Critical examinations of the conduct of the 1999 NATO war against Yugoslavia, which was built up as a "humanitarian intervention" by the Clinton administration, have been all but non-existent (a handful of scientists and environmentalists have voiced their concerns).This is true, in particular, for the ecocide in Serbia with its associated environmental and public-health consequences.In this context, ecocide means the deliberate and conscious causation of environmental damage to achieve war aims.

However, the so-called "Balkan War Syndrome" hit the headlines like an avalanche, following revelations that the casualty toll rose to 22 European soldiers (from six countries) who served in Bosnia and Kosovo. They died mostly from leukemia.Massive radiation screening has been initiated by several countries, including Portugal, Spain, Italy and Poland.Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, demanded that light be shed on the health effects of depleted uranium (DU) used by NATO forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

"I want the truth to be ascertained," he said, "not only concerning the soldiers, but also for the people who lived near them."

To my knowledge, Prodi is the only official who has expressed concern about the general population.

During the 78-day Kosovo war, there were almost daily attacks on the chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical plants, plastic factories, refineries, fuel storage tanks, automobile plants, machine industry, food processing, heating and water treatment plants as well as the electric power grid.These attacks resulted in releases of many extremely hazardous chemical substances, which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic and, as such, cause perilous consequences to human, plant and animal life.Many released chemicals are the world's most toxic persistent organic pollutants and would not be tolerated in minuscule quantities in the United States.Soaked into the soil they percolate into the aquifer and hence the people of Serbia and the entire region will be repeatedly exposed to them.

Most of released chemical and radiological substances are unlikely to kill people instantly. The long-term health effects are going to be fully visible in five to 15 years. Nonetheless, the mortality rate in Belgrade last winter has increased by 40 percent compared to the year before (prior to NATO bombing).According to a report by the Cancer Foundation Yugoslavia, the incidence of cancer is projected to double.In Bosnia, health statistics indicate a marked increase in cancers.Several European governments told their troops not to eat local products and were reported to have flown in drinking water.But what about the general population? While somewhat premature to judge, the consequences are likely to exceed those associated with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Consequences of NATO ecocide in Serbia have been assessed, although incompletely in my opinion, by several organizations, including the United Nations Environmental Program.UNEP has singled out four sites of special environmental concern and recommended urgent cleanup: Pancevo, Novi Sad, Kragujevac and Bor.

It appears that the impact on NATO troops will be addressed somehow.The same may not be true for the general population.In the near term, it is not unreasonable to expect the NATO countries, notably the United States and Canada, which have caused the bulk of ecocide, to become accountable for the cleanup not only in Kosovo and Bosnia but Serbia proper.It is not far-fetched to conclude that we are dealing with a case of criminal negligence.A cleanup should be the first step.In the long-term, world opinion must unite to identify ecocide as a crime against humanity on a level with other war crimes.