The British government and NATO are trying to play down reports that the British commander of Kfor, Lieut-Gen Sir Michael Jackson, clashed with NATO's Supreme Commander, Gen Wesley Clark, by refusing to send troops and air support into Pristina airport to block the advance of Russian forces.
But a Downing Street spokesman admitted yesterday that "discussions" had taken place between the two commanders over how best to deploy Kfor troops during the occupation of Kosovo. He would not comment directly on the reported content of the dispute between the two commanders.
In a report published just days after the US announced Gen Clark would be retiring early, Newsweek claims that Lieut-Gen Jackson blankly refused Gen Clark's order to send troops and helicopters into the airport to take the airfield, believing that an airborne assault by British and French troops was not necessary.
US Admiral James Ellis, who was in charge of NATO's Southern Command, also refused Gen Clark's order to land helicopters on the airport runway to prevent Russian Ilyushin transports from landing, claiming Lieut Gen Jackson would not support the decision, according to the report.
The report centres on the early stages of NATO's occupation of Kosovo on June 11th, when 200 Russian troops established a stronghold on the northern side of the Slatina airfield, defying NATO demands that they should leave the area. Russian defiance was part of a larger dispute over its role in Kfor, with Russia demanding its own area of command in Kosovo and not wanting to answer to NATO command.
The extraordinary battle of wills between the British and US commanders was reported to have taken place when Gen Clark arrived in Kosovo on June 24th to meet Lieut-Gen Jackson to discuss the deployment of NATO ground troops. Lieut-Gen Jackson was reported to have told him: "I'm not going to start the third World War for you."
It was also claimed that LieutGen Jackson sought and received backing from London on his stance, but that Gen Clark was not supported in Washington. Without US support, his orders were effectively overruled. The landing of Russian Ilyushins was later blocked after the US persuaded Hungary and Romania to deny Russia overflight rights through their airspace.
Acknowledging that discussions did take place between the two commanders over how best to deploy Kfor troops during the occupation of Kosovo, Downing Street said London and Washington were kept informed of military decision-making. It would not comment directly on the reported content of the June 24th dispute.
Downing Street described the report as a "sensational account" and a "distorted caricature" of discussions between the commanders. However, when asked if Lieut-Gen Jackson had sought the British government's support for his refusal to order Kfor troops into Pristina's airport, a spokesman said: "It is not the position of the British government to issue orders to subordinate NATO commanders. We saw the report, but it is certainly not something we recognise."
A NATO spokesman said he did not have accurate information about the dispute, but he had been informed that it had taken place: "People have said it, but this report looks like it has been blown out of proportion."
However Mr Jonathan Eyal, the director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said he believed the report was "absolutely true" and that Lieut-Gen Jackson and Gen Clark were both taking orders from their respective political capitals.
The dispute over the deployment of Kfor troops was the tensest and least-told episode between the US and Europe in general, and posed enormous dangers if it had developed, according to Mr Eyal.
If Gen Clark's orders had been carried out, it would have caused the biggest diplomatic crisis since the end of the Cold War, he added. "The danger of meeting Russia militarily would have meant that NATO could never have got them to agree a deal."
The report suggested that Washington did not support Gen Clark's order, but Mr Eyal was sceptical: "I am not sure he would have done it without American support. It is convenient to put the blame on Clark, but I doubt very much he would have taken the risk without American support."