NATO's unilateral actions make it guilty of selective indignation

Slobodan Milosevic is a brutal dictator who seems to be imbued with the most malignant form of nationalism and whose forces have been guilty of serious atrocities against the civilian population in Kosovo.

The desire of all democrats should be to see Milosevic out of office, proper democratic structures established in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and significant autonomy for Kosovo which would ensure that the civil, religious and cultural rights of its people are protected and their civil rights upheld.

Opposing bombing by NATO does not imply support for Milosevic. The issue is whether the military strikes launched by NATO are permissible under international law and whether they will achieve the stated objective of relieving the plight of the people of Kosovo. I believe that the military action launched by NATO, especially in the absence of any mandate from the United Nations, was a serious misjudgment.

It has already led to the reopening of Cold War divisions, with NATO on one side and Russia and China on the other. Already it has shown signs of destabilising the situation in neighbouring Macedonia and there is a real danger that it could light a spark which would ignite the entire Balkans region.

There is no reason to believe that it will dislodge Milosevic (nine years after the Gulf War, despite continuing air attacks, Saddam Hussein is still firmly in place in Iraq). Preliminary information suggests that it has allowed him to consolidate his domestic political position.

It was always hard to see how bomb or missile attacks would do anything for the humanitarian needs of the long-suffering people of Kosovo but it is now clear that the NATO action has encouraged Serb forces to even greater excesses. A combination of NATO bombing and Serb atrocities has led to the displacement of up to 500,000. NATO's ill-judged action has turned a crisis into a humanitarian catastrophe.

There is little independent evidence yet about the level of civilian casualties, but some reports put it as high as 1,000. What is beyond dispute, however, is that entirely innocent people have been killed and mutilated and that if the bomb and missile attacks continue, the level of civilian casualties will increase.

I believe there are occasions when military intervention by the international community can be justified. Nor am I against Irish military personnel participating in such operations. As a minister in the last government, I supported the involvement of Irish military police in the Sfor operation in Bosnia, even though they were under NATO control on the ground, because there was clear UN sanction and a specific mandate for the operation.

There is no UN sanction or mandate for the current NATO operation. NATO has acted unilaterally and I am not alone in believing that the operation is in conflict with the principles of international law.

The rights under international law for anyone to interfere in the internal affairs of another country are, quite rightly, severely constrained.

Virtually the entire international community, including all NATO members, recognise Kosovo as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In their declaration after the summit last June, EU leaders said:

"The European Union remains firmly opposed to independence. It continues to support a special status, including a large degree of autonomy, for Kosovo, within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." This is a position the Labour Party supports and which the Government should be attempting to secure through peaceful and diplomatic means.

If international bodies are to be allowed, in exceptional circumstances, to interfere in the internal affairs of a country, to prevent mass killings, for instance, then the principles must be applied equally and without distinction and with full accountability to the UN, the only worldwide body with the legal authority to sanction such acts.

In this case NATO is guilty of selective indignation. Tens of thousands of Kurds have been killed by Turkish forces within Turkey, and there have been regular, well-documented massacres, yet there is no question of NATO intervention, because Turkey is a member of NATO and is co-operating in the operation against Serbia.

Why is it that when the international community has been so slow to move in other areas, NATO has been so quick to resort to the smart bomb and the cruise missile on this occasion? Why has military action been the early option rather than the last resort?

The primary policy objective of the Government must be to seek an immediate suspension of the attacks and the resumption of dialogue, no matter how difficult this may be and regardless of how intransigent Milosevic has proved to be in the past. We should co-operate with other neutral countries in seeking an end to the military action.

We should get off the fence and say politely but firmly to our friends in Britain and the United States that we do not consider military action to be appropriate at this time or under these circumstances.

This has been a sad week for Europe and the international community generally. Diplomacy has lost out and militarism has gained the upper hand. The United Nations has been bypassed and we have moved dangerously down the road towards a form of international vigilantism.

IT HAS also been a sad week for Irish foreign policy. We have what amounts to full-scale war in Europe for the first time for 45 years, yet the response of the Government has been feeble to say the least. It is seeking a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations, yet apparently has nothing to say on the effective bypassing of the UN by NATO.

I absolutely accept the need for Ireland to maintain good relations with our EU colleagues in NATO and with Britain and the US, who have worked so hard to bring about a solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Maintaining friendly relations with other countries does not mean that we have to put our critical faculties into suspension when they take actions with which we do not agree.

It is also essential that we begin now, in the context of the debate about Partnerships for Peace, to consider reforms of the UN which will make it more effective and to open a serious debate about how Ireland's traditional neutrality can be redefined to enable us to participate in a democratically accountable common foreign and security policy within the European Union.

Proinsias De Rossa is Labour Party spokesman on foreign affairs