The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

                     BOSNIA AND THE AMERICAN
                      FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA

       Implications for Russia's Relations with the West

                  by Professor Ronald Hatchett

               Director, The Lord Byron Foundation
             Director, Center for International Studies,
             The University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX


            Presented at the international conference on

                      THE YUGOSLAV CONFLICT

                       jointly organised by
                  The Russian Academy of Science
                              and
                    The Lord Byron Foundation


                  Moscow, January 16-18, 1996

   e-mail: 100343,107@compuserve.com OR balkans@lordb.demon.co.uk

										
           Bosnia and the American Foreign Policy Agenda:
         Implications for Russia's Relations with The West

                   by Dr. Ronald L. Hatchett

            Director, Center for International Studies
              The University of St. Thomas, Houston

Many Serbs I have met during the course of the conflict in former Yugoslavia 
have been puzzled by American policy towards this region. They Ask:

	-- Why does your government say it stands for self-determination and
political freedom but would deny this to the Serbs?
	-- Why does your government depict the Serbs as invaders when we are
only fighting to hold on to lands that have belonged to our ancestors for
centuries?
	-- Why does your government depict the Serbs as NAZIS when it was the
Croats and Muslims that actually sided with the NAZIS during World War II?
	-- Why does your government blame every civilian death or relocation
of non-Serbs on Serbian genocide but ignore the deaths and dislocations of 
hundreds of thousands of Serb civilians in the Krajina and Bosnia?
	-- How can we make your government understand the fundamental 
injustice of its policy towards the Yugoslav crisis?

	It always seems to shock my Serb questioners when I tell them that 
the Clinton administration knows full well the truth about the situation in 
the former Yugoslavia -- who has done what to whom over the past four years 
and, indeed, over the past millennium, and who owned what land before the 
fighting began.

	It is you Serbs, I tell them, who are working under a misconception 
because you do not understand that the declared justifications for American 
policy towards the Yugoslav conflict are not the actual basis of American 
policy. American policy towards the situation in the former Yugoslavia is 
based an considerations much broader than the events in the Balkans. It is 
concern for its global foreign policy objectives that drives American policy 
towards former Yugoslavia, not a search for justice for the peoples of this 
area.

      America's Global Primary Global Foreign Policy Interests

	Two overriding strategic objectives are shaping American foreign 
policy today.  One is the concern that the United States retain its role as 
the perceived leader of the western world and the other is that the United 
States remain the preeminent economic power in the world.  I believe these 
objectives will continue to dominate American foreign policy thinking for 
the foreseeable future, regardless of whether Kill Clinton or Bob Dole is in 
the White House.

          Evolution of Clinton's approach to Foreign Policy

	When Bill Clinton came into office in January 1993 he had no 
experience in making foreign policy. Even his top foreign policy advisors 
were more academic philosophers than veteran foreign policy professionals. 
Colin Powell, the hold over Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the 
Bush administration, described President Clinton's early National Security 
Council meetings as more like "graduate student bull-sessions or think tank 
seminars" than structured policy making meetings. "Backbenchers sounded off 
with the authority of cabinet officers." [1]

	President Clinton's first major public speech concerning his 
administration's approach to foreign policy was given to the United Nations 
General Assembly in September 1993.[2] In this speech he was almost euphoric 
in describing the new world made possible 137 the end of the cold war. He 
spoke of "a new era" for the United Nations which would come from "a new 
spirit of cooperation between the superpowers."

	"Our overriding purpose", he said, must be to expand and strengthen 
the world's community of market based democracies." He made clear that his 
intent was "to work in partnership with others through multilateral 
organizations like the UN." He pledged American support for "the creation of 
a genuine UN peacekeeping headquarters with a planning staff, with access to 
timely intelligence, with a logistics unit that can be deployed on a 
moment's notice, and a modern operations center with global communications." 
Anthony Lake, the President's National Security Advisor, characterized the 
Administration's approach as "pragmatic neo-Wilsonianism." Madeline 
Albright, his UN ambassador, called it "aggressive multilateralism."

	But as Fresident Clinton tried to put his neo-Wilsonian foreign 
policy into practice he became increasingly frustrated by his inability to 
build an international consensus around his foreign policy gambits. Few 
nations, even traditional allies, felt the same imperative that the Clinton 
administration did in dealing with the crisis over the nuclear program of 
North Korea or nation building in Somalia. Fewer still shared the 
Administration's urgency about taking military action to return exiled 
President Aristide to power in Haiti or applying trade sanctions against 
China in an effort to force it to become more democratic. President Clinton 
also got nowhere in trying to sell his "lift and strike" solution to the 
Bosnian crisis to the Europeans -- or to the American people.

