Muslims, Croats Sign Accords for New Federation

Bosnian Muslims and Croats signed agreements Friday creating a new federation of their long-warring parties and stirring hope for a comprehensive settlement.

But their accords raised concern among American policy-makers here about the peacekeeping role U.S. troops may eventually have to play in shattered Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In a ceremony here, hailed by President Clinton as a “moment of hope,” leaders of the two groups formally agreed to a new constitution and signed a statement of principles linking their commonly held areas to Croatia.

The pacts are designed to increase pressure on the Bosnian Serbs, who control 70% of Bosnia and have shown little inclination to surrender land or make other concessions.

Even acknowledging the obstacles that remain, Clinton said the agreements “offer one of the first clear signals that parties to this conflict are willing to end the violence and begin a process of reconstruction.”

And Russia’s chief strategist on the Balkan conflict, Deputy Foreign Minister Vitaly S. Churkin, predicted that Bosnian Serbs will soon agree to a countrywide political settlement.

But amid the signs of momentum toward peace, senior Administration officials acknowledged their concern that the public and Congress do not support plans to send U.S. peacekeepers to Bosnia if a three-way peace agreement is signed.

Many lawmakers and analysts said they believe that the peacekeeping contingent--pledged more than a year ago in hopes of advancing the cause of peace--would be difficult to sell to the public and could threaten Clinton’s domestic agenda should Americans be harmed.

David Gergen, presidential counselor, said that--if a settlement is worked out--the Administration will need to launch a “major educational effort” to persuade a public that has not yet focused on the issue.

And the White House faces an “uphill battle,” he said, in persuading skittish members of Congress to support such a move. “That’s going to be a tough one for us,” Gergen said.

But he acknowledged that the nation’s support is essential for such a venture. “First you commit the troops, then you commit the country,” he said.

Administration officials have estimated that as many as 25,000 U.S. troops could be part of a peacekeeping force. The troops would be sent only if the peace agreement was clearly workable and if there were a clear strategy for withdrawal, officials have said. The contingent would remain only for a limited period--perhaps one to two years, officials said.

The Administration’s strategy for selling the plan has been coming into sharper focus. If a peace pact is signed, officials would argue that the accord has marked a clear diplomatic victory for the United States but that the victory--and peace--would evaporate, if U.S. troops were not sent.

French and British officials have said their countries’ troops would not participate without U.S. involvement. And Bosnian Muslims have been explicit about their insistence on U.S. participation in any comprehensive settlement.

“I don’t think in the last analysis Congress would want responsibility for choosing war over peace,” one senior Administration official said.

As the chances for a settlement seemed to brighten, prominent lawmakers from both parties urged the White House to move quickly and aggressively to make its case for such a force.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Clinton has no time to lose, considering that President George Bush needed four months to sell Operation Desert Shield. “Even then, it was a struggle,” Lugar said.

He said the Administration needs to begin by spelling out intentions that have been muddied by some officials’ insistence that the United States would never send ground troops to Bosnia.

“It’s not really clear in my mind what the President intends to do,” he said.

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Clinton “carries the burden of persuasion with Congress--no doubt about it.” Clinton may seek a congressional resolution explicitly spelling out lawmakers’ support, he said.

But if a vote were to occur now, “he’d probably lose,” Hamilton said.

Polls on the public’s willingness to send U.S. peacekeeping troops show a sharp split. But the results become far more negative when the wording raises a possibility that troops might be hurt. An NBC News survey from last October, for example, found only 23% of those polled favored sending a contingent, while 67% opposed it when it was suggested that the ground troops “could be subject to hostile action.”

In Bosnia, “there will be some risks,” Hamilton declared. “You have renegade commanders here and there, and there will be people taking some potshots.”

Greg Schneiders, a Democratic pollster, said that winning support for a peacekeeping contingent would be difficult for Clinton. And if the units began to suffer casualties, the move could hurt Clinton and threaten his domestic agenda, he said.

The public still expects Clinton to be the domestic affairs President for whom they thought they had voted, Schneiders said. “For him to get too wrapped up in foreign affairs would be bait-and-switch,” he said.

Polls have already shown Clinton’s vulnerability to such public concerns. Last October, after U.S. Army Rangers were killed in an attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, Clinton’s approval rating tumbled 10 percentage points, Gallup Organization polls showed.

Analysts noted that sending ground troops to Bosnia would be more difficult than sending them to Somalia, where the mission originally was a limited famine-relief effort, or to Kuwait, where there was clearly Iraqi aggression.

Bosnia, where national interests are not directly threatened, “is really a case without precedent for us,” said Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a former U.S. foreign policy official now at the Brookings Institution think tank here.

The Administration’s hesitancy to risk troops anywhere in the inflamed atmosphere of the former Yugoslav federation was apparent Friday, as officials discussed the new Muslim-Croat agreements. As part of those agreements, U.S. officials promised rewards for the country, starting with the opening, perhaps within weeks, of a new embassy in Sarajevo.

One senior Administration official said the United States also would give Croatia permission to open consulates in New York, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Los Angeles.