After every war the victors get to write the history. It seems that the Irish advocate for their case is Mr Fintan O'Toole (Sat. June 19th). Mr O'Toole makes four major points which seek to justify the appalling carnage that was carried out by NATO bombers.
First, that the Serb regime is fascist and that the war was therefore analogous to the second World War. Denouncing dictators who do not comply with the wishes of the Western powers as fascist has become a commonplace. So Nasser was denounced as a fascist when he failed to give Britain and France free access to the Suez canal in 1956. Saddam Hussein was not described as a fascist when he eliminated scores of communists who were named on CIA lists, but he became one when he invaded the oil fields of Kuwait.
The equation of Slobodan Milosevic with Hitler is equally spurious. Within a year of coming to power, Hitler eliminated every opposition party and most organisations of civil society. By contrast, Milosevic has faced a huge democratic opposition that has mobilised hundreds of thousands in protest.
Nor was Milosevic the rallying point for the fascist forces throughout Europe in the way Hitler was.
In reality, Milosevic's activities are little different from a host of other brutal, nationalist thugs in the Balkans and elsewhere. Tudjman in Croatia has renamed streets to commemorate the fascist Ustache regime of the 1940s. He has carried out an ethnic cleansing policy where 250,000 Serbs were removed from Krajina. His police employ the same heavy-handed tactics against protesters as Milosevic.
Yet far from being denounced as a fascist, Tudjman has been armed and recognised by both the US and Germany. It would appear that the designation of fascist varies according to the interests of the Western powers.
SECOND, Fintan O'Toole says he can "criticise the reckless bombing of civilians while supporting the essential principle of intervention". This may appear like a neat verbal formula for advocating war while showing due deference to liberal sensitivities. Yet it ignores the central feature of NATO's strategy, which was to turn almost every element of modern urban life into legitimate targets. Thus, bridges, television stations, electricity stations, sewerage works and factories were bombed as part of a strategy of targeting civilian morale. The use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium - which will lead to an increase in leukaemia in future years - was not an unfortunate by-product of an otherwise honourable war. They were the essential features of a strategy which treated Serb civilians as complicit supporters of Milosevic.
Thirdly, Fintan O'Toole argues that the left took up a position of "pure but meaningless impotence" to Milosevic. This is quite simply untrue. The anti-war movement in Ireland and elsewhere condemned Milosevic's activities and advocated his overthrow by the democratic opposition. O'Toole's charge implies that significant change comes only from on high, from progressive generals and politicians with well-meaning if somewhat impure motives.
Yet no one argued that the apartheid regime in South Africa should have been overthrown with the aid of cluster bombs. A mass movement which included a high level of workers' struggles broke this racist regime. There was nothing "pure but impotent" about the left's championing of this approach.
Similarly, when the Indonesian government was carrying out an actual genocide in East Timor (with weapons supplied by British and US companies) few people suggested that an aerial bombardment of Jakarta was the solution. Once again, the seemingly Utopian project of urging people themselves to overthrow the dictatorship - and put the issue of either independence or autonomy of East Timor on the political agenda - became extremely practical.
Fourthly, he says the "principles for which the war was fought must be taken seriously". Among such principles he claims is the creation of "a multi-ethnic Kosovo" and "that NATO should stop selling arms to brutal dictators".
This is the purest of fantasy. NATO is already presiding over the expulsion of the Serbian population. George Robertson, the British Defence Secretary, even stated that NATO's objective was "Serbs out, NATO in and Refugees back". If the IRA called for a similar expulsion of "Prods" or "Brits", Mr O'Toole would hardly have called on them to honour their multi-ethnic ideals.
And as for NATO ceasing arms sales to brutal dictators, does Mr O'Toole seriously believe that the US military-industrial complex, which sells over 70 per cent of the world arms, will now put humanitarianism on the top of its list? Mr O'Toole's wish list sounds absurd precisely because he fails to recognise the fundamental character of NATO's intervention: that it was primarily motivated by colonial ambitions.
Since 1989 NATO has sought to establish itself as the major force in eastern Europe. Just before the war it took into membership Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Now it hopes to incorporate Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria. These countries will provide more secure markets "including arms sales" for the economies of the US and EU.
Anyone who looks at the division of Kosovo into five sectors can only be reminded of how countries like China were similarly divided in the 19th century. The scramble that went on in the last days of the war between NATO and Russia is a further indicator of the rival colonial ambitions that look set to shape the future of the regions.
Far from NATO bringing humanitarianism to the Balkans, it has only set the stage for new conflicts.
While Mr O'Toole joins the inglorious ranks of the B52 liberals, antiwar activists need to turn their attention to uprooting the very system that produces these terrible colonial wars.
Kieran Allen, the editor of the Socialist Worker, is a leading activist in the No to War Campaign.
