U.N. OKs Force for Bosnia Relief : Balkans: Security Council resolution authorizes ‘all measures necessary’ to aid battered Sarajevo. But there’s no hint yet about the form military action may take.

The U.N. Security Council, appalled at Serbian “ethnic cleansing” and detention camps, overwhelmingly approved a resolution Thursday authorizing the use of “all measures necessary,” including military force, to ensure the supply of humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and the other beleaguered communities of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

There was no hint, however, about the kind of force, if any, envisioned by the United States, Britain and France, the main proponents of the Security Council action. British Ambassador David Hannay, in fact, told reporters that the resolution was “not a resolution prescribing the use of force. It is merely a resolution authorizing it as a last resort.”

Nevertheless, in an echo of the resolutions that powered American action in the Persian Gulf War, the Security Council handed individual nations like the United States and regional organizations like NATO the right to intervene militarily in Bosnia in the name of the United Nations.

This appeared to trouble Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who sent a letter expressing fears for the safety of the more than 14,000 U.N. peacekeepers now monitoring the cease-fire line in Croatia and protecting the airport at Sarajevo.

Boutros-Ghali asked any country planning to use force in Bosnia to give him “adequate advance warning of its intentions” so that he could “minimize the dangers” to the U.N. personnel. Although he did not say so, this presumably could entail withdrawal of his peacekeepers.

The U.N. action failed to satisfy Bosnian Ambassador Mohammed Sacirbey, who chided the Security Council for dealing with the symptoms of “a disease called ciscenje” --the Serbian word for ethnic cleansing--and not with the disease itself. The Serbs have been forcing Muslims, the largest ethnic group in Bosnia, out of many communities in an obvious attempt to make most of Bosnia a part of a Greater Serbia.

The council, wary of an open debate in the chamber between Serb and Bosnian leaders, refused a request by Sacirbey to address the session. Instead, he submitted a written statement in which he lamented what he called “a wide gap between the words and the deeds of the international community.”

“We have become the modern world’s Warsaw Ghetto of 50 years ago, abandoned by many, deprived but together . . . resisting a fascist philosophy. . . ,” the Bosnian ambassador said.

By a vote of 12 to 0 with three abstentions, the Security Council passed the use-of-force resolution that called upon all nations “to take nationally or through regional agencies or arrangements all measures necessary to facilitate in coordination with the United Nations the delivery . . . of humanitarian assistance to Sarajevo and wherever needed in other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

The three abstainers--India, Zimbabwe and China--did so mainly on the grounds that they believed that the Security Council was giving individual countries a blank check to intervene in Bosnia.

“This empowers any state which feels able and so inclined to use military force in any part of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the name of the United Nations without any control from the United Nations,” said Zimbabwean Ambassador S. S. Mumbengegwi.

The abstention by China enabled the resolution to pass, for China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, could have vetoed the resolution by voting against it.

In a second resolution, which was passed unanimously by a vote of 15 to 0, the Security Council condemned “ethnic cleansing,” demanded complete access to detention camps by the International Committee of the Red Cross and called on all nations and humanitarian agencies to collect material about “grave breaches” of international law. This presumably could lead to war crimes trials in the future.

In their official statements before and after the debates, the ambassadors were harsh in their condemnation of the government in Belgrade, once the capital of Yugoslavia and now the capital of what is left of the Yugoslav federation--the republics of Serbia and Montenegro. “My government,” said American Ambassador Edward J. Perkins, “is appalled by the continuing deterioration of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The destruction of villages, executions and indiscriminate killings continue apace. Belgrade’s vile policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’--actually ethnic extermination--is only intensifying.

“We are witnessing some of the most egregious abuses of human rights that Europe has seen since World War II.”

The prospects for military action, however, were confused. In Washington, a senior Administration official said, “Our hope is that having this resolution will mean that we will not have to use it.”

But he noted that the United States, NATO and the Western European Union were making contingency plans. NATO ambassadors planned to meet in Brussels today to discuss their options.

There is a possibility, the Administration official said, that American air power could come from an aircraft carrier in the Adriatic Sea and from an air base in Aviano in northern Italy. He added, however, that the British were unenthusiastic about committing combat forces, although the French were more open to the idea.

But there was no hesitation in Turkey. In Ankara, military officials announced that they were forming a mechanized battalion with 480 troops to be ready to join any multinational force in Bosnia. Turkey, a Muslim nation, has been calling for military action for some time to halt the Serbian attacks against the Bosnian Muslims.

The senior Administration official in Washington acknowledged that it is possible military intervention might come too late to prevent the Serbs from controlling as much of Bosnia as they want. But he also said that the United States could never accept ethnic cleansing.

Boutros-Ghali’s letter to the Security Council reflected a growing concern among U.N. officials that any military intervention would convince the Serbs that the U.N. peacekeepers are not a neutral force and thus provoke a backlash against them.

In a hint that he might feel forced to withdraw them, the secretary general wrote that a number of governments that had contributed troops to the U.N. operation at the Sarajevo airport “have recently communicated to me their growing concerns about the security of their personnel.”

Times staff writer Art Pine in Washington contributed to this report.

JOURNALIST KILLED: Bosnia sniper mortally wounds ABC’s David Kaplan. A8