C:\WEBSHARE\WWWROOT\GLOBAL~1\INTERN~1\BOSNIA.HTM

Bosnia follow-on

force takes shape

Agenda for NATO replacement plans revolves around US concerns

As the June 1998 exit-date for NATO's stabilisation force (SFOR) from Bosnia approaches, increasing attention is being given to the prospects of a future international military presence in the war-torn Balkan state.
A clear consensus is now beginning to emerge among the international community that a follow-on to SFOR will be needed to prevent Bosnia's three factions restarting their bloody ethnic conflict. Only in the US where there is congressional opposition to a continued troop presence involving American personnel in Bosnia is discussion of the issue a subject of significant controversy. The Clinton administration's repeated promises to bring the troops home after the end of the SFOR mandate are coming back to haunt the White House.

Tim Ripley reports

from Sarajevo on

the future of the

NATO peacekeeping

mission in Bosnia

Ukrainian checkpoint: troops on a brige outside Sarajevo

Western military planners have already begun work on options for political decision makers with the realisation that the need to accommodate American political sensibilities is certain to be a major factor.
European military sources in Sarajevo indicate that the four options under consideration to provide headquarters for an international force include: first, the activation of a combined joint task force (CJTT) drawn from one of the three NATO headquarters that are designated to support CJTF, either AFSOUTH in Naples, AFCENT in Brunssum or Striking Fleet Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia. Second, the deployment of the Franco-German-Spanish-Belgium Eurocorps headquarters.

The prospects of finding a suitable replacement for SFOR are not proving easy

Third, the deployment of the headquarters elements of the Dutch-German Corps, and fourth deployment, for the second time, of the British-led allied command Europe rapid reaction corps (ARRC) headquarters.
These command elements would oversee the operations of contingents offered by NATO, Partnership for Peace and non-aligned nations. The big question is whether any international military force would operate under the cloak of NATO or another security organisation.
American congressional opinion is strongly against a US ground-troop presence so it is likely that the Clinton administration will find the idea of a European-led force politically attractive.

The leading contender to take up the mantle would be the Western European Union (WEU). A return to a United Nations' mandate would have very little credibility among the former warring factions on the ground and it is unlikely that UN headquarters will have much enthusiasm to take on another expensive peacekeeping mission.
A mandate for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has some special attractions because of its inclusion of Russia but the organisation has no experience of commanding military forces on the scale necessary to undertake a duty as complicated as that involving the factions in Bosnia.

Bridge reconstruction near Sipovo

A NATO mandate does seem likely to be the outcome of this political manoeuvring. This is because no matter how much the Clinton administration professes its intention to pull out of Bosnia in June, it has so much political capital invested in the Dayton Peace Accords it is unlikely to dispense with the main lever to ensure the implementation of the accords, namely a US troop presence via NATO. Without US troops in position where it matters, Britain, France and Russia are likely to assume the dominant voice in Bosnian security policy and move towards a solution at variance with the wishes of the White House.

Italian Army base outside Sarajevo

Any follow-on force, no matter which mandate may be adopted, is likely to need US support in a number of key areas that include satellite communications, strategic reconnaissance, airborne ground surveillance radar and airlift. The size and shape of a US ground contingent however is less clear. The often talked of Hungarian-based US rapid-reaction force option lacks credibility with the former warring factions and with the allies. A reduction from the current brigade to a battalion or regimental-sized task force is seen as a more likely outcome although it could face criticism from those members in Congress pre-occupied by force-protection issues.
A WEU-mandated force, involving the Euro-corps or the Dutch-German Corps, would also pose some awkward dilemmas for Britain that has shown considerable caution about the moves so far to create non-NATO European security structures.
Military experts consider that there is a minimum level below which an international force would cease to be effective and so risk becoming vulnerable to attack. The figure of 15,000 to 20,000 troops is suggested, although this level of manpower would still need heavy armour and artillery if it were to be taken seriously by the Bosnians.
A series of meetings by international leaders over the coming months will firm up plans and allow the necessary preparations for the follow-on force to be in place by next summer. Thus Bosnia continues to force hard decisions upon the international community.