The situation however becomes ideal if such initiatives can be fitted in the framework of international law and objectives of the UN charter. But when this is not possible, the rationale and justification resorted to are those of moral considerations of good governance, human rights and so on.

NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia reflect this. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic has repeatedly resorted to extreme violence and military oppression against the inhabitants of various parts of the formerYugoslavia since 1991. The persecution of Kosovars is the latest example. There is no doubt that there is extensive and unacceptable violation of human rights.But the other side of the picture merits examination too. It is true that Yugoslavia's fragmentation was due to the resurgence of suppressed ethno-religious rivalries between its constituent republics. The break-up was brought about because of West European countries, led by Germany, rushing to recognise the secessionist independent state of Croatia and other provinces, allowing no time for the Yugoslav leadership to resolve their differences. The crisis in Kosovo is the tragic consequence of unthinking encouragement to the break-up of pluralistic states like Yugoslavia.

It is legitimate to speculate whether this approach has the underlying motive of fragmenting and weakening states and territorial entities formerly belonging to the Soviet Bloc to ensure a long-term domination of Europe and Eurasian politics by the western powers led by the UnitedStates.

We must be clear in our mind that Kosovo is an integral part of the truncated Yugoslavia. It is also of great politico-ethnic importance to the Serbs as the point where they resisted the expansion of the Ottoman power as early as in the 13th and 14th centuries. It was also a Serb majority area till the end of the Second World War. It became an Albanian majority area only because Tito allowed liberal migration of Albanians from the oppressive and violent communist regime of Albania, which ultimately resulted in Albanians constituting ne-arly 14 per cent of the Yugoslav population, most of them in Ko-sovo, making it an Albanian-Cosovar majority region.

While one does not hold a brief for Milosevic, it must be accepted that he and his government have been facing incremental threats to unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia from 1992 onwards. This pressure has been generated primarily by the NATO led by the US. Pushed into a corner and not having the wherewithal to mount an effective militaryor political resistance to this pressure, Milosevic has resorted to military means to preserve his country's unity and territorial integrity. The extent to which its territorial integrity is challenged is manifest in the Ramboulleit agreement which Milosevic is accused of scuttling after agreeing to it. The agreement stipulated the creation of an autonomous Kosovo region with law and order and monitoring the political situation being assigned to troops of the NATO alliance, completely excluding Serbian administration and Serbian security personnel from this role. Not just Milosevic alone, but Yugoslav leaders opposed to him have asserted over the last three weeks that the Yugoslav government had not agreed to the agreement signed in France. So the excuse of Yugoslavia reneging from this agreement is subject to doubts.

The basic characteristics of the situation and the issues involved are; a part of the Yugoslav republic desiring secession and resorting to violence against the Yugoslav government. Secondlythe Yugoslav government took drastic action to resist this effort leading to the violation of human rights and the mass exodus of refugees into Albania and Macedonia. Three, NATO decided to take military action against a sovereign state which was grappling with an internal secessionist movement with the objective of preventing the state from ensuring its own unity and territorial integrity. The justification for this unilateral action by the military alliance has been that it was intervening to ensure human rights.

NATO is essentially a defensive alliance with a charter to act only in retaliation against communist aggression in Europe and directly related areas. There is no authorisation in the agreements governing NATO, enabling it to undertake military operations for humanitarian purpose inside another state. NATO operations are also in violation of the UN charter. NATO members deliberately did not use the instrumentality of the UN because they knew that the two permanent members of the Security Council -Russia and China - would object. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that the Kosovo Liberation Army has been receiving funds and arms from non-governmental sources in Europe and the US. One does not have to indulge in profound speculation whether such activities do not have the backing of interested governmental agencies of these countries. In any case, the air strikes have only caused more suffering to the people of Kosovo and the people in different parts of Serbia.

The declared objective of the NATO military initiative is to sanitise Kosovo against Serbian pressure in a manner which will ensure self-determination for the people of Kosovo. Prime Minister Blair has labelled it as a fight of good against evil, indulging in moral hyperbole. The NATO initiative in Kosovo signals dangerous and intrusive trends in the new international order sought to be put in place by Pax Americana. The precedent of Kosovo should forewarn India about the likely implications about Kashmir or even the Northeast.

Anycomparison of Kosovo operations with Indian support for the liberation of Bangladesh or Indian military assistance to Sri Lanka and Maldives is not correct. There is no point in an assertive condemnation of the NATO. They have interests and motivations in terms of strategy and realpolitik which impelled them to this unfortunate initiative. The attempt should be to generate international pressure in tandem with like-minded countries to bring Milosevic and the NATO back to the negotiation table.