CRISIS IN THE BALKANS : Role of British Troops Raises Fears at Home

Stuart Davies, the tall, rusty-haired manager of the Swag and Tails pub in the Knightsbridge area, finished pulling a pint of ale Wednesday, then observed: “The United Nations should be in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a peacekeeping force. But it’s just not working.

“So,” he added, “I think the U.N. should get in heavier or pull out altogether. We should not be the only ones to send in more troops. The U.N. should be a collective force, if the [Bosnian] Serbs are taking hostages.”

Davies expressed the skepticism that is growing among the British. Ordinary people here are increasingly questioning the wisdom of Britain’s deploying its peacekeeping troops in Bosnia and possibly being forced to fight the Bosnian Serbs.

“The whole hostage situation was to be expected,” said Eden Braithwaite, a Londoner who served with the Royal Air Force. “If the U.N. didn’t expect it, then all I can say was that they were stupid. Sending more troops to Bosnia should be a collective effort among all the countries in the U.N.”

Caroline Cass, an artist and mother, declared of the Bosnian situation: “I think we should get out. The whole thing is turning into a nightmare. Most of my friends just don’t see the point to staying there, and they ask: ‘What is going to happen? What are we trying to achieve?’ ”

While the government’s official position, backed by the Labor Party opposition, is to keep British troops in the U.N. peacekeeping force as long as they appear to be helpful, many here question that policy.

The tabloid Daily Mirror, which describes itself as a working-class newspaper, has backed the government’s decision to step up British involvement in Bosnia. But it took a poll of its readers and the results were one-sided: 5,428 respondents voted for London to withdraw its troops, while 700 wanted them to stay in Bosnia.

Ken Perkins, a former senior army officer said: “The extra troops being sent to Bosnia should be used to supervise the safe withdrawal of our soldiers. The [United Nations’] blue berets have done a marvelous job in saving lives. But they can no longer be expected to monitor a peace which will never be established until one side emerges victorious.”

A member of the Reform Club, a London meeting place for influential people, took an informal poll Tuesday of a dozen or so colleagues--some of them diplomats and military men--used to the complexities of international politics.

“Much to my surprise,” he said, “every single one said we should pull our troops out because there is no clear policy, no clear goals in sight.”

National newspapers are filled with letters from readers, most urging the government here to get out of Bosnia or to take harsh, retaliatory measures against the Bosnian Serbs. Few support the status quo.

“From the U.N.’s failure to act positively, we descended into the present profitless and discredited round of negotiation, bluff, cease-fire, accusation, counter-accusation, atrocity and hostage taking,” John Atkinson of Reading wrote to the Daily Telegraph.

Roy Edey of Harrow wrote to the Evening Standard: “Unless, or until, the combatants in this civil war want to make peace, there is no role for others in Bosnia. . . .”

But as dissatisfied as the British may be with their Bosnia policy, they tend to follow the government’s lead in times of crisis and so far have accepted the decisions made by Prime Minister John Major.

Parliament itself is split on the Bosnian issue, along unusual lines, with many hawkish Conservatives advocating a pullout, while dovish Laborites warn that a withdrawal would lead to further bloodshed and chaos.