As I write there is a BBC reporter telling the anchor in London about the simply impossible logistical problems of getting aid to some of the masses of refugees up and down the border. Perhaps the aid agencies should ask the Macedonians? Let's face it, for what has been repeatedly described as one of the poorest nations in Europe, Macedonia deserves some credit for putting together what must have been up to 500, 60-seat buses, embarking 30,000 people and moving them to points unknown - and all of that in the dark without anyone noticing!

The UNHCR says the forced transportation of those refugees is a gross and unforgivable violation of their basic human rights. These are refugees who walked out of Kosovo and thought that they were at last under the protection of NATO. Words fail me. Who and where are we going to bomb next - Skopje?

Meanwhile, James Rubin describes the ceasefire offer made by Belgrade as 'half-baked'. And that was probably the kindest sentiment expressed by spokesmen and politicians around the world. NATO was quick to send its reply - the heaviest raids on Yugoslavia in two weeks. This isn't about protecting ethnic Albanians anymore - if it ever was - it is about 'getting' Milosevic and looking tough.

Y'know I have my doubts that Nato really expected they would have to go to war. I have this mental image of Nato leaders huddled together after the Paris talks ended without a resolution. The first minister asks: "So what do we do now?"

2nd Minister: "If we don't bomb, we're gonna look like a bunch of blowhards."

3rd Minister: "Yeah, and if we do, what do you think is going to happen to all the poor Albanians?"

4th Minister: "Bloody hell, how did we get into this mess? Who's bright idea was it anyway to threaten bombing?"

5th Minister: "It was him!"

6th Minister: "The hell it was, I was always against it, it was him!"

And so on.

Rubin, Joe Lockhart et al repeated that the minimum required of Milosevic was the deal signed by the Kosovar Albanian lkeaders at Rambouillet. Y'now, the ones that Nato said they had reliable information were murdered by Serb death squads and who have miraculously come back to life. Rather appropriate for Easter. I have to thank one of APJ's readers for the following:

"It is a cardinal principle of international law embodied in the Vienna Convention on Treaties adopted on May 26, 1963 and which entered into force on January 27, 1980 that agreements negotiated under threat of force are null and void. Section 2, Articles 51 and 52 make clear that coercion is impermissible as a negotiating instrument."

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the threat of military action repeated quite frequently during the weeks from Rambouillet up to and including the final Paris talks? Does that mean NATO in general and the United States Government/British Government in particular are using Yugoslavia's refusal to sign a flawed agreement as the basis for going to war? Not that it is really important now, I guess.

Amid mounting criticism of the way NATO and other organisations have handled the humanitarian crisis, Bill Clinton announced that some 30-thousand metric tonnes of emergency supplies had been pre-positioned in the region. Enough, Bill said, to feed half-a-million people for three months.

Why? Pre-positioning that amount of food is a major undertaking. Did NATO anticipate their bombing campaign would lead to massive ethnic cleansing? If yes, then why did Nato launch the attacks? Another thing, if so much food was already in the region, why did it take more than ten days and several cries for international assistance before any of it reached the refugees?