U.S. Sees Role for NATO in Kosovo

If the world fails to stop ethnic violence in Kosovo soon, the conflict threatens to spill over into much of Central Europe and ultimately undermine vital U.S. interests, President Clinton warned Thursday.

In his first extensive remarks on the crisis in the separatist Serbian province, Clinton said a NATO-led peacekeeping force “could prove essential” to any settlement of the conflict. But he stopped short of committing U.S. troops.

Citing lessons learned the hard way in neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina, Clinton said, “If you don’t oppose the violence, it just gets worse and worse and worse until finally you do oppose it at a much, much higher price, under more dangerous conditions.”

The president’s comments were clearly intended to prepare public opinion for sending U.S. troops to Kosovo to help separate the warring factions in the turbulent province, where the population is 90% ethnic Albanian. But he did not indicate if he will follow the logic of his own arguments.

Negotiators for the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians are scheduled to open peace talks Saturday near Paris. But in a remarkable display of micromanaging, the United States and Europe’s five biggest powers have already drafted a framework agreement and have ordered the warring factions to accept it--possibly with small changes--before Feb. 19. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has threatened airstrikes if the talks stall.

“If a settlement is reached, a NATO presence on the ground in Kosovo could prove essential in giving both sides the confidence they need to pull back from their fight,” Clinton said. Hundreds of people, mostly ethnic Albanian civilians, have been killed in 11 months of fighting in the province.

Officials suggested that about 20,000 troops would be required, including a 4,000-strong U.S. contingent.

Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stressed that NATO ground troops would be dispatched only if the two sides agree to stop fighting. If the factions fail to agree, NATO is prepared to use its military muscle to push them to a settlement.

Albright outlined the consequences that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s government and the ethnic Albanians can expect if they fail to bargain in good faith.

“If President Milosevic refuses to accept the . . . proposals, or has allowed repression in Kosovo to continue, he can expect NATO airstrikes,” Albright said. “If the Kosovo Albanians obstruct progress at [the talks] or on the ground, they cannot expect NATO and the international community to bail them out”--in effect a threat to stand aside and let Serbian forces do what they like.

“There should be no doubt on either side that the consequences of failure to reach agreement or show restraint on the ground will be swift and severe,” she said.

NATO has already assembled an armada of about 400 warplanes and support aircraft to bomb Serbia if Milosevic balks. The United States is contributing about half the planes.

Neither Clinton nor Albright said how long U.S. and other NATO peacekeeping troops would have to remain. In 1995, when Clinton ordered about 28,000 Americans to join a similar force in Bosnia, he said they would be there for no more than a year. But three years later, 7,000 U.S. troops are still there. Clinton now acknowledges that it was a mistake to set a time limit.