Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, July 31, 1995                   TAG: 9507310043
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A NEW TOUGHNESS ON BOSNIA?

All this may be the case, anyway. If it is, it's a hopeful development. It is hopeful even if more bloodshed in the Balkans seems likely.

Everything depends on whether the West finally means what it says, on whether NATO's professed determination to protect dwindling Muslim enclaves proves a hollow threat, as in the past, or is newly serious.

Last week's Senate vote, supporting disregard of a U.N. arms embargo, matters little except as an expression of outrage and a repudiation of presidential primacy in foreign policy.

The feeling behind the vote is decent: The West shouldn't stand by, wringing hands and issuing empty warnings, while the Serbs coldly commit genocide on an outgunned population. Bosnia's Muslims have asked not for other nations to defend them, but for arms so they can defend themselves.

Still, as the Bosnia crisis reminds constantly, a heartfelt reaction is not the same thing as a policy, backed by action, that can change the balance of power on the ground.

The Senate resolution exemplifies the folly of Congress trying to micromanage foreign policy. The bill is replete with provisos, waivers and escape hatches. While rendering the legislation practically meaningless, the twists and turns at least imply recognition that there's no easy answer.

Indeed, lifting the embargo to allow Bosnians to fight their own war could make U.S. intervention more likely. It would trigger U.N. withdrawal - requiring the assistance of American ground troops. Without U.N. forces around, Serbs could more easily devastate towns and Bosnian forces. So air strikes would be needed to pin down the Serbs, at least until Bosnians got enough weaponry and training to out-gun them. Arming the Bosnians could tempt Russians to supply the Serbs. A wider war, with more weapons, could draw in Turkey and Greece.

A wider war remains a possibility in any case, of course, especially given the wild card of resurgent Croat fighting in alliance with the Muslims. Even this development is overshadowed, though, by the new NATO ultimatum: Serbs must not try in Gorazde what they've done in two other supposed "safe havens" under U.N. protection - capturing the towns, sending thousands fleeing and allegedly slaughtering many men of arms-bearing age.

It would have been better had similar promises been acted on before. Still, the latest ultimatum should tell all. If it proves another bluff called by the Serbs, it will signal that the West never will intervene to stop the savagery. The result would be disastrous. However, if the Serbs back off, or NATO is forced to make good on its threat of widespread bombing, the West might be emboldened to issue more ultimatums.

A war crimes tribunal last week indicted Bosnian Serb leaders for genocide and crimes against humanity. Applying justice to war crimes is a needed and noble development. Yet, although it complicates, it must not be allowed to prohibit, the drawing of Serbs into a political agreement.

Sooner rather than later, and with President Clinton's leadership rather than waffling, the international community must promote a settlement recognizing both a Bosnian republic and the reality that the Serbs have won territory in this awful war. A coordinated and sustained policy of ultimatums and incentives will be needed to get all sides to agree.

Or else? The alternative is endless killing and suffering that people with consciences should not abide.