After the Senate vote, President Clinton said, “You can’t go about the world saying you’re going to do something and then not do it.” The president is right– but what he described is precisely the approach the administration and some of our allies have taken. For three years the United States and the international community have: passed resolutions in the United Nations that pledged to protect the Bosnians, held meetings with our allies, established “safe havens” that tragically became safe fox-little more than Serb aggression, and issued NATO ultimatums threatening the Serbs. America and our allies spent a lot of time saying things, but did nothing– except reinforce failed policies.
As the United Nations has tied itself and NATO up in knots, the human tragedy has mounted: two million people have been displaced from their homes, 200,000 have been killed, and tens of thousands have been wounded. Young girls and women have been raped, children playing have fallen by the hundreds to Serbian snipers, and men have been herded into concentration camps–all under the watch of U.N. peacekeepers bravely carrying out a fatally flawed mission.
Rather than focusing on whether or not the U.N. mission in Bosnia will survive, the far more important issue is whether or not the country of Bosnia will survive. The fall of two of six so-called safe havens most clearly demonstrates that U.N. protection forces are not protecting the Bosnian people. Instead, they are in effect supervising the conflict and managing its consequences. While the U.N. forces are providing a small measure of assistance in delivering humanitarian aid to some areas, food and medicine do not defend against artillery shells and snipers.
So, why is the Clinton administration opposed to letting the Bosnians do what candidate Clinton advocated in 1992 but the U.N. is unwilling to do? The Bosnians are not asking for U.S. troops– only for arms to defend their families, their homes and their country.
That’s why the Clinton administration’s argument that lifting the arms embargo will “Americanize” the war doesn’t make sense. It’s especially difficult to understand, coming from a White House that has pledged 25,000 American troops to enforce a peace settlement or to assist in a U.N. withdrawal. As our experience in Afghanistan and Central America demonstrated, the United States does not have to send troops to provide weapons. Also, any necessary training can be provided in a neighboring country.
The truth is that lifting the arms embargo will put the future of Bosnia back into Bosnian hands.
The administration claims that lifting the embargo will strain the Alliance. In my view, NATO is strong enough to withstand disagreements. The damage that has been done to NATO and its credibility is not a result of the Congressional action to lift the arms embargo, but of subordinating NATO–the world’s most powerful military alliance–to the U.N.
The administration has also said that lifting the arms embargo will escalate the conflict, that the Serbs will attack. Not only is this a risk the Bosnians are willing to take, but in fact the Serbs are already attacking irrespective of the presence of thousands and thousands of U.N. peacekeepers. The West’s indecisiveness and ineffectiveness have invited the Serbs to move rapidly on all fronts. The fall of Srebrenica prompted the response that has typified the administration and international community’s approach to the war in Bosnia: more meetings. We have yet to see any impact of these meetings on the situation in Bosnia.
The bottom line is that since the war against Bosnia began, America has been a follower, not a leaden The United States went along with the U.N. arms embargo despite the fact that this guaranteed the overwhelming military advantage of the Serb aggressors. The United States has continued to support the failed U.N. operation in Bosnia with hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars and American prestige.
In the absence of American leadership, the Serbs have continued ethnic cleansing, which is just another name for genocide. Moreover, this failed course has sent a message to would-be aggressors around the globe: violating internationally-recognized borders will be met with empty threats and endless meetings. This is a dangerous signal to send and one that will haunt us for years unless our country begins to show the kind of leadership the Senate stood for this week.
On more than one occasion this century, America has risen to confront threats to international order and stability. This has not always meant a commitment of American forces, but as under the Truman and Reagan Doctrines, it has meant an American commitment to support the right of self-defense against aggression. Such leadership is needed now. This is not just about Bosnia, but America–what we stand for, about our principles and our humanity.
