这是关键时刻

U.N. intervention in Bosnia has been a dismal failure. It was driven by two contradictory impulses. One was not to be seen doing nothing when the horrors of ethnic cleansing were revealed on television; the other was to avoid military intervention at all costs. The solution, devised by clever British diplomats, was to introduce U.N. peacekeepers where there was no peace to keep. Their mission was to deliver humanitarian aid to the civilian population, but their function was to serve as hostages to prevent Western military action.

The mission was impossible to carry out because assaulting the civilian population is an essential part of the Bosnian Serbs’ military strategy. They manipulated UNPROFOR much as Nazi Germany used KAPOs in the concentration camps. Having to maintain a neutral stance in the midst of continuous aggression against the civilian population was an humiliating and debilitating experience for the U.N. troops and for the United Nations itself. When finally the United Nations called for NATO air strikes, its troops were taken hostage, fulfilling their original purpose.

The only success the United Nations could claim is that it helped keep most of the civilian population alive in the so-called “safe havens” through two long winters, but the claim is somewhat hollow. The eastern enclaves—Gorazde, Zepa and Srebrenica—were rendered militarily indefensible, and Bihac was not resupplied at all, inducing the Bosnians to embark on their ill-fated attempt to break the siege. Sarajevo airport has been closed by Serbian forces at will, and recently all supplies had to go by a land route kept open by the Bosnian army.

I have been actively involved in keeping Sarajevo alive through my $ 50 million gift in December 1992 and subsequent donations. The only supply of water and electricity currently available in Sarajevo was installed by Fred Cuny, our disaster expert who is now missing in Chechnya.

President Clinton was right in dissociating the United States from the policies pursued by our European allies and looking for an alternative approach, although he allowed himself to be dissuaded much too easily when he was told that Bosnia is a European problem. He also did the right thing when he promised U.S. assistance through NATO for extricating the peacekeepers if and when it became necessary.

Now that Srebrenica has been overrun and ethnically cleansed, the moment of truth has arrived. French President Chirac, the only Western statesman who bears no responsibility for the present state of affairs, is ready to face the truth. He is prepared to defend militarily the remaining “safe areas” and lift the siege of Sarajevo. He is calling for British and French ground troops and for essential U.S. helicopter airlift, air cover and logistic support. The alternative is French withdrawal and collapse of the U.N. mission. Now that he has put a specific action plan on the table, there is no reason to doubt his word.

There is a clear rift between the French and the British. The British are sticking with the failed policy they initiated. President Clinton has the power to determine which course prevails. By prevaricating, he is in effect siding with the British.

President Clinton should seize the opportunity to endorse the French initiative, tell Prime Minister John Major that he is doing so and ask for congressional approval. Congress, which has been trying to help the Bosnians protect themselves by lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia, should be sympathetic to the president’s request. Public opinion, which has been lulled into passivity, cannot fail to be aroused by the latest atrocities.

On the other hand, if President Clinton continues to prevaricate, the French will withdraw, triggering the American commitment to put ground troops into Bosnia. This course would risk many more American lives than would supporting President Chirac’s initiative. For the president to renege on that obligation would deal a fatal blow to NATO and U.S. credibility. Either way, Sen. Dole’s criticism of President Clinton’s stance on Bosnia would be fully justified.

Firm action at this juncture could still reverse the outcome of the Bosnian conflict. In terms of manpower and motivation, the Bosnian government troops already have the upper hand. There are only some 600,000 people left in Serb-occupied territory out of the 1.5 million Serbs who lived in Bosnia before the war. By contrast, there are more than 2 million people in Bosnian government-controlled territory, of which some 150,000 are Serbs. The Serbian side has scored military victories only because it used heavy weapons, supplied by the Yugoslav army, to attack civilians in the U.N.-designated “safe areas.” Bosnian Serb forces may be able to cause a collapse of the Bosnian government by driving a horde of refugees in front of them. But if they are stopped now and the arms embargo is lifted, time will work against them, and they know it. They will have to settle or lose.

Assisting the French would risk American lives, but avoiding loss of life at any price is not a viable policy, as Bosnia amply demonstrates. Already more U.N. troops have died in Bosnia than in the Persian Gulf War. How much better to provide aerial and logistic support for an action that may succeed than to provide ground troops for withdrawal after defeat.

What is at stake now is not just Bosnia but the future of the Western alliance. President Chirac is right in drawing a parallel with the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. Failure in Bosnia would encourage aggressors just as the failure of the League of Nations in Abyssinia did in the run-up to the Second World War. President Clinton is facing the most critical test of his presidency.