U.N. Force in Somalia Faces Cutbacks After Americans Go : Peacekeeping: Few nations pledge troops to replace GIs in March. Mission could become almost a token operation.

With few governments rushing in where Americans now fear to tread, the United Nations may have to transform its Somalia peacekeeping mission into a minuscule, almost token operation after the United States withdraws by March 31.

According to U.N. sources, both Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and President Clinton have been largely rebuffed in their attempts to assemble a credible logistics and fighting force to replace the American troops after the withdrawal.

The pledges of help have been so meager, in fact, that the United Nations now can count on putting together only a force of 5,000 Egyptians and Pakistanis backed by private contractors handling logistics.

Most governments are evidently biding their time to see if U.S. envoy Robert B. Oakley can work out some kind of peace agreement between Mohammed Farah Aidid and the other Somali warlords. If Oakley succeeds, these governments might change course and send troops to help police the agreement. But there is great skepticism, especially at the United Nations, that he can succeed.

After the Mogadishu debacle of Oct. 3, when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and 75 were wounded in a raid on an Aidid stronghold, Clinton--faced with a flare of anger in Congress--decided to augment the U.S. force in Somalia for self-protection while preparing for a total withdrawal by March 31. The Security Council, at the urging of the Clinton Administration, called off the hunt for Aidid, bringing almost all U.N. and U.S. military operations in Somalia to a halt.

Soon afterward, Kofi Annan, the U.N. undersecretary general in charge of peacekeeping, predicted the difficulty in replacing the Americans. “Other presidents and prime ministers are going to have difficulty explaining to their people that the American President is removing his troops because it is too dangerous but is encouraging them to send their own troops,” he said.

Boutros-Ghali quickly sent letters to 42 governments asking them to replace the U.S. Army logistics unit of 3,000 soldiers. The response was so negative, according to U.N. sources, that the secretary general has decided to give contracts to private companies to supply the fuel, vehicle maintenance and land, sea and air transport now provided by the U.S. Army.

On the issue of combat troops, Annan called a meeting several weeks ago of diplomats from the 29 countries that now contribute troops to the U.N. operation in Somalia. Even before the Clinton announcement of an impending American withdrawal, France, Belgium and Sweden had announced that they were withdrawing their own troops from Somalia. The French began pulling out the first of their 1,100 troops this week; Belgium intends to withdraw its 950 soldiers, and Sweden its hospital unit of 150, two weeks from now.

In the session, according to U.N. sources, Annan asked the other countries to keep their troops in Somalia. One country replied that it will not. Pakistan and Egypt agreed to augment their contingents, and the rest remained silent.

About the same time the Boutros-Ghali letter reached other governments, Clinton wrote to 30 heads of state and government asking them to replace the American combat troops in Somalia. The first replies, according to the United Nations, were negative.

“After these first responses,” a U.N. official said, “they haven’t kept us informed.”

“No one wants to commit,” explained the official. “They are not prepared to say they want to stay. . . . They are waiting to see what happens on the ground. We’re at a loss. We don’t know what the nature of the mission will be.”

The U.N. peacekeeping operation in Somalia now numbers 29,000 troops, including the U.S. logistics unit and the French, Belgian and Swedish contingents. In addition, there are thousands of American troops who are under direct American command and not under the command of Gen. Cevik Bir, the Turkish officer who heads the U.N. military forces.

In a report to the Security Council last month, Boutros-Ghali set down three options for the future:

* Keeping 30,000 or more troops in Somalia with the strength and authority to force the warlords to disarm if necessary.

* Reducing the force to 16,000 troops without the authority to force disarmament but with the goal of helping Somalis in rehabilitation, reconciliation, repatriation of refugees and humanitarian aid.

* Reducing the force to 5,000 troops with the main duty of guarding the airport and port of Mogadishu and escorting food convoys.

If only Pakistan and Egypt prove willing to send troops to Somalia, the secretary general and the Security Council will have little choice but the third option.

The United Nations, of course, could simply withdraw. But Boutros-Ghali said in his report that “the international community must not abandon Somalia. . . . Total withdrawal would not be a responsible act.”

Many U.N. officials fear that Aidid and other warlords plan to resume their civil war after the Americans leave.

A civil war probably would return Somalia to the state that prompted former President George Bush to dispatch thousands of Marines there a year ago.