Increasing willingness to confront Serbians

Reuters dispatch, New York: "Yugoslavia's foreign minister adamantly denied fighting was continuing in Kosovo on Tuesday as ethnic Albanians reported, but said security forces remained on alert for guerrilla attacks.

" `I am glad to be able to report to you that as of yesterday the terrorism activities in Kosovo have been neutralised and all main strongholds eradicated,' Yugoslavia's Foreign Minister, Mr Zivadin Jovanovic, told a news conference called to argue for the restoration of Yugoslavia's privileges in the United Nations'."

Rich indeed.

Of course "fighting" implies resistance - it takes two to tango. Killing the unresisting and the defenceless women, children and old people hiding in the forests is not fighting but butchery. But cutting throats, shooting civilian prisoners in the head, a scorched-earth policy of destruction of villages and random shelling are "terrorism" by any normal definition.

Yet it was not surprising that Mr Jovanovic should choose this week to try and convince the UN that Serbia is winding down its war and even withdrawing some troops. The international community appears now to be close to dealing with Belgrade in the only language it under stands.

There are still, however, doubts about whether a further explicit formal UN sanction will be possible. Russia's support last week for a resolution that clearly signalled the use of force was an important breakthrough, but yesterday it appeared to be going back on that position.

There are those, however, who argue that UN sanction has already effectively been given, either in the context of the Dayton accord, or even through a broad interpretation of last week's resolution. If NATO went ahead without a new explicit mandate from the Security Council, they argue, Russia would make a fuss, but in the end would not want a fundamental rift with the West at this time of domestic crisis.

We are now moving toward a deadline. The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, will deliver a report on Thursday or Friday next on compliance with Security Council Resolution 1199, and NATO will give its assessment of the military situation.

NATO ambassadors say they have found no evidence for Belgrade's claims that its seven-month crackdown against ethnic Albanians has ended, and yesterday both the British and Germans again indicated that they were willing to go ahead with the use of force.

In the US, although the administration is wary of further Balkan entanglements, there is a growing willingness to be involved and commentators say the latest TV film of atrocities is contributing to preparing public opinion.

The means are there. A number of countries have already announced the contributions they are willing to make to a NATO-led operation: France, 20 Mirage and Jaguar planes; Germany, 14 Tornado warplanes; Norway, eight F-16 fighter planes; Spain, four F18 bombers and a military transport plane; Portugal, three F-16s and a frigate; Denmark, four F-16s and soldiers; Belgium, four F-16s.

Britain and the US, which are expected to be the biggest contributors to the force, have not yet made details of their proposed involvement public.

And what of Ireland?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrews, has made plain his disapproval of Serbian activities but has only said that Ireland would not support military action unless it was further sanctioned by the UN.

On the question of whether Ireland would approve of such use of force or would contribute troops there is silence. This is delicate ground for a "neutral" nation which is not quite sure what neutrality means, an issue addressed bluntly last week in an open letter from the Ireland Kosovo Solidarity Group to the Minister.

"Concerning those of us who are citizens of this State which has espoused a policy of neutrality, we absolutely reject the notion that such a policy prevents proactive support by all political and military means for such a policy [the use of force against Serbia] in present circumstances . . .

"Adherence to a policy of principled neutrality - reliant as it must be on a system of global security based on human rights and the fullest implementation of the spirit of international law - imposes a particular obligation to see those fundamental principles enshrined, fully implemented and where necessary enforced for all humanity."

It's a robust definition of neutrality, but at least it's a definition.