“We are living in, I think, the most dangerous times since 1945 where optional warfare is rationally considered by western governments, certainly the Americans and the British. Well, warfare hasn’t been a policy option since 1914 and look where it led us then.”

The former BBC war correspondent no longer needs to see the world through an objective lens. He points out that the current British government is the first to have no members with experience of war:

“Not a single one has ever worn the Queen’s uniform, visited a war zone during a time of war, or has any conception of what warfare involves in terms of the suffering of both soldiers and civilians. So it’s easy for them to choose war as a policy option.”

He has accrued strong opinions about conflict and the suffering of civilians caught between warring factions, particularly through his experiences of the Balkan wars in Croatia and Bosnia.

“The wars are not only fought irrespective of the Geneva Conventions, which are supposed to protect civilians, but sometimes you feel that civilians are deliberately being targeted.”

But what of wars, such as Kosovo, that are fought on humanitarian grounds? Martin says that a civilian’s perception of the morality of military action varies according who and where they are.

“Kosovo: you’re talking about two peoples. You’re talking about the Albanians who’d been driven from their homes and you’re talking about the Kosovo Serbs and other Serbs who were the victims of NATO attacks. So it was, from one point of view, a humanitarian operation to save the Kosovo Albanians. But I think if you were Serb you’d probably see it as a war of aggression against the Serbs. These things are very complex.”