	By his second year in office, President Clinton knew that his neo-
Wilsonian approach to foreign policy was making him a target of ridicule at 
home and abroad.  American businessmen were educating him about the need to 
consider the impact on America's economy of human rights oriented foreign 
policy such as that directed towards China and political pundits were 
criticizing him for abdicating America's world leadership role to the 
Europeans. It was the Europeans who were engaged in the Bosnian crisis. It 
was the Europeans who put together the Palestinian-Israeli dialogue.

	President Clinton knew that he had to do something to make himself 
appear to be an international leader in the eyes of the American people, 
especially the power brokers who finance electoral campaigns, or he and the 
Democratic Party would suffer the consequences at the polls. His solution 
was to move towards a more assertive, "America first" foreign policy.

	Since the beginning of 1994, the Clinton approach to foreign policy 
has emphasized more traditional American themes: namely, that the world 
needs American leadership and that America's ability to lead depends upon 
its economic strength. President Clinton's earlier sentiments about all 
things being possible via multilateral efforts are not heard anymore. In
Presidential Decision Directive 25 issued in December 1994, President 
Clinton officially killed his experiment with the multilateral Wilsonian 
approach to foreign policy. This directive restricts US participation in 
collective security operations and declared that "the United states does 
not support a standing UN army, nor will we earmark specific US military 
units for participation in UN operations."[3]

	President Clinton now emphasizes his intention to "make sure that 
we [America] move into the next century still the strongest nation in the 
world" and "to make America the most economically competitive nation in the 
world."[4]  He also says that his Administration "has earned a lot about 
how the combination of American diplomacy and American force can achieve a 
desired result and also develop public support within the United States for 
doing it."[5]

	I believe that this type of thinking has more to do with explaining 
American policy towards the situation in Bosnia than the presumed misguided 
moralist approach of the Administration. Under this philosophy the 
Administration still works with other nations in dealing with world 
problems, but the intent is no longer to achieve a consensus; it is to 
force others to acquiesce to the American position.

 	NATO has felt the brunt of this new Clinton Administration foreign 
policy approach for almost two years now. In the Balkans the west Europeans 
have been repeatedly frustrated by American refusal to seek consensus. Lord 
David Owen has publicly expressed his anger about how the American 
government torpedoed peace plans he put together with UN representatives 
Cyrus Vance and Thorvold Stoltenburg.[6]  There is also the matter of the 
United State's unilateral declaration in November 1994 that US forces would 
no longer participate in enforcing the arms embargo against the Bosnian 
government. Worse still NATO has watched in frustration as the United States 
took action (with the possible support of Turkey and Germany) to smuggle 
arms into Bosnia in contravention of United Nations agreed resolutions and 
to send several high ranking "retired" military officers -- including a 
former commander in chief of NATO, a former chief of staff of the US Army 
the former commander of ground forces in the Gulf War, a former chief of 
the US Defense Intelligence Agency and many others -- into Bosnia and 
Croatia to play an active role in increasing the intensity of the war at a 
time when the lives of UN peace keepers from several NATO countries were at 
risk in this area.[7]

	Many NATO nations are now chafing under the Clinton Administration's 
determination to force the alliance into accepting rapid expansion of NATO 
into Eastern Europe.

                 Bob Dole's Foreign Policy Approach

	Under a Bob Dole Administration, America's foreign policy approach 
would become even mare onerous. Instead of attacking the recklessness of the 
current Administration, Senator Dole criticizes it for not being tough 
enough! According to Dole, "U.S. foreign policy under the Clinton 
Administration has been marked by a lack of assertiveness, a lack of 
credibility, a lack of resolve -- in sum a lack of leadership. Does America 
want to enter the next century as a superpower? The Clinton Administration's 
answer is 'No'. From day one, this administration has been uncomfortable and 
apologetic about America's lonely superpower status."[8]

	Bob Dole outlined his prescription for putting America's foreign 
policy on the correct track in a speech at the Nixon Center for Peace and 
Freedom in March 1995.[9] In this speech Dole outlined five "Realities" that 
would guide American foreign Policy under his Administration. The first is 
that the world is entering a golden age of capitalism but this does not mean 
automatic cooperation among all countries. There are countries who will not 
play by the rules so the US must be ready to defend its economic interests. 
Second, it is an "inescapable reality" that the security of the world's oil 
and gas supplies, particularly those of the Persian Gulf, will remain a 
vital national interest of the United States. This vital interest includes 
not only the producing fields but also the pipelines and other distribution 
means. Reality number three is that there is a danger to the US from the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction and the US must be prepared to use 
preemptive military strikes if necessary to prevent this spread. Fourth, 
the US must be willing to intervene in crises caused by extremist religious 
or ethnic factions affecting countries of special interest to the United 
States like Greece, Albania, Turkey, Mexico, and "ethnic turmoil in the 
former Soviet Union cannot be ignored." The fifth, and most dangerous, 
"reality" that Bob Dole says should guide American foreign policy is: "the 
fact that the geopolitical rivalry with Russia did not end with the demise 
of Soviet communism.." Communism may be dead, he says, but Russian 
imperialism remains a threat to US interests. Dole goes on to cite several 
examples of how this threat is manifesting itself today, including the 
continuation of "historical threats" to the near abroad and to prospective 
NATO members over the issue of NATO expansion, "thereby confirming the need 
to enlarge NATO sooner rather than later."

      How the American Determination to Lead and Protect its Economic 
    Position Affects Its Current Policy Towards Bosnia and Future Policy 
                          Towards Russia

	If one looks at American policy towards the Balkans from the 
assumption that President Clinton's policy towards this region is driven by 
his primary global foreign policy concerns to maximize American leadership 
and economic strength, then the policy becomes somewhat more rational. The 
United States could not accept the EU brokered peace plans of Lisbon, Vance-
Owen, and Owen-Stoltenburg because doing so would have caused Bill Clinton 
to be condemned at home as having abdicated America's leadership 
preeminence. To salvage his leadership image, President Clinton pushed aside 
the UN and EU in early 1994, putting together the so-called contact group 
approach as a multilateral effort, but one which now worked off a US State 
Department draft. At the same time he began to take the unilateral actions 
mentioned previously to directly aid the Muslim and Croat cause. The 
eventual result was the agreement at Dayton which President Clinton 
announced to the American people as if it were something America alone was 
responsible for. "If America does not lead," he said, "too often the job 
will not be done .... Europe alone could not end this war."[10]

	The determination to lead explains why an agreement in Bosnia had 
to be on American terms, but it does not explain why the American terms 
favored the Muslims. The explanation for this is money.

 	About two years ago I was snaking the rounds in Washington trying to
educate some of my former colleagues who were still in the government and 
working policy issues affecting the former Yugoslavia. One of my friends in 
the Pentagon stopped me in the middle of my harangue about the injustice of 
American policy towards the Serbs, in particular the depiction of Serbs as
invaders of Bosnia and Croatia, and as the only perpetrators of war crimes. 
"Ron," he said, "don't you think we know what you are saying? The simple 
facts are these: we are getting incredible pressure form the Saudis and 
others to help the Muslim cause in Bosnia. They remind us that the Islamic 
world provides us with all the oil we want at relatively low prices, that 
Islamic states have billions of petrodollars to invest in "friendly states" 
and offer a potential market of over one billion people for the goods and 
services of "friendly countries"; and finally, that the peace process 
between Israel and the Islamic world "should go better if Israel's main 
friend was also a friend to Islamic countries. When you weigh these facts 
against what 8 million Serbs can do for America's interests, its clear what 
direction our policy is going to take."

	In a recent opinion piece in The New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn 
and Michael Lind of the journal The New Republic argue that the American 
commitment to the Islamic connection is so strong that the US design is to 
make the Islamic world part of a new American empire and that American 
support of the Bosnian Muslims is part of the implementation of this 
plan.[11]  They argue that the US perceives its hegemony in the Islamic 
world to be key to offsetting the geopolitical power of a united western 
Europe, and economically emerging China, and a natural resource rich 
Russia.

	What all this means for the future relations of Russia with the 
west is that for the foreseeable future the United States will continue to 
place its struggle to hold on to its leadership position in western Europe 
above considerations for improving relations with Russia. The viability of 
NATO is perceived to be necessary to America's leadership of the west. NATO 
is the only European organization that the US perceives that it controls. 
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is too 
diverse in membership and there is no special privilege for the US as in 
NATO, where the Commander in Chief is always an American and there is a
long history of US dominance of the political activities of the alliance. 
For NATO to be viable, the US believes that it must look for new missions 
and new membership. If one looks at the NATO charter there is clearly no 
legally justifiable reason for NATO to be in Bosnia at the present time. 
Conversely, if one looks at the charter of the OSCE, there is every reason 
for this organization to be there. By being the champion of NATO expansion 
the US hopes to add supporters for a strong US role in Europe.

	One of the recurring themes for some time now amongst the American 
foreign policy elite is that America is a European country. The Clinton 
Administration subscribes to this idea and uses it to justify the need for 
continued American leadership in NATO and for NATO's expansion eastward. 
Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and 
Canadian Affairs, and most recent chief negotiator on the former Yugoslavia, 
wrote an article entitled "America, A European Power," in the March/April 
1995 issue of Foreign Affairs.[12] In this article Holbrooke makes the case 
that America's European interests justify its call for a new security 
architecture in Europe of American design. The new architecture is based on 
an expanded NATO. Holbrooke asserts that, "The West must expand to central 
Europe as fast as possible in fact as well as spirit, aid the United States 
is ready to lead the way... Expansion of NATO is a logical and essential 
consequence of the disappearance of the Iron Curtain." Holbrooke says that 
NATO expansion is directed at extending market based democracy to former 
socialist states of Eastern Europe, not at countering some perceived 
military threat from Russia. It would seem to me, however, that if extending 
market based democracy was our goal we should push for expansion of the 
European Union into these lands as it is focused on economic and political 
matters, in contrast to NATO which was created as a military alliance 
specifically created to counter a perceived threat from a Russian dominated 
Soviet Union.

	General George Joulwan the American Commander in Chief of NATO told 
the Washington Post last month that NATO's actions in Bosnia are not about 
the future of Bosnia but rather the future of Europe.[13]  I think this is 
true. Bosnia is a test case for the new American designed security 
architecture for Europe. If American goals here are achieved at little or no 
cost, then the same approach will be applied elsewhere and it doesn't take 
much imagination to predict where. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott 
told the Pittsburgh World Affairs Council about three weeks ago that one of 
the reasons that the Clinton Administration is determined to end the crisis 
in Yugoslavia on American terms is: "If aggressive nationalism triumphs 
there, it will not only be devastating in that region, it will be ominous 
elsewhere as well..... Throughout the former Soviet Empire, dark forces 
similar to those that have convulsed the Balkans are vying with those of 
freedom and tolerance to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of communist 
rule."[14] In a speech at Indiana University, Secretary of State Warren 
Christopher gave some insights as to who the Administration considers to be 
among the possible dark forces of the old Soviet empire. According to 
Secretary Christopher, "Russia's conduct in Chechnya has been tragically 
wrong...  I have urged the Russian government to end the carnage, to accept 
a permanent mission from the OSCE and to reach a political settlement... But 
its actions in Chechnya today threaten Russia's ability to emerge as a 
democratic, multi-ethnic state."[15]

	As an American I too would like to see my country be an effective 
world leader. But as a political scientist I know that power can be wielded 
in the international arena in two ways. One way is to use situational power 
in which an actor coerces others to do its will by threat or use of military
or economic resources. The other way is to use attitudinal power gained from 
one's own exemplary record of performance as a society, or superior 
expertise, or recognized moral standing, or charisma to convince others that 
one's policy is the best for the situation at hand. The latter approach may 
take more effort to be successful but its results will be more lasting. The 
problem with relying an the coercive approach that Clinton and Dole seem to 
favor is that sooner or later we will run out of luck and some nation or 
coalition of nations will not acquiesce to American strong arm leadership. 
The consequences then will be great for my country and the world.

=====

[1] Colin Powell, My American Journey, (Random House: New York, 1995), 
    p. 575.
[2] President Bill Clinton, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 
    September 1993. 
[3] Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Back to the Womb?, Foreign Policy, July/August,
    1995.
[4] President Bill Clinton speech to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, 
    March 1995.
[5] President Bill Clinton as cited in an article by Daniel William's and 
    Ann Devroy, "US Follows a Two-Pronged Doctrine: Force Projected Abroad 
    for National Security Policy Goals," The Washington Post, October 16, 
    1994.
[6] "Clinton Prolonged the War, Owen Says," Reuters News Wire Service 
    Report in Los Angeles Times, December 22, 1993; also see Lord David Owen 
    interview on BBC television program Panorama in November 1995.
[7] See for example, "US to Help farm Muslim-Croat Army in Bosnia," New York 
    Times, October 18, 1994; "US Retired General to Aide Muslim-Croat 
    Federation," New York Times, January 23, 1995; "Europeans Charge Bosnian 
    Army Gets US Arms," Reuters Wire Service Report, July 27, 1995; and "US 
    Admits Advisers, Denies Aiding Croat Attacks," Reuters Wire Service 
    Report, August 7, 1995.
[8] "Dole Foreign Policy," Associated Press Wire Service Report, Suptember 
    1995.
[9] Bob Dole, "Winning the Peace American Leadership and Commitment," speech
    to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Policy Conference, March 22, 
    1995.
[10] President Bill Clinton, television and radio address to the American 
    people on Bosnia, November 27, 1995.
[11] Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, "The Third American Empire," The New 
    York Times, December 30, 1995.
[12] Richard Holbrooke, "America, A European Country," Foreign Affairs, 
    March/April 1995.
[13] Rick Atkinson, "NATO's Gunboat Diplomacy not Assured of Smooth Sailing,"
    The Washington Post, September 13, 1995.
[14] Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, "American Leadership and The 
    New Europe," Address to the Pittsburgh World Affairs Council, December 
    14, 1995.
[15] Secretary of State Warren Christopher, "U.S. Policy Towards the New 
    Independent States: A pragmatic Strategy Grounded in America's 
    Fundamental Interests," Address to Indiana University, March 29, 1995.