NATO action in Yugoslavia which began on Wednesday night with airstrikes against military targets could have been avoided. Neither international law nor the charter of the United Nations recognises the unilateral right claimed by the western military alliance to use force against a sovereign nation.The only justification is that force is intended in good faith to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and to prevent the conflict from spreading to Yugoslavia's neighbours. Even that requires specific authorisation from the United Nations. The situation is unlike any other involving a NATO action in the post-Cold War period. Action during the Gulf War was justified by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and backed by Security Council resolutions.When western powers intervened militarily in Bosnia, it was at the request of the recognised government of that country. Although the bombing of Yugoslavia is occasioned by Belgrade's refusal to accept interim accords and continued armed repression of Kosavar Albanians, SecurityCouncil sanction was not sought or given. Indeed the outcome of the emergency session of the Council called on Wednesday by Russia which has veto powers and strongly opposes NATO intervention, as does China which also denounces NATO, can only be to confirm the unilateral haste with which the attacks have been carried out.The immediate dangers arise out of the military situation and the calculations or miscalculations of Slobodan Milosevic, the patriarch of the Balkan bloodlust. If the Serbian leader whose brinkmanship has brought his country to this pass assumes the attacks will strengthen him by uniting the people behind him, he will dig his heels in, whatever the cost on the ground.The prospect then will be of a protracted war and of Yugoslavia's neighbours being engulfed in it. That likelihood is increased by NATO's hazy military and political aims. At one level NATO's intention appears to be short punitive strikes to bring Milosevic back to the negotiating table. This is suggested by the calls fortalks immediately after the airstrikes began by France's president Jacques Chirac and US special envoy Richard Holbrooke.But the objective stated by the US State Department spokesman of ``seriously damaging Belgrade's military capability for repressive action'' indicates larger plans.That Yugoslavia maintains a fairly formidable arsenal and may well seek fresh supplies from Russia, and NATO has assembled more armour than anything seen since the Second World War are alarming pointers to the escalation of military confrontation beyond what is foreseen at present. World opinion is now even more seriously divided than before the strikes on how Kosovo should be handled. This constitutes another dangerous complication.For most nations outside the western alliance, stretching international law to accommodate NATO action in Yugoslavia, will be viewed as setting a bad precedent for the future. They will therefore be inclined to insist along with Moscow and Beijing on an immediate halt to NATO operations. Isthe western alliance prepared to bow to world opinion and end this adventure?
