G-7 Leaders Prod U.N., Warn Serbs : Summit: Economic powers call on the Security Council to consider use of force to ensure aid deliveries in Sarajevo. Progress is slow on trade liberalization.

In a broadening of international condemnation of Serbian aggression in the war-torn Balkans, the seven leading industrial democracies called on the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday to consider using military force to make sure that food reaches the besieged people of Sarajevo.

“The blockade of Sarajevo must be lifted and the shelling of the town stopped in order to sustain a comprehensive relief operation,” the leaders of the so-called Group of Seven said in a joint declaration. “We firmly warn the parties concerned, including irregular forces, not to take any action that would endanger the lives of those engaged in the relief operation.

“Should these efforts fail due to an unwillingness of those concerned to fully cooperate with the United Nations, we believe the Security Council will have to consider other measures, not excluding military means, to achieve its humanitarian objectives.”

The tough wording adds three major global players--the United States, Canada and Japan--to the growing coalition of nations willing to consider the use of force against Serbia. Leaders of the 12-nation European Community approved a declaration last month that contained virtually identical wording.

In other developments in the second day of the three-day annual summit conference, the Group of Seven (G-7) leaders:

* Said they had inched closer to breaking the impasse between the United States and the European Community that is holding up a global accord to liberalize trade but indicated that agreement is still months away.

* Issued a political declaration calling for “a new partnership of shared responsibilities” among nations in Europe, Asia and elsewhere to face the challenges of the post-Cold War era.

* Prepared to grill Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin today on details of his blueprint for resuscitating his country’s economy from the effects of 70 years of communism.

* Moved closer to agreement to finance an emergency program to build new safety measures into nearly 60 nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to reduce the risk of a Chernobyl-like disaster.

The statement on the Balkans crisis, issued with uncharacteristic speed, represented a tough approach to the tragedy occurring in the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned at a news conference that the stepped-up involvement is not risk-free.

“There is a quagmire potential, but there is a very real problem that must be addressed,” he said.

At an official dinner of the seven leaders Monday night, French President Francois Mitterrand also raised the idea of armed intervention, but he stressed the dangers of an international force becoming entangled in a multi-sided civil war.

It was Mitterrand’s dramatic visit to Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, 10 days ago that helped highlight the depths of the crisis and spurred an international relief effort.

For the second day in a row, the difficult problem posed by the ethnic fighting among the Serbs, Croats and others in what was once Yugoslavia took up much of the public focus of the Munich summit.

The leaders of the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, meeting behind closed doors, saw early hopes for movement on a new international trade agreement begin to fade.

The key stumbling block is U.S. and European disagreement over farm subsidies. Officials had hoped for a breakthrough, but the issue remained unresolved despite U.S. and British pressures on the French to reduce their assistance to farmers.

Germany also reportedly expressed willingness to move. But France is reluctant to alienate its farmers before a crucial Sept. 20 national referendum on European economic and political union.

U.S. and European officials believe that while the detailed negotiations on trade cannot be held among world leaders at a Group of Seven summit, the trade talks have become so bogged down by the agricultural issue that some kind of top-level compromise needs to be worked out to provide the impetus for success at a lower level.

At the end of the day, Yeltsin arrived here from Russia and joined the seven heads of state and government at a state dinner. The Russian president, like Mikhail S. Gorbachev a year ago, flew in for an informal meeting with the representatives of the more wealthy nations immediately after the formal conclusion of the summit today.

It is likely to be a very different affair from the rambling, amorphous presentation made by Gorbachev.

British Prime Minister John Major, a former finance minister, has been designated by his fellow leaders to conduct what one official described as “a fairly intensive discussion” in which Yeltsin is expected to be pressed for details of his economic reform program.

Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will lead a similar exchange on political reforms in which Yeltsin is likely to be quizzed on the protection of minorities and relations between Russia and the other former Soviet republics that have become independent states.

Baker raised the possibility that if Russia remains on a democratic course and adheres to free-market principles, “it might be very likely that the next summit would see the leader of Russia in attendance” as a full partner rather than as a guest invited, in effect, just for dessert.

Other leaders were more hesitant, with a senior German official describing the idea as “premature.”

In addition to the declaration on Yugoslavia, the summit issued a separate political declaration, calling on the new nations of the former Soviet Union to impose “effective export controls on nuclear materials, weapons and other sensitive goods and technologies,” and it offered assistance to accomplish this.

And the document declared the readiness of “the former adversaries of East and West” to cooperate on economic, political and security issues.

A third statement, issued by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the chairman of the summit, called on the Baltic states, once part of the Soviet Union, to respect the rights of minorities living there--meaning Russians--while it also expressed understanding for Russia’s problems in quickly withdrawing the former Soviet troops stationed there. But it nevertheless called for a quick agreement on their departure.

Although the leaders appeared ready to back an emergency plan to build more safety into Soviet-era nuclear power plants, differences remained over how such a program would be funded.

The German hosts had initially proposed a $700-million multilateral fund that would be the start of a longer-term, multibillion-dollar project that would eventually decommission most of these reactors.

The United States and Japan, however, argued that the reactors should be upgraded through a series of bilateral assistance programs, a method that would avoid the creation of a new authority with an accompanying bureaucracy envisioned by the Europeans.

In the deliberations on Yugoslavia, European officials discussed the possibility of naming Romania as the main violator of U.N.-imposed trade sanctions because it has remained a key supplier of oil to Serbia.

“It is very important that Romania, because of its trade links with Serbia, and the oil link, should apply the sanctions,” said British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd in a meeting with reporters.

“That’s one of the issues that needs to be looked into more vigorously,” Baker agreed later.

In addition to its expressed willingness to consider the use of force, the statement on Yugoslavia raised the prospect of holding an international conference to address the issue, a proposal included at the insistence of the French, although it was received coolly by others.

ECONOMIC FAILURE? The summit won’t achieve much to help the troubled American economy. D1

Steps to Sending in the Troops

Here is the probable course for passage of a Security Council resolution on using military force in Bosnia-Herzegovina:

1. Presenting the resolution: Either the U.S., Britain and France or all three will call a closed meeting of the Big Five (those three plus Russia and China) and present a draft resolution. The sponsors need to make sure that the resolution will not be vetoed by any of the Big Five; they must vote in favor or abstain.

2. Making changes: The draft resolution is then presented at a closed meeting of all 15 members of the Security Council. Changes are made. To pass, the resolution will need the vote of nine members with no negative votes coming from any of the Big Five.

3. A 24-hour delay: There often is a 24-hour delay so that ambassadors can consult their governments about the latest form of the resolution.

4. The vote: The Security Council then meets in open, formal session to vote on the resolution. Most ambassadors make a brief speech explaining their votes. Some governments like to speak before they vote; others prefer to wait until after their vote.

5. Dispatching troops: If the resolution authorizes a dispatch of troops, the office of Marrack Goulding, undersecretary general, will probably put together the force. By this time, countries will have already notified him whether they are prepared to send troops.

6. Complicating factors: A host of problems arises if the resolution authorizes the U.N. to use force against Serbia. In the cases of Korea and Kuwait, the U.N. did not assemble a force of U.N. troops to fight the aggressors, North Korea and Iraq. Instead, it authorized the U.S. and its allies to undertake the military operation in the name of the U.N.

Source: United Nations