New Plan to Lift Bosnia Arms Embargo Studied : Balkans: Compromise being worked on at U.N. would permit shipments to Muslim-led government forces early in 1995.

U.S. officials, Bosnian leaders and other allies conferred Monday on a new proposal to break the stalemate over the Bosnia arms embargo and abruptly shift the balance of power in the three-year civil war.

Convening at the United Nations for several days of meetings, top officials are debating a compromise to lift the embargo and permit weapons shipments to the Muslim-led Bosnian army--thus letting it come closer to matching the firepower of its Bosnian Serb adversaries--but not until early next year.

The proposal, first aired by Bosnian officials last month, has apparently softened the opposition of British and French officials who have threatened to pull their troops out of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina if the arms embargo is lifted.

They would withdraw their forces out of a concern that a resolution allowing arms to Bosnia might provoke an all-out Bosnian Serb offensive that would endanger their troops. The proposed delay would allow the allies to find safer positions for their troops or withdraw them entirely.

The delay also may weaken Russian opposition to lifting the embargo. Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday that she believes “that as the situation evolves, they may, in fact, see some value” in such a move.

In addition, an agreement would enable the United States to sidestep a fast-approaching Oct. 15 deadline for action on the issue. President Clinton has promised to urge the U.N. Security Council to end the embargo if the Bosnian Serbs do not agree by that date to a peace plan advanced by the United States, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.

The President also has promised to consult Congress on possibly lifting the embargo unilaterally if the Security Council doesn’t go along. So far, the Bosnian Serbs have rejected the peace plan. The Bosnian government has accepted it.

Ending the embargo next month poses serious risks. It could escalate the war swiftly, possibly spilling it over into neighboring countries, and it would probably draw the United States into acting as a military sponsor for the Bosnians.

There has been speculation that the Bosnian Muslims fear lifting the ban immediately would lead to the swift evacuation of U.N. troops and an all-out attack by the Serbs on the Muslims.

Asked at a news conference what would induce the Serbs to hold off such an offensive if the embargo was lifted next year instead, Bosnian Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey said that “we have reasons to expect” that the United Nations now would heed Clinton’s demand that it call more air strikes against the Serbs and expand the number of zones that exclude Serbian heavy weapons.

Lifting the embargo would also mean that the United States “would have some real responsibility to arm and equip” the Bosnian Muslims, said one U.S. official.

The compromise would avoid those difficulties, at least for a time. It also would allow more time for the developing split between the Bosnian Serbs and their allies in Serbia to mature, and it would enable the United States and its allies to look for other ways to pressure the Bosnian Serbs to accept the partition formula of the international peace plan.

On the other hand, it could also demonstrate to the Serbs that the allies remain reluctant to lift the embargo.

The developments came as Clinton delivered an annual U.N. address in which he appealed to the General Assembly to end the growing “strangulation” of besieged Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, and urged the use of NATO warplanes to get the job done.

In a speech that resonated with his growing frustration, Clinton warned that after a period of improvement, conditions around Sarajevo have “once again deteriorated substantially.”

“A new resolve by the United Nations to enforce its resolutions is now necessary to save Sarajevo,” he said. “NATO stands ready to act.”

Clinton also used his speech to explain a foreign policy that even many allies in the U.N. audience have found erratic. In unusually brief remarks, the President pointed to recent U.S. interventions--notably Haiti--to try to calm fears raised in last year’s speech that the United States was turning decisively away from international involvements.

Clinton sought to minimize the differences with his allies in his 25-minute address, as he reviewed U.S. interventions over the past year. He cited Haiti to show that the United States will risk its blood and money when its criteria for peacekeeping missions are met.

In a clear appeal for more international support of the U.S. action in Haiti, Clinton said that in the Caribbean nation “the United States has demonstrated that it would lead a multinational force when our interests are plain, when the cause is right, when the mission is achievable and the nations of the world stand with us.”

Clinton made no mention of the risks of the intervention. Nor did he comment on the weekend shootout in Cap Haitien that left 10 Haitians dead and brought civil chaos to the northern city. Instead, he pledged confidently that ultimately “essential civil order will be restored. Human rights violations will be curbed. . . . The military leaders will step down. Democracy will be restored.”

Times staff writers Stanley Meisler and Norman Kempster contributed to this report.