Between New York Zagreb and Sarajevo a tortuous compromise emerged
Between New York, Zagreb and Sarajevo a tortuous compromise emerged.On 24 May, as a result, General Smith gave an ultimatum to both the Bosnian Serbs and the Muslim-led government to cease firing heavy weapons by noon on 25 May. He also ordered the Bosnian Serbs to return the seized weapons within the same deadline and to remove all heavy artillery from a 20km “exclusion zone” by noon last Friday, 26 May.The UN then had to liaise with Nato’s southern command in Naples, which is under American officers, to put ground attack aircraft in Italy on standby for retaliatory air-strikes.But – crucially – no orders to withdraw were issued from the UN in Sarajevo or Zagreb to vulnerable personnel in Bosnian Serb areas. Bosnian government forces fired back.Lieutenant-General Rupert Smith, the British commander of UN forces in Bosnia, reported the flareup to his superiors based in Zagreb, Croatia – the French General Bernard Janvier and the UN special representative in former Yugoslavia, Yasushi Akashi.They in turn referred to New York, where the UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was under pressure from the United States to authorise a tough line against the Bosnian Serbs.Mr Boutros-Ghali and the UN peace-keeping chief, Kofi Annan, took the measure of Russian, French and British opinions in the Security Council and found a formula to satisfy all their requirements. The latest crisis is no exception to the rule.On 22 May Bosnian Serb combatants seized heavy weapons from a UN depot near Sarajevo and one day later their forces began firing on the city.
BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN
Diplomatic Editor
United Nations peace-keepers and successive mediators in the Yugoslav wars have found their task bedevilled by confusing lines of authority and a proliferation of power factions.By contrast, the Bosnian Serbs and the government of Serbia itself consistently display great skill in the exploitation of these political and administrative divisions. That is something that is totally unacceptable and requires a very, very important response.”Sir Edward Heath repeated his call for British troops to pull out: “It started as a humanitarian action that was justifiable, but now we are facing a situation where we may be dragged into a major war and that is absolutely unjustifiable.”Tomorrow’s Commons debate is only the 13th time parliament has been recalled during a recess since 1945.. He added: “The taking of UN peacekeeping personnel as hostages .. is the action of terrorist organisations. We are not fighting a war but the protection of our own forces is a crucial requirement.” He described the safety of British hostages as “a vital British interest” – a signal to the Serbs designed to counter suggestions from the Conservative backbenches that Britain has no national interest at stake in Bosnia. And there will be fierce argument in tomorrow’s debate about the purpose of regrouping. Many Conservative backbenchers support it because they see it as preparation for withdrawal, while many Labour backbenchers support it because they see it as getting tough with the Serbs.Sir Archie Hamilton (C, Epsom and Ewell), a former defence minister, said yesterday: “The Labour side believe you can bash the Serbs and win a war. But it is a classic Afghanistan, Vietnam, Northern Ireland set- up, where you could end up fighting a guerrilla war for years.
These men love fighting and they are born to do it.”Calum Macdonald (Lab, Western Isles) insisted: “We have to make it clear to the Serbian leadership that if they harm the hostages that would be a declaration of war on the United Nations.” He welcomed Mr Cook’s “robust” line in condemning the taking and threatening of hostages as a “war crime”.Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Defence, performed a careful balancing act, saying: “We have no intention of launching a war in Bosnia. “The immediate requirement for a military response to armed blackmail” should be backed up by a mass propaganda campaign, he adds.Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrat leader, also urged meeting the Serbs with force: “The vital thing is that the international community is seen to act together and the Serbs are seen to understand that if they provoke then we respond in kind.”Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, said yesterday that UN troops need to be “regrouped” and strengthened so that they are less vulnerable. But Robin Cook, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, in an article in today’s Independent insists that Britain should confront Serbian aggression: “Talk of withdrawal while our troops are held hostage is so irresponsible,” he writes. BY JOHN RENTOUL
Political Correspondent
MPs on both sides of the House of Commons welcomed the government’s action in sending more troops to Bosnia on the eve of tomorrow’s emergency debate in the Commons, but were divided over whether it should be a cover for eventual withdrawal.Tomorrow’s recall of parliament from the Whitsun recess is likely to see Tony Blair, the Labour leader, offering the government broad support. Under such circumstances, it is uncertain whether the Muslims would feel obliged to maintain their support for the Western-Russian peace plan that envisages giving 51 per cent of Bosnia to the Muslims and Croats and 49 per cent to the Bosnian Serbs.. Such language could mean removing UN troops from the three Muslim enclaves in eastern Bosnia at Gorazde, Srebrenica and Zepa.Such a step would represent a serious blow to the UN Security Council’s concept of “safe areas” for Muslims, and would probably open the way for more ethnic cleansing by the Bosnian Serbs and another Muslim refugee crisis.However, it is known that the UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was ready to propose a withdrawal from the eastern enclaves last week, until US officials expressed vehement disagreement.A UN pull-out from the three zones would leave the Muslim-led government with only three patches of territory around Sarajevo, Tuzla and Bihac.
