by William Plaff

(The Herald tribune, 06/07/95)

PARIS - The Bosnian war could put an end to NATO and the trans-Atlantic security relationship of the past five decades. The next six weeks will decide.

The Senate majority leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole says that on July 14 he will introduce a resolution in Congress requiring the United States to break the UN arms embargo on Bosnia. This is expected to pass. A veto by President Bill Clinton would probably be overturned. The Clinton administration would be under intense pressure indirectly to enter the war.

This will happen if the European Rapid Reaction Force proves an empty gesture. On that same day, July 14, the French brigade of the Rapid Reaction Force will become operational (a second brigade is held in reserve in France). With BritishDutch units in place, and German air power and medical units committed, the force, in principle, will be in business a week from now.

Midsummer comes in one month. The immobilizing winter can arrive early in mountainous central Yugoslavia. If the European force is to do anything novel, it has a limited time to act.

President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister John Major created this force without consulting Washington or the United Nations. Washington was subsequently asked to put up some of the money. Congress said no. Mr. Clinton has found some cash, less than the sum requested in already authorized funds. NATO now is marginalized. As from a universe of dreams, NATO last week announced a plan by which 60,000 of its soldiers would require six months to carry out an "emergency" evacuation of UN forces from Yugoslavia.

If the West had committed 60,000 men to Yugoslavia four years ago there would be no war today.

In any case, NATO does not function without the United States, and now, as four years ago, Congress is against a U.S. ground involvement.

The European governments have now understood that it is possible they will have to evacuate their people without Washington's or NATO's help. The chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, General John Shalikashvili, recently said to the Senate that to leave the allies in the lurch "is simply inconceivable." He is wrong; it is perfectly conceivable, given the situation in Washington.

There are two possibilities in the weeks to come. The first is that West European forces in Yugoslavia do what Europe's leaders, meeting last week at the European Union summit in Cannes, instructed them to do: execute the UN mandate to break the siege of Sarajevo. This would mean forcing convoys through, reopening the Sarajevo airport, by force if necessary, and defending themselves, and Sarajevo, against Serbian obstruction or reprisal.

This is called "robust peacekeeping."

The Bosnian Serbs, caught in a crossfire between robust peacekeepers and the newly active Bosnian army, might decide toaccept the 49 percent/51 percent territorial partition long ago proposed by the great powers' Contact Group. That is no the probable outcome, but it is more likely than that further persuasion by EU an UN mediators will convince the Bosnian Serbs to accept the plan.

Western Europe would thereby salvage such honor as can be saved for Europe an the West in Yugoslavia. France, Britain, the Netherlands and Germany would also have demonstrated, almost despite themselves, that the European Union's member nations can articulate a security identity and execute a serious policy.

The alternative is that the Europe force conducts itself as Unprofor ha done, accepting Yasushi Akashi's definition of its role and rules of engagement, awaiting a peace "process" that never comes, preparing for UN withdrawal. The United States would certainly then supply arms to Sarajevo's army, and probably give it more assistance through quasi clandestine or "arm's-length" channels.

In my opinion it would be justified doing so. If nothing now changes in Eu rope's policy, after the drama of Mr. Chirac's call for a new force and a new program, endorsed by the European

Union's highest body, the European governments will have forfeited their right to a decisive vote in what the West does.

Europe's position over the last four years has been defensible and responsible, although in my opinion mistaken. The position of the United States has been right, in my view, but irresponsible, since it was given no practical consequence and involved no national sacrifice.

For the allies to break with one another on this of all issues is a great tragedy. There is much good will on both sides. Nonetheless the break will come, unless Europe changes its policy.

There are sizable risks now. In my view there is little risk of Russian involvement, as Russia's historical and cultural links to Serbia are distant, and its national interests are at home. There will, however, be an enlarged war, as Europe's UN forces retreat. The Yugoslav National Army is unlikely to permit the Bosnian Serbs' total defeat, even if the Bosnian government army could inflict such a defeat.

This outcome would confirm the American suspicion that Western Europe's inability to assure the security of its own region is a failure of moral intelligence and conviction. It would confirm the Europeans in their view that the United States now is a reckless and irresponsible force in world affairs. It is irrelevant that neither judgment is really true.