Letter: Are we Blair's willing bombers?

Click to follow
The Independent Online
A FEW questions: if the bombing of Yugoslavia is legal, what then is the legal status of the UN Charter, whose article 53 says that "no enforcement action shall be taken under the regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorisation of the Security Council"?

If Nato is an alliance for mutual defence, why is it attacking a sovereign country that has not attacked a Nato member? Is there anything now in Yugoslavia that doesn't count as a military target? If intervening has made things worse, why would a larger intervention make them better?

If Nato supports negotiations, why didn't it at least explore the Serb parliament's offer on 23 March to allow UN forces into Kosovo? Why has Nato rejected the German proposal of a ceasefire after Yugoslav forces have begun withdrawal? Why did Nato reject the Serbian ceasefire declaration of 6 April? Why does Tony Blair say we must "make sure that the objectives of Nato are secured in full"? What are these objectives?