Stakes High for U.S. in Troubled Bosnia Vote

The Clinton administration’s once lofty hopes for today’s elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina have shrunk to this: If the voting is relatively peaceful and if the collective presidency and parliament actually convene, the Pentagon can comply with President Clinton’s wishes and pull American troops out of the tortured country by the end of this year.

But the troubling flip side of that proposition is this: If the elections are marred by violence, if the winners fail to assume their offices or if Bosnian Serbs try to annex their half of the country to Serbia, then the United States and its allies almost certainly will continue military operations for months or even years.

Thus, even with the reduced expectations, the stakes for the United States in the elections are great and may reverberate through America’s foreign policy agenda, its budget and the presidential campaign.

Defense Secretary William J. Perry and his top aides, perhaps reflecting the pessimism of soldiers, have predicted that some sort of international force, probably including U.S. ground troops, will be required to keep order in Bosnia after the 60,000-member NATO-led force is withdrawn in December.

At the same time, exhibiting the optimism of politicians comfortably ahead in the polls, Clinton and Vice President Al Gore maintain that the NATO force, known by the initials IFOR, will have completed its job before the end of December. Clinton and Gore say they can see no reason for a U.S. military presence in Bosnia in 1997.

A senior White House official insisted that there is much less dissension in the Clinton administration than there appears to be. He said nothing can be decided until results are in on the Bosnian elections and their aftermath.

If the security situation deteriorates after the vote, he said, Clinton will endorse U.S. participation in a new international military force, explaining to the public that “we see additional requirements and we have invested so much in Bosnia that we will have to see it through.”

But that may be a difficult political point for Clinton to make. He fixed the late December date for withdrawal of U.S. forces as part of a strategy to overcome Republican opposition to putting American soldiers in Bosnia in the first place.

*

Since the troops were dispatched to Bosnia, he has never flatly ruled out U.S. participation in a new Bosnia force. But he has said things that imply all U.S. troops will be out of the Balkans by Christmas. If he ultimately approves U.S. participation in a follow-on force, he may face charges that he misled the public.

For instance, in a news conference in May with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Clinton noted that the Dayton, Ohio, peace accord gives IFOR a mandate only until Dec. 20 and “I think it’s important that we stay on the timetable that has been established.” In June, Clinton told a news conference: “The IFOR’s mission for one year ends in December 1996, at which time it will begin withdrawal.”

Gore has seemed even more emphatic. Asked in a July television interview if there would be U.S. troops in a follow-on Bosnia force, he said, “We are not anticipating any such a thing.”

Officials now draw a distinction between IFOR and a second-stage force--though the latter would also no doubt be made up primarily of North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops, including Americans. IFOR, these officials say, was created to separate the warring factions and enforce military aspects of the Dayton accord--a job now virtually complete.

*

“Their words are always carefully chosen,” a White House official said of Clinton and Gore. “The president can say with a straight face that the IFOR mission is done” even if a new force is required to prevent Bosnia from again erupting into warfare.

Although European leaders seem to assume a follow-on force will be needed, U.S. officials insist no decision can be made until after today’s elections. But the debate may be hot and heavy once the votes are counted.

The subject is expected to dominate a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Bergen, Norway, Sept. 25-26, just 11 days after the elections. U.S. officials also expect Secretary of State Warren Christopher to discuss the issue with foreign ministers at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 23-27.

Top NATO generals are scheduled to meet Nov. 21-22, alliance foreign ministers to meet Dec. 10-11 and defense ministers to meet again Dec. 18-19--all at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Officials expect a final decision by the end of those meetings, which follow the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential election.

Besides the scheduled meetings, U.S. officials are trying to get back together participants from the Dayton peace conference. That session, expected to be in London, would include Balkan leaders and top officials of NATO countries and Russia.

U.S. officials say that if a follow-on force is approved, it probably will be smaller and less heavily armed than IFOR. It may even be based outside Bosnia, perhaps in Hungary or Germany, although it would have to be prepared to deploy in Bosnia on very short notice.

But the structure and headquarters of the force depend on the post-election situation in Bosnia; the more peaceful the country appears, the smaller the international force could be.

U.S. officials say it is still realistic to hope that Bosnia will be placid enough after the vote so that the withdrawal of most American troops will be possible. That is an extremely modest goal for elections that once were supposed to reunify the country as a multiethnic state.

The administration now concedes it is likely that ethnic nationalists bent on creating three ministates for Muslims, Croats and Serbs will be big winners today. State Department officials say that if the voters really want such an outcome, there is little the international community can do about it.

Weeks ago, Christopher and other U.S. policymakers stopped talking about “free and fair” elections, a tacit admission that the voting will not meet that standard. The current objective is for “effective” elections, a standard that one senior official defined as meaning that the candidates who get the most votes will be declared the winners and will take office.