Letter: Nato aggression

Sir: Alan Murray (Letters, 14 June) suggests that "conspiracy theorists" must "put up or shut up" concerning Nato's misadventures in Serbia.

Of course, it is foolish to deny that a campaign of ethnic cleansing has taken place in Kosovo. The "conspiracy theorists" he speaks of would, by and large, not deny the atrocities of which he writes. Taken at face value, then, Nato's actions are entirely humanitarian and commendable.

Similarly, at face value, the strains, confrontations and fiscal stress that this conflict has led to, both within Nato and between members of the Western alliance and other countries, are hardly beneficial to Nato member states.

The "conspiracy theorists" are more concerned with what this entire episode means, or could mean, for Nato as a whole. In a radical reconfiguration of the aims and responsibilities of Nato, an organisation, held throughout the Cold War to be purely defensive, has become (or rather revealed itself to be) an aggressive inter-state police force.

To his list of "conspiracy theorists", Mr Murray must add the Russians, who always saw Nato for what it really is, and are now concerned to limit the potential of Nato as the world's police force, circumventing the UN where that body is inconvenient.

If Nato were not the aggressive, imperialist force Mr Murray's "conspiracy theorists" hold it to be, I would suggest that the Russians would not have felt it necessary to enter Kosovo to ensure a stake in any future settlement. If the above makes me a conspiracy theorist, it is a label I shall wear with pride. Sooner that than a naive apologist for imperialism and Western arrogance.