NEWS ANALYSIS : NATO Faces Hazards on Bosnia’s Political Battlefield : Balkans: Alliance commander’s snafu over Sarajevo Serbs is one example of how war of words can explode.

While commanders of the NATO-led peace force in Bosnia can look back on an initial phase in which they have achieved their military objectives with unexpected ease, their performance on the political front has generated troubling questions.

Contradictory statements from senior leaders of NATO’s Implementation Force, known as IFOR, have sowed confusion at a potentially explosive time, when bitter enemies are being obliged to find peace.

Two sides--the rebel Bosnian Serbs and the Muslim-led Bosnian government--have rushed to take advantage of the confusion, staking positions that could undermine the U.S.-sponsored peace process.

The most serious problem involved U.S. Adm. Leighton W. Smith, the commander of North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Bosnia, who last week offered Bosnian Serbs the hope of leeway on the dates for returning Serb-held suburbs of Sarajevo to Bosnian government control.

Extremely adept at creating giant holes from such small openings, the Bosnian Serbs immediately began exploiting Smith’s remarks. And the Bosnian government immediately leaped to its well-practiced role of indignant outrage.

On Saturday, Smith reversed himself.

After having publicly told Bosnian Serbs that he has the discretion to change deadlines for the phased transfer and would consider exercising that discretion, he said in a letter to the Serbs that he is “not authorized to change the timing of the transfer of land under the peace agreement.”

Rejecting the Serbs’ request for a delay of up to a year, Smith said the transfer will occur as scheduled. Under the accord, Serbian forces must withdraw in early February, 45 days after NATO took over in Bosnia-Herzegovina from the beleaguered and defeated U.N. peacekeeping mission.

Smith’s letter, which in fact was only stating the already established provisions of the peace treaty, came a full four days after Smith’s original meeting with Bosnian Serb leaders in their fading stronghold of Pale, nine miles southeast of Sarajevo.

Why it took so long for Smith to put on the record something that was already stipulated in the treaty is not clear.

What is clear is that the Serbs, after the meeting with Smith in Pale, believed that they had gained a chance to renegotiate terms of the agreement that was drafted last month in Dayton, Ohio, and was formally signed Dec. 14 in Paris.

Momcilo Krajisnik, head of the Bosnian Serbs’ self-styled parliament, went on Bosnian Serb television to tell his people that they could still resist the peace plan and hold on to the Sarajevo suburbs.

“I’m making this clear, and I’m not afraid to say to the Muslims: They are not going to get Serb Sarajevo without an agreement,” Krajisnik said. “If they don’t want to make a deal, then they have to know that by force they can only win temporarily. In less than a year, it would no longer be theirs.”

*

The Bosnian government responded angrily, saying Smith was not authorized to change the Dayton accord and threatening to call for his replacement.

“We refuse each and every attempt made to change the political part of the agreement,” President Alija Izetbegovic said after dashing off a letter to Smith to demand an explanation. “No one has any right to change provisions of the agreement.”

Some members of the government went so far as to refer to the “UNPROFOR-ization” of IFOR. UNPROFOR, the U.N. Protection Force that NATO replaced, was seen as weak-willed against Serbian defiance, and its peacekeepers were ultimately taken hostage and humiliated by all the warring factions, but especially by the Serbs.

From the Muslims’ perspective, equating IFOR with UNPROFOR this early is a huge insult.

Smith has stressed since he took command here Dec. 20 that NATO’s IFOR is not the United Nations, but rather it is a robust, heavily armed force that will stand its ground.

Perhaps most important, as confusion over Serb-held Sarajevo reigned, Serbs who live in those districts continued their exodus.

Frightened about their fate and baffled by the signals coming from their various leaders, a growing number of Serbs have packed up their belongings and are fleeing.

*

Some have even dug up the graves of their loved ones. Krajisnik, in his television address, said the Serbian Orthodox Church has determined that while disturbing souls is undesirable, it would be all right in this case.

Many Bosnians on all sides of the ethnic question are looking to IFOR for security and guarantees of safety. But even as IFOR spokesmen in daily briefings to reporters insist that there is freedom of movement for civilians, as required by the peace accord, Bosnian Muslims trying to cross Serb-held suburbs have been reportedly stopped and beaten by Bosnian Serb police.

The IFOR briefers, told of such reports, have shown little interest in following up. IFOR’s job, they say, is to enforce freedom of movement for IFOR, not civilians.

In addition, there were reports Saturday that some Bosnian Serb and Muslim soldiers who were obliged to evacuate designated areas around Sarajevo on Wednesday have already moved back in. IFOR spokesmen said they were unaware of such movement.

The developments ran counter to a surprising degree of compliance with the military aspects of the Dayton accords by all participants. So far, there has been virtually no resistance to the NATO-led force, while throughout the country there are reports that the warring factions have begun to withdraw the agreed distance of 1.2 miles from the present cease-fire line.

The missteps of Smith and his advisors take on more significance because they are occurring in something of a vacuum.

Many of the United Nations’ political staff, well-versed in the shenanigans and political manipulations of the Serbs and Muslims after nearly four years on duty here, departed with the NATO takeover. Many of the key advisors to NATO, and to Smith, are not experienced in the ever-tricky Balkans.

And the civilian mandate of the peace agreement--the far more complicated steps, involving refugee repatriation and elections, that will determine whether Bosnia has real peace or merely a cease-fire--is lagging far behind.

*

For example, an international police task force is to be deployed by early February as areas of territory pass from the control of one group to another, but there is no evidence yet that it is anywhere near ready.

Those Sarajevo Serbs who have indicated a willingness to stay in their homes also say they will rely heavily on this international police force for their safety.

Smith and Izetbegovic made veiled criticisms last week of the relative absence of High Representative Carl Bildt, who will administer the civilian program, from Sarajevo at this critical juncture.

Smith is well aware of the complexity and sensitivity of the Sarajevo issue. In an interview last week, he said he would do his best to create a secure environment but could not guarantee the security of every family.

“The people in this area are so used to propaganda and lies, it is going to be very difficult to convince them that we’re here to help,” Smith said.

Times staff writer Tyler Marshall in Zagreb, Croatia, contributed to this report.