Intervention in Bosnia

* In the spring of 1992, before the outbreak of all-out civil war in Bosnia, some members of the European Community suggested the division into cantons similar to Switzerland. This was rejected and then followed bloodletting by all sides and the expulsion of over 2 million people--Muslims, Serbs and Croats. Now we have come to the same proposal of three cantons, now being recommended by the same people who previously rejected it.

Peace would have come earlier but for the unreasonable expectations that Presidents Bush and Clinton raised in the minds of the Bosnian government. Now President Clinton is at it again. While there is a hope of an agreement he is making bellicose noises, giving false hopes to the Bosnians.

Let us keep our noses out of this civil war and let the participants make their own peace.

HERBERT E. SELWYN

Encino

* The case for U.S. intervention to save Sarajevo is appealing, but cannot be convincing until President Clinton answers one question fully: Exactly what are the meaningful distinctions between Sarajevo and Saigon, between the Serbs and the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong, between Vietnam and Bosnia? If not Southeast Asia then, why the Balkans now?

LAWRENCE B. BARNES

Bellflower

* In the towns, villages and mountain slopes of Bosnia the outrage against civilians continues. Amid a kaleidoscope of shifting alliances, the warring parties are involved in a struggle over land and time.

The gains and losses made now on the Bosnian terrain will condition peace efforts and talks at the negotiating table. They will, in practical terms, override negotiations. Even if the diplomats in the chambers of international maneuvering ultimately come to agreement, the local commanders and chiefs will continue to determine the corridors of access to strategic points and communications through a prolonged and possibly continuous engagement in guerrilla warfare.

The West does not want to become entangled in a messy conflict. Why then meddle? The policy is one of “containment.” Is it realistic to believe that aim will be achieved? The result of an agreement imposed from outside, by negotiators sitting far from the real day-to-day conditions, seems only to ensure a volatile and unstable future for the region.

The mandates the Security Council has chosen to hand down do not allow the U.N. on the ground to come to terms with a very real disaster. The U.N. and its agencies do not have the freedom to operate in any real way to help the victims of the war. Though “safe areas” have been declared, no resolution has yet been drafted that lays down terms that will guarantee the safety of the populations therein. The mandates do not allow for individual acts of assistance or protection; in fact they are forbidden. As for the success story of providing humanitarian aid, it is well known that close to 60% or more of that aid does not reach those for whom it is intended.

The scenario is not pretty. The people of Bosnia look to a bleak future. They feel deliberately betrayed by the very world they chose to emulate as they stepped out into the brave new world of democracy. It is too late to alter this view. It is the truth. Sanja Bosak, a Sarajevo resident, said, “Sarajevo is dying, but the terrible future of the world can be read in its gently fading eyes. Who will be next? After Beirut and Sarajevo, which town will next fall victim to the world’s indifference?”

YARMILA ARAGON

International Agency

Zagreb, Croatia