When Robin Cook was asked by the Guardian (10 April 2001) to name his greatest achievements in his four years in office he said “rebuilding respect for Britain in the world.” It is difficult to understand how he came to this view. It may be that his advisers in the Foreign Office are too frightened to tell him the truth. It may be that he has read a book on positive thinking and misunderstood it. It may be that Madeleine Albright is the world to him. Sadly, whatever the reason for his delusion, he is promoting it to the British public which, in the absence of the truth, may believe him. We are living in world of dangerous unreality.

The following are a few examples of reactions to the bombing of Yugoslavia from around the world.

The bombing of Yugoslavia caused outrage in Greece. Two opinion polls conducted in the middle of April showed Greeks to be 96% and 98.6% against the bombing, with only 1.3% in favour. As the Americans and others tried to land troops and equipment in Greece for onward transport to Macedonia there were widespread demonstrations and constant attempts to hinder or prevent military movements. For example, a line of tanks, en route for Macedonia, was directed into a vegetable market. Meanwhile the Greek government supported the NATO action.

The Norwegian Government, too, supported the action, as did the majority of Norwegians, but the new NATO treaty, was viewed with alarm by intellectuals. Over 500 of them signed a petition condemning the new treaty which was being demonstrated in action in Yugoslavia.

Over 100,000 people, including 182 members of the Italian Parliament, demonstrated against the bombing of Yugoslavia in the streets of Rome.

A few days after the bombing had started Roy Medvedev, the Russian historian, wrote “The national indignation in Russia about the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO Air Forces is so strong that it is becoming an important factor in Russian foreign and domestic policy. . . no single event in the world in the last 50 years has provoked such elemental and strong emotions in Russia. Polls show that no fewer than 95% of adult Russian citizens condemn NATO’s bombing of Serbia.

The country has not known this kind of consensus for decades. Students, schoolchildren, members of football clubs and sports associations are drawn into the protests. Previously completely apolitical people now participate in protest demonstrations and throw eggs and bottles at the US Embassy building. Hundreds of Russian volunteers are already in Serbia, thousands are en route , and several thousands are prepared to follow them. Not only Cossacks, but also officers, and generals and commanders of military districts say that they are ready to defend Serbia.

What has produced this elemental howl of rage supported not only by all opposition politicians, but also by known pro-Western politicians?

Political scientists, commentators and analysts try to explain the main reasons for NATO’s aggression. No one in Russia believes talk about defending ‘Western civilisation.’ If ‘Western civilisation’ proves itself by such methods, then what can the Arab world, Africa, India or China think of it? . . .

The destruction of Serbia was conceived as a demonstration of the West’s strength and invincibility. It was intended to break Russia’s will, to put a stop to the integration process of Slav peoples. These ideas and feelings are particularly strong in the Russian army, in the defence industries, and among veterans of the last war. But they are transferred to the entire population.

Our people were told over and over again about the benefits of democracy and a market economy which the rich Western countries would help Russia construct. This illusion has long since disappeared. In the minds of the impoverished there is a conviction that the West not only deceived us, but it robbed Russia, trying to turn it into the source of raw materials.” (33)

Two extracts from the Times of India 4 May 1999.

1 “The inability of Russia, China and the rest of the world to counter US dominance and the unrestrained use of massive conventional force by NATO, could provoke other states who are threatened in similar fashion to acquire a nuclear deterrent capability, and if that is not possible, to adopt the strategy of terrorism.”

2 “NATO’s new policy of intervention anywhere, has all the ingredients for a new world war, one that will pit NATO against Russia, China and India. . . The Panchatantra says there can only be friendship between equals. This implies that either the NATO countries accept India, China and Russia as equals, or they are in danger of being treated in a way that will make them enemies. Kosovo has shown the need for Indian power, and the need for diplomacy that can bring the three giants of Asia together, not to begin a world war but to stop the NATO planners from a igniting one with their racist arrogance.”

A statement by Satish Nambiar, first UNPROFOR Commander in the former Yugoslavia.

“If what is being done by NATO forces to the people of Yugoslavia reflects the combined will of the ‘civilised world’ (which is what the developed world unfailingly calls itself), I would much prefer to remain in the ‘uncivilised’ societies like India where we at least continue to have some traditional values for and genuine respect for human life and dignity.” (34)

During the bombing of Yugoslavia there were major demonstrations in cities throughout China. After the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, which housed transmitters being used by the Yugoslav government, (replacing those destroyed by NATO bombing) demonstrations became enormous. Tens of thousands of demonstrators in Beijing surrounded the US embassy, hurled rocks through its windows, threw paint bombs, and set fire to it, apparently without any attempt on the part of the Chinese authorities to stop them.

China's President, Jiang Zemin, met Boris Yeltsin and then Vladimir Putin and agreed there was a need for a stronger strategic alliance between the two countries to counter United States' dominance in world affairs. Yevgeny Primakov called for a counter alliance of Russia, China and India.

Russia, China and India are acutely conscious of the fact that they all have serious ethnic conflicts within their borders and that a number of ethnic groups in dispute with their governments are supported by the West and have offices in such places as Geneva, London and Berlin. NATO’s new treaty, which claims the justification to bomb a country for humanitarian reasons therefore rings alarm bells with them. The bombing gave strength to the militarist elements within their governments.

Since the bombing of Yugoslavia both Russia, and China have substantially expanded their military budgets (as have the UK and the United States). At a March 2000 UN University meeting on humanitarian intervention held in Tokyo the Indian delegate said there is "almost total unanimity" in India that more arms are necessary. Russia and India have made new arms agreements and in October 2000 they signed a strategic partnership agreement. (35)

Pedro Marset Campos MEP, Foreign Policy spokesman for Izquierda Unida, said in Madrid in 19 July 1999, “Two months of warfare and the destruction of the vital resources of a country . . . served to demonstrate to the world that, even without a UN mandate, NATO can intervene anywhere in the world for any reason. . . The consequences of all this for democracy and the progressive forces are devastating. Every achievements since World War II, and the creation of international legal frameworks and the development of an awareness of international justice, has been lost. The biggest loser was the United Nations. The president of the UN General Assembly, the Uruguay Chancellor Didier Opertii, defined the bombings as ‘a coup d’etat against the United Nations’.” (36)

Commenting on the bombing of Iraq and Yugoslavia by Britain and America, Nelson Mandela, speaking in the UK on 4 April 2000 said, “The message they are sending is that any country which fears a veto (from the UN) can take unilateral action. That means they’re introducing chaos into international affairs: that any country can take any decision which it wants.”

None of the above amounts to what Robin Cook calls, “increased respect for Britain in the world.”