INFORMED OPINIONS ON TODAY’S TOPICS : Should the U.N.’s Troops Stay in Bosnia?

After months of deliberations over the merits of evacuating United Nations forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina, the United States and French defense ministers proposed a series of measures Monday, designed to make troops better able to fight against harassment by Serbian nationalists.

An example of such harassment occurred that same day, when a Bangladeshi armored car in Bihac was struck by two anti-tank missiles, killing one soldier and wounding three others.

The attack, the most serious strike against U. N. forces yet, was believed to have been launched by Croatian Serbs in northwest Bosnia.

The soldier’s death marked the 133rd fatality since the U. N. began its peacekeeping role in Bosnia.

Supporters of an evacuation argue that the vacillating stance taken by the U. N. has contributed to the problem. A lifting of the U. N. arms embargo that has kept the Muslim-led Bosnian government from defending the country from heavily armed Serbs has been suggested as an alternative to the U. N.’s present role.

But, most of the U. N. forces are stationed in Serb-encircled enclaves, which makes them vulnerable to further attacks and hostage-taking if the Serbs fear that withdrawal will lead to the elimination of that embargo.

The peacekeepers could also face blockades from nervous civilians opposed to a U. N. pullout.

Should U.N. troops remain in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Ram Roy, professor of political science, Cal State Northridge

“The decision to pull out was causing a lot of concern. The Muslim countries are now meeting in Morocco and will make a decision that will have an impact on the situation. If the U. N. were to have pulled out immediately, it would have affected its own image. The impression conveyed would have been that the U. N. is very weak, that an aggressor could frustrate U. N. attempts in a certain situation and it would walk away. The U. S. has been playing it safe for obvious reasons: The situation is not of vital interest to (the American public), and no President can afford to get involved in a civil war where the outcome is not clear. For these reasons, the situation has worsened.”

*

Marija Miletic Dail of North Hollywood, an activist in Los Angeles’ Croatian community

“The U. N. is not doing a good job there, so they should get out. As of late, they have proven to be the enemy of the little people and the friend of the aggressor. They are feeding the people there, but letting them get slaughtered. They’ve tied the Bosnian government’s hands behind its backs and are letting the Serbs shoot. The few sacks of food they give are not enough to buy the tragedy that’s happening there. They only need to lift the arms embargo. These people are itching to fight for themselves.”

*

Ronald Stupak, professor of public administration, USC’s Washington Public Affairs Center

“The U. N. got itself into a bind. They stayed there too long. I don’t know whose business it is to get involved in someone else’s civil war. Of course, when there are genocidal incidents occurring, you get involved. But we don’t know who is telling the truth. We can’t intervene in a way where we tell them who the good guys and bad guys are. You can’t moralize about international relations and foreign policy. You have to look at the situation’s interest, the reality of it, the struggle involved, and then you make decisions.”

*

Douglas Mattern, president, Assn. of World Citizens

“The U. N. must not lose face in Bosnia. All of the member states have the duty to give full support to the effort. The U. S. should play a major role in that support, but only under the auspices of the U. N. The U. N. is the key to building a better world. The only way to abolish the war system is to have international law, and the U. N. is the best agent for that.”