A series of international meetings this week will take up the question of how to respond to Serbia's use of overwhelming force and repression against Kosovar civilian populations suspected of supporting separatist guerrillas. Tens of thousands of refugees have fled across the Albanian border amid alarming reports of ethnic cleansing campaigns after the collapse of talks between President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo leader, Mr Ibrahim Rugova, about an agreement to restore the area's autonomous status removed in 1989.
Yesterday's decision by European Union foreign ministers to impose a ban on new investment expressly leaves the way open for possible military intervention by NATO forces with a United Nations mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. While the EU does not itself have a military competence it can very usefully orchestrate a common political approach to underpin action by NATO, the UN, the Contact Group or the Group of Eight. The approach spelled out in yesterday's EU statement contains many of the elements activating these initiatives.
On the fundamental issue involved there is no support for independence, but rather for the restoration of Kosovo's special status, including "a large degree of autonomy". The EU position reflects the regional and international consensus based on a fear that an independent Kosovo could trigger another Bosnia-style war. This may well be true; but unfortunately the scope for negotiations has been continuously and radically altered by Mr Milosevic's cynical pursuit of maximalist Serb nationalist positions as a means of bolstering his dwindling political support.
According to Greek ministers who normally sympathise with Serbia Mr Milosevic was responsible for wrecking the recent discussions with Mr Rugova brokered by the US special representative, Mr Richard Holbrooke. In these circumstances the warnings by Mr Robin Cook, the British Foreign Secretary, in his EU presidency role yesterday must be taken very seriously. He said Mr Milosevic would be foolish to assume he could get away with such behaviour without a military response from the international community, insisting quite correctly that "the use of tanks, of artillery, of the might of the military army against civilian centres of population is wholly unacceptable within the modern Europe".
Yesterday's EU decision notably excludes Montenegro from the ban on new investments and the freezing of international assets, in recognition of the recent elections there in which Mr Milosevic's opponents scored a significant victory over his allies. This is a clear message to those who oppose him in Serbia proper to rescue their state from his malign political grip.
The investment ban is more than a token exercise. It will make it much more difficult for Mr Milosevic to finance his political and military machine without the aid of international money flowing into his privatisation programme. The orchestration of policy this week through NATO and the UN will also limit his capacity to draw on Russian support.
All concerned must face up squarely to the logic of this rapidly unfolding tragedy. It is being brutally stoked up by the man who more than any other bears responsibility for the last disastrous decade in the Balkans. Political and military options must look to his departure if another war is to be prevented, this conflict contained and channelled constructively towards a negotiated solution based on Kosovo's substantial autonomy within a reformed Serbia.