On U.S. policy

Although the proposals for Bosnia by James Baker III (The Jakarta Post, July 26, 1995) mirror my earlier "ideas" in a previous letter, there are some glaring inconsistencies which beg comment.

* "The USA cannot be the policeman of the world," should have added "unless our strategic interests (oil) are threatened" he says as much himself, later on in the article. "Are our interests in....sufficiently vital to involve the introduction of U.S. ground forces--the answer is no." I would ask Mr. Baker (who was certainly no heavyweight whilst in "power") why not withdraw altogether from the UN, which the U.S. effectively controls, as the function is generally understood internationally, to be just that of "world policeman". He goes on to say that the U.S. has a vital interest in "containing the Bosnian conflict", in other words, policing it.

* "It risks a conflagration that could draw in....Bulgaria, Greece and even Turkey." What arrant nonsense. This conflict is a centuries-old ethnic feud about territorial ambitions within the former Yugoslavia. It didn't just appear in 1992, but has reached the present proportions because of "hand wringing and finger pointing" by the West (Mr. Baker's words), and the ineffective, confusing "leadership" of the UN by Boutros-Ghali. The vital and commendable function of the UN anywhere, is that of policing an already negotiated peace between warring factions. It is clearly no part of their brief to separate warring factions and, of whatever nationality, lose their lives in the process.

* "Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or genocide in Ruanda." Why does he shy from using the term genocide in respