Debate Battlefield Shifts to Balkans

The future of U.S. peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans emerged Saturday as a major point of debate in the presidential campaign.

Advisors to George W. Bush said the Texas governor wants European powers to manage the NATO mission there. Vice President Al Gore reacted to that assertion by saying the proposal “demonstrates a lack of judgment and a misunderstanding of history.”

Bush has long criticized Clinton administration decisions on when and whether to send U.S. troops around the world, and he has said since last year that he would limit the military’s role in future peacekeeping efforts.

But last week, his top foreign affairs advisor, Condoleezza Rice, outlined the details for the first time in an interview with the New York Times, setting off a small political firestorm. Under the plan, European powers would take over the peacekeeping role, with the U.S. gradually pulling out the troops it has there.

While the U.S. has already reduced its presence in the Balkans--the about 11,000 troops it has in the region today are less than one-fifth the 65,000-member NATO peacekeeping force--pulling out completely would be a major shift in U.S. foreign policy. It would entail a new division of responsibilities in the NATO alliance, with the U.S. focusing on preparing for combat missions in such areas as the Persian Gulf and Asia, and a sharp shift for the U.S. military away from peacekeeping and nation building.

Use of American Power and Military Readiness

The debate over the U.S. role in the Balkans is part of a broader dispute between the two candidates over the use of American power and military readiness.

“There is a resolute determination that the purpose of our military should be to fight and win wars, and the governor would be more judicious in the use of our troops in peacekeeping missions,” Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said in a briefing to reporters Saturday. “The governor has made very clear that he thinks that Europeans should be taking over the peacekeeping role. The governor thinks the Europeans should do it entirely.”

Gore has taken a sharply different position, arguing that Washington should take a more active role in using troops to prevent conflicts abroad. On Saturday, he said the Bush proposal would be a damaging blow to the NATO alliance and a risk to America’s national security interests.

The proposal “demonstrates a lack of judgment and a misunderstanding of history to think that America can simply walk away from the security challenge on the European continent, which is a core American interest in the world,” Gore said. “. . . Gov. Bush’s proposal would be more than a major, untested shift in American foreign policy--one that could jeopardize fragile alliances--it would be a damaging blow to NATO.”

Rice responded in a written statement: “Vice President Gore seems to have a vision of an indefinite U.S. military deployment in the Balkans. He proved today that if he is elected, America’s military will continue to be overdeployed, harming morale and reenlistment rates, weakening our military’s core mission.”

Bush looks forward to working with NATO to bring stability to the Balkans, Rice said. But she added that “police functions and civil administration are not appropriate long-term roles for the American armed forces, and Gov. Bush has made clear that our men and women in uniform should eventually be freed up for other missions.”

Bush advisors acknowledged that any alteration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s military tasks would be delicate, but they said that, nevertheless, Bush plans to make pulling out of the European conflict a major objective. Fleischer said that Bush has no deadline for such a pullout and that it would be done “in concert with our European allies.”

U.S. Involvement in Region Defended

The Clinton administration was initially slow to act in the Balkans, staying on the sidelines as Serbia attacked Bosnian civilians. But as the death toll rose, the administration pressed for a NATO bombing campaign that succeeded in pressing the Serbs to cooperate with a Bosnian accord. In 1995, after the bombing, Washington sent 25,000 troops to help police the region by keeping the two sides apart.

The administration defends U.S. involvement in both the war and the peacekeeping efforts, saying that the U.S. presence has promoted critical national security objectives by standing up to aggression in the heart of Europe and averting a wider war that could threaten the stability of the continent and the safety of U.S. allies.

The Bush camp’s announcements follow an exchange in the second debate with Gore in which he telegraphed his proposal in the Balkans. But critics said then that his statement demonstrated a lack of familiarity with NATO and the situation in Europe.

“I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans,” Bush said in the Oct. 11 debate. “I hope that they put the troops on the ground . . . I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground.”

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Bush’s proposal to end the U.S. role in the Balkans would send a “very dangerous signal.” Noting the recent election in Yugoslavia of President Vojislav Kostunica, she added, “Frankly, to be talking about this right now, when Kostunica is putting together his new coalition . . . I think is truly dangerous.”