The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

MONTEZUMA! TRIPOLI! MACEDONIA! Macedonia? Yes, the former Yugoslav republic, unthreatened and at peace with its neighbors, may nonetheless be sent U.S. troops, thus saving it from a hypothetical Serbian aggression and allowing Bill Clinton to draw a line in the quicksand. Even the Macedonians are laughing. "Why here?" Macedonian Defense Minister Vlade Popovski told reporters. Because "we want to try to confine the conflict ((in Bosnia)) so it doesn't spread to other countries," the President said last week, ignoring the fact that Macedonia hasn't requested U.S. assistance.

What's going on here? "It's called face-saving," says a Clinton adviser dismissively. "It's a way to look like we're doing something so maybe our incompetent Bosnia policy won't be noticed." Incompetent? "Yes," insists this adviser. "We're long on huffing and puffing. We're great at raising the stakes and talking about how what's happening in Bosnia is the most awful thing since the Holocaust. But then when it's time to make a real commitment of blood and treasure, it turns out we're ready to spend all of 2 cents on it. So this week the President talks about protecting Macedonia and he supports a U.N. border patrol to monitor Serbia's promise to cut off supplies to their Bosnian Serb brothers, which we already know is bogus, since fuel trucks have been passing the checkpoints without trouble. Next week after a few more editorials slam us for diddling around, we'll probably hear about the possibility of some other stunt. It's all a joke -- and particularly Macedonia. I mean, a bunch of troops go over there to get better seats to watch the slaughter next door. Come on. You call that standing up to genocide?" No, but it may be a way for Clinton to climb down from a policy he seems increasingly to view as a no-win proposition.

Whatever happened to the "tough," concerted allied action Clinton predicted was just around the corner? The allies have said, "No way" (or at least, "Not now"), and Clinton has blinked. The recriminations are flying, as they do when any policy unravels. Last week the White House said its preference for air strikes against the Serbs so the Bosnian Muslims can acquire the means to defend themselves was "on hold." The allies, Washington said, wouldn't consider the U.S. option until after the Bosnians voted on the U.N.-sponsored peace plan. "That's absurd," said Danish Foreign Minister Niels Petersen angrily. "The question of tying anything in the European Community's position to the referendum ((didn't even come up in)) our discussions" with Secretary of State Warren Christopher. "The real problem," says a White House aide, "is that Christopher couldn't sell the Europeans on our position." "Nonsense," says a State Department official. "Only the President could close the sale, and he refused. He could have gotten the Euros on board. He could have said, 'We're going ahead, and you guys will look like wimps if you don't jump,' but he didn't. He himself said ((in an interview with the Washington Post last Thursday)) that a stronger U.S. stance 'might' cause the allies to cut their carping and act. The only fair reading of a comment like that is that the President hasn't tried because he doesn't want to." Further proof of this assessment came last week when Bosnian Foreign Minister Haris Silajdzic couldn't even arrange a meeting with senior U.S. officials to discuss the situation Clinton once called "the nation's most urgent foreign policy priority." Explained a top American diplomat: "We can't see him because that would raise expectations our policy can't meet."

The whole truth may never be known, but more than a few Administration officials blame the top dog. What's happened seems simple: Clinton believes his political fate won't hinge on Bosnia -- unless he forces a military confrontation that could lead to the introduction of ground troops, an escalation that could quickly produce TV pictures of dead Americans rather than dead Bosnians. "If we go in and things go bad," concedes a Clinton aide, "then everything at home will stop as the world watches a messy ground war. Besides, we may get lucky. The Serbs may conclude they've grabbed enough territory and stop their killing, in which case no one's going to fight to roll back their land grab. The point is we're trying to keep our eye on the ball" -- and America's eyes off Bosnia. "I'd like to go on ((to)) something else," the President said last week. "I wish I didn't have to spend ((so)) much time on it." Look, says an Administration political aide, "the ball game for us is the economy, period. Unless we get the deficit down and health reform on track, we'll be out of here in '96, which is not our intention. There's one more election, and we mean to win it." A harsh but realistic verdict -- and one that will hold unless Clinton changes his mind again, a course of conduct with which this particular President is not exactly unfamiliar.