The Economist magazine - voice of the free market right - spelled out a ruling class strategy for Kosova in a recent leader column, entitled "Cooling down Kosovo".

There are, write the editors, the following tasks for NATO and the Western powers to accomplish: putting war criminals on trial; protecting the Serbs of Kosova; disarming the Kosova Liberation Army; integrating a new Kosovan administration into a "Balkan plan"; and dealing out economic aid.

Underpinning their whole policy is one idea: how do we best make the region "stable". In other words the ruling class's theme of bourgeois stability, which underlay both their attempted deal at Rambouillet and the recent bombing campaign, continues in a new way in the new situation.

From their own point of view the Economist's editors recognise the artificial nature of the Balkan states and intend that the big capitalist classes of the West must re-build and re-shape the area according to a Balkan-wide plan. They intend to deal with the conflicts between the Balkan peoples in the same way in which the Western European capitalists rebuilt Europe after World War Two - knitting together the economies first, and allowing political structures to follow on.

Even given that the various state structures in the Balkans are more irrational than in Western Europe (cutting across and dividing peoples in a way that does not often happen in Western Europe), this new, bourgeois Balkans would still be preferable to Milosevic's Balkans. Nevertheless, peace through such a policy would be accomplished from above, bureaucratically, and often by denying the people of the area their democratic right to determine their own futures (and in the first instance the Kosovars, who are to be denied their right to independence). Such a bureaucratic "solution" from above - like Tito's Yugoslavia or the current European Union - might also not provide lasting stability.

Our answer - the answer socialists should make propaganda for - is for a free, democratic Balkan federation created by united, working class political action. Democratic agreement between the peoples is the key to lasting unity; and workers' unity across the Balkan frontiers is the key to such a democratic agreement.

In the interim, the ruling class want, as the Economist puts it, to "cool down" Kosova - disarming the bourgeois nationalist KLA, reassuring the Serbs and creating a stable administration.

The problem for NATO is that any democratically elected Kosovar authority will be pro-independence, something NATO rejects as "destabilising".

NATO has not got enough troops on the ground in Kosova to be able to quickly end revenge-violence committed by Kosovars against remaining Serbs. It is also probably true, that, while protecting Serbs in Kosova makes NATO look good on TV screens, it may be more politically convenient for NATO to see the Serbs go, avoiding a long term problem of dealing with ethnic Albanian-Serb relations.

Action remains opposed to all ethnic cleansing - whether motivated by Serb nationalist supremacism or ethnic Albanian revenge. We believe that our role is to help the development of independent workers' organisations across the region and, in particular, to encourage workers to turn their backs on the nationalist politics which have brought disaster to the area.

The mainstream political leaders all now advocate aid to the region as a basic controlling mechanism and source of stability - but the US and European powers divide on the question of who pays and how much. They also are demanding Milosevic's head as a condition of aid for Serbia, although Clinton assures us that medical aid will get to Serb civilians. Anyone believing this should remember that sanctions against Iraq have killed many thousands of Iraqi children despite assurances of the US's humanitarianism. Socialists should demand that economic aid goes to Serbia too, irrespective of whether Milosevic remains in power. We should not take responsibility for the strangulation of Serbia and the effect of sanctions on ordinary Serbs.

Obviously, socialists want Milosevic's downfall. But the question is: who will bring Milosevic down? Currently all manifestations of internal Serbian opposition are being greeted with the same, blanket, apolitical approval by the British media. We should be well aware that much of the anti-Milosevic opposition is very nationalist - including the "opposition leader" Vuk Draskovic, who until very recently was part of the government - and some of them are worse than Milosevic. We are for the development of independent workers' action against the regime and an understanding among Serbian workers that they will never be free as long as they allow the persecution of other peoples by a Serbian government.

Milosevic is a war criminal. And beyond Milosevic there are many ordinary Serbs who participated in ethnic cleansing, rape and murder. The question is: who should deal with them?

Socialists ought not launch a campaign for Milosevic if he is seized by NATO and ends up in front of the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. Equally, NATO justice is the justice of the victors: one sided and hypocritical. Our preferred solution is that the very real crimes committed during this war are dealt with by the people of the region through their own democratically accountable systems of justice.