Sir, – Kathy Sheridan's article "It was Nato bombers and tanks that finally stopped the war in Kosovo" contains a significant omission regarding the war in Kosovo and the dilemma the West now faces with regards to intervention in Ukraine (Opinion & Analysis, March 23rd). Nowhere in the article does it state that the Nato intervention in Kosovo was illegal under international law (with no UN Security Council resolution authorising the same).
Perhaps Kathy Sheridan can acknowledge the Nato intervention she views as necessary to stop Milosevic also served to undermine the rules-based international order that has dominated international relations since the second World War. If we are to condemn Russia for violating said order via its illegal war of aggression in Ukraine, we must also surely condemn Nato for launching an illegal war in Kosovo.
Furthermore, the article omits the role that Nato’s intervention in Kosovo played in undermining relations in Russia as the alliance expanded eastward, as it demonstrated that the alliance is far from a purely defensive one. Ultimately the alliance that expanded into eastern Europe was one that had committed serious violations of international law by illegally intervening in countries that presented no military threat to its members.
Most troublingly, Kathy Sheridan seems to imply that Nato military intervention is the way for conflict in Ukraine to end, despite the enormous suffering that could cause the Ukrainian people and the risk presented by direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.
Perhaps far from ending the war in Ukraine, Nato intervention would significantly escalate it, for which the Ukrainian people would ultimately pay the price.
At the very least, the ongoing instability in Libya as a result of Nato’s intervention in 2011 ought to give serious cause for concern when considering any further military interventions. – Yours, etc,
OWEN O’LOUGHLIN,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – The wars in the former Yugoslavia from 1992 to 1995 and from 1998 to 1999 broke out due to deeply complex ethnic tensions and hatreds among the melting-pot of nationalities there. It is misleading, to put it mildly, to place all the blame at the door of President Milosevic of Serbia, or to attribute the ending of the conflict to Nato.
Following the outbreak of conflict in the Serbian province of Kosovo in 1998-99, President Milosevic entered into talks with Nato and western powers, resulting in proposals known as the Rambouillet Accord. The proposals would have provided for self-government for Kosovo, which President Milosevic was willing to agree to, but also required him to allow open-ended occupation of Serbia by Nato forces. This was something that not only did he not accept, but which no leader of a sovereign country could ever accept.
This inevitable refusal was the pretext Nato used in resuming hostilities, except this time Nato attacked the Serbian capital itself, 200 kilometres from Kosovo. Belgrade was bombed relentlessly, with civilian as well as military targets attacked. The proven atrocities committed by Nato in that campaign included the dropping of bombs on a convoy of defenceless Albanian refugees; bombing a Serbian television station with its employees inside; and even bombing the embassy of China, a country not party to the conflict and whose embassy is protected territory under international law.
In addition to these specific war crimes committed by Nato, the bombing itself was a violation of international law, not having been authorised under the UN charter. The former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali remarked that if Nato could justify ignoring international law in such a case, any other country could claim such a right also. Some 23 years later, we can see with Russia’s illegal invasion of the Ukraine the consequences of this disregard for international law when waging wars. This is the true lesson of the Yugoslav wars in the current climate. – Yours, etc,
TONY NOLAN,
Portmarnock,
Co Dublin.