As I write, the Government is encouraging us to mourn the death of a British soldier in Bosnia. He was shot while protecting an aid convoy. Partly in response, an aircraft carrier and light artillery are being sent out to reinforce our presence there. Further reinforcements may, and probably will, be sent out as the year proceeds.

Now, soldiers are paid to be shot at; and death in action, though regrettable, is an acknowledged occupational hazard. Since enlistment is free, the lamentation to which some tabloid newspapers have given way is excessive. Yet, this being said, we do indeed have reason to mourn. For a soldier's life is only so dispensible as the cause in which he may lose it is moral. And I cannot regard the British intervention in what was Yugoslavia as other than highly immoral. It is immoral for two reasons.

In the first place, it is an abuse of British power. I do not like what is happening in Bosnia. If I were able, by my own exertions, to stop the fighting, I should feel obliged to do so. But a government is not an individual. It is bound no less strictly to observe certain moral precepts; but these are not the same precepts as those that bind natural persons. Having no life and property of its own to endanger, its actions are all secondary. Therefore, when any matter of armed intervention is raised by a government, the sole determining question must be - how far is such intervention needed to secure the lives and properties of those whom it governs?

Plainly, fighting that takes place a thousand miles away is not our problem. We are told that, uncontrolled, the fighting may spread through the Balkans and thence into Central Europe. But, Like the Balkans, Central Europe is a long way distant. Also - and I must be taken as an authority on this point - its inhabitants are most unlikely to to begin cutting each other's throats.

There is a flood of refugees into Italy, Austria and Hungary. Though perhaps a problem for these countries, it is not good reason for British intervention. Certainly, the Government is worried about further immigration into the United Kingdom. But, even granting the legitimacy of such worries, I fail to see how they justify armed intervention. I say further, that on the grounds of the vilest racial prejudice, such immigrants should be welcomed: every white Slav accepted for settlement can be made reason for not accepting a black or brown person.

In the second place, intervention is not in the interest of any other of the main intervening powers. These same considerations apply in greater or lesser degree to France and the United States. And, this being so, what real benefit can be expected for the inhabitants of Bosnia?

The truth seems to be, that Serbia is the dominant power in the region. Its attempt to subdue Bosnia allows two Western responses. We can do nothing, or - as we seem now about to do - we can intervene to stop the fighting. But if we do intervene, we must be prepared to remain in the Balkans indefinitely, to maintain what will otherwise be an unstable balance of power.

The British Government has kept the peace in Northern Ireland for the past generation. It has done this unwillingly and in bad grace, but fully aware of its duties in the Province, and of its interest in performing those duties. Also, its presence there has not been seriously challenged by any significant power in the world. Are we, together with the Americans and French, now willingly to assume a burden that dwarfs the Irish problem, and which we have no valid interest to assume, and therefore no strong reason to bear properly or for long?

Are we to do this, moreover, in the face of Russian disapproval? Russia is after all, the traditional ally of Serbia. It may currently be of no account in Europe. But how will things stand in ten years' time? Do we really want to spend the next century facing down a pan-slavist Russia, as we have spent this century facing down Soviet Russia?

The answer to these question is no. We do not want or need a hundred Northern Irelands or another cold war. Therefore, any intervention in Bosnia will necessarily be half-hearted, and will at best only prolong the fighting there and increase the total loss of life.

Much has been said already about the dictates of interest and morality that send us into the Bosnian dispute. More still, I am sure, will be said. But the truest dictate of morality and of interest - for this country and for the other Western powers - is to preserve a rigid neutrality.

Sean Gabb