IN reply to "Ceeaitch" (Your Letters, June 25), I might agree, if just once the perpetrator had accepted responsibility for the crimes committed in the name of "humanitarianism".

Not only has there been no repentance but there is a continuation of attacks on sovereign states under the guise of "ending the suffering" of one minority or other. Have the imperialist executioners of the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Angolans, the Vietnamese, and others become, all of a sudden, saviours of national liberation movements as the Albanians in Kosovo? Of course not!

Are we to believe that the dispensers of nuclear depleted uranium from the sky are concerned with the "humanitarian" protection of ethnic Albanians who have no oil? How one can be hypocritical and at the same time act from altruistic motives is beyond me; surely, one cancels out the other.

Nato did not act "to end the suffering" but, in fact, created more suffering for those they were supposed to be protecting.

For example, it is now accepted by most reputable sources of information (Reuters, April 20) that the Albanian convoy of tractors bombed by Nato, killing 87, was returning to Kosovo, not leaving. The Nato attack on the convoy was deliberate. It was a message to others that Nato wanted all Kosovars out of Kosovo. Who will say this was not a massacre?

As to the "alleged" atrocities and "ethnic cleansing", to this day there has not been a shred of convincing or sustainable evidence to justify these claims.

"Ceeaitch" goes on to say that "there were prior overtures that Milosevic could have negotiated . . ." Let President Milosevic speak for himself.

On March 23 he had this to say: "You speak of the 'suspension' of the Paris negotiations. There never was negotiation in Paris. The delegation from the Serb Republic never met the representatives of the Albanian separatists.

"In Paris two documents were signed. One by the representatives of all the national communities in Kosovo, which were the legal representatives. The other by the Albanian separatists who are evidently not the legal representatives of Kosovo. Neither at Rambouillet nor Paris were there any talks between the two parties involved. How in this case can a document be accepted or rejected?

Commenting on Annex B, chapter seven, of the so-called "Accords", the well-known German newspaper Berliner Zeitung said: "This annex resembles an unconditional surrender after losing a war . . . The fact that the Yugoslav President did not want to sign it is quite understandable.

P. KAISERMAN

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.