Neutral states equivocal over NATO bombing

The Government interprets Irish neutrality as obliging it to support international military actions only if they are mandated…

The Government interprets Irish neutrality as obliging it to support international military actions only if they are mandated by the United Nations. Yet the Government declined to either support or condemn the NATO bombing of Serbia. It has expressed no view as to whether it was permitted by international law.

However, we are not alone among Europe's neutrals in producing equivocal responses to the bombing. The Swiss response, for example, was closest to that of Ireland. The Swiss government said it deplored the fact that no political agreement had been reached. It expressed no view as to the legality or otherwise of the NATO action, nor did it state explicitly whether it supported it.

The Swiss statement said it hoped the NATO action could "contribute to the avoidance of a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo and the destabilisation of the entire region, and help to find a solution to the conflict".

The statement also predicted that the situation would be used by the Serb forces "to perpetrate new acts of violence and to launch offensives against the villages of Kosovo". However it condemned this and said the government of Yugoslavia was responsible.

READ MORE

Sweden, Finland and Austria all felt they could go further than this on the issue of whether the NATO action was legal, and all suggested it was not.

Ironically, the neutral state with the most acute internal political division on the issue came out with the clearest position. Austria stated immediately the attacks started that it could not support them as their constitution explicitly forbade it. The Austrian constitution says the state can only support military actions which have mandates from the UN, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or the EU. As this action had no such mandate Austria was against it and would deny use of Austrian airspace to NATO planes.

The constitutional provision neatly avoided a fierce internal debate within the ruling coalition government between the majority Social Democratic Party and its minority partner, the conservative People's Party. The Social Democrats adhere strongly to the state's traditional neutralist line and oppose NATO membership. The People's Party is enthusiastic about NATO membership and would undoubtedly support the NATO action.

Sweden has not stated definitively whether it believes the attacks to be right or wrong but its Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have both cast doubt on the legality of the bombings. However, they have also stated there was no alternative.

A poll published in the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet this week indicated growing support for NATO ground troops; 48 per cent were in favour and 27 per cent against, with the remainder undecided. Last week the figures were 40 per cent in favour and 33 per cent against. For the Swedish people, neutrality clearly does not imply pacifism. Immediately after the air strikes began, the Finnish government said: "We deplore that the situation has led to the use of force due to the stubbornness of the Serbs. We hope that a peaceful solution to the Kosovo crisis is found as soon as possible."

Asked to summarise the Finnish position, that state's ambassador to Ireland, Mr Timo Jalkanen, said they "regret but understand" the NATO action. "It was not strictly in accordance with international law and we regret that, but still we understand that in this situation there was no other choice."