HOW TO KEEP PROBLIMS OF BOSNIA CONTAINED

"We have a strong strategic interest in preventing the problems in Bosnia from spreading ... Our interest is in containing and confining."

Secretary of State

Warren Christopher

Successful foreign policy requires both the art of reaction and the wisdom of anticipation. For over a year, the U.N., Europe and the United States have tried to react to the Serbian onslaught in Bosnia always one massacre too late. The moment of truth in Bosnia passed long ago. The Europeans and the Americans were hopelessly divided: our allies wanted limited U.N. ground forces to deliver humanitarian aid while we wanted no American troops, but air strikes and the rearming of the Bosnians.

At long last came the five-power Communique endorsing the concept of "safe havens," but the phraseology seemed tentative and lukewarm. Who is going to put in sufficient soldiers to make the "havens" safe? The U.S.? No. We're not that enthusiastic about "safe havens." The Russians? Interesting to think about Russians protecting Muslims against the Serbs, Russia's historic ally. One thing for sure: nothing is safe without military forces on the ground ready to fight to protect against the continued butchery.

Among the more vociferous supporters of "safe havens' are Vojislov Sesely, Zeljko Raznatovic (a/k/a Arkan), and General Ratko Mladic. Sesely is a leading Serbian fanatic, a parliamentary deputy who commands a paramilitary unit. Raznatovic, another fanatic, holds a parliamentary seat in Kosovo and has an international record for criminality and thuggery. Mladic is the hero of the day; the field commander for Greater Serbia. All three are challengers of one type or other to Slobodan Mislosevic, who suddenly takes on the mantle of Mr. Moderate. How about that? Sesely, Razantovic and Mladic view "safe havens" as the final victory: Bosnia is no more, and Greater Serbia is on the move to its next conquest.

That's where we get to the "wisdom of anticipation" aspect of foreign policy. Late last year, the Bush administration warned the Serbs not to make trouble in Kosovo. Earlier this year, the Clinton administration issued a similar warning. Do the Serbs take such threats seriously? If our policy precludes ground troops anywhere in the Balkans, aren't the Serbs free to do what they want in Kosovo now that they have bullied their way to victory in Bosnia?

Kosovo, historically linked to Serbia, is nevertheless populated 85% with Albanians. The Greater Serbia bullies want Kosovo's nearly two million Albanians to evaporate. Raznatovic says, "The Serbian claim to Kosovo is non-negotiable, like the Alamo. This is the heart of the Serbian nation, the home of our church, the home of our legends. The Albanians have no place here. They should leave."

The Albanian Kosovans would like to sever their link with Serbia and either form a new nation or link up with their brothers in Albania. The division between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo is much, much deeper than were the divisions between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.

The only way to counter Serbian cleansing in Kosovo is for the United States, Russia, Britain and France to announce that they will not tolerate a Bosnia II and will act militarily to thwart another such tragedy. That is what Secretary of State Christopher seems to be hinting when he says "We have a strong strategic interest in preventing the problems in Bosnia from spreading."