try to maintain stability in Macedonia, was recently stood down as a result of the Chinese veto of the proposal to renew its annual mandate.

This was one of the more successful of the UN operations of this kind. It constituted more than 1,000 men and uniquely had more than 400 US soldiers in blue berets. Its disappearance from Macedonia undoubtedly contributes to a deepening of the instability in that republic. The Chinese veto was exercised for no better reason than the fact that the Macedonian government had opened negotiations with Taiwan about recognising it diplomatically.

When the current wave of missile and air attacks is complete NATO and the European Union may have no option but to put an adequate number of ground troops into Kosovo to protect the civilian population there. Whether they have to do so will be dependent on Milosevic's reaction. If he sees sense and agrees to stop his aggression it would be sufficient to return observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The recent history of the Balkans should serve to remind us that very frequently diplomacy can only be successful if military sanctions are available in the last resort against a tyrant. In modern conflicts the old concept of peacekeeping is becoming less relevant. The ability to enforce peace is surely now more important.

Aiding distressed people can be far more effective if we prevent aggression against them in the first place rather than offer them succour and humanitarian aid after terrible damage is done to them. I believe that our foreign policy must advance to a realisation of that fact and that an ostrich-like recoiling from conflict in every case serves no cause other than that of the tyrant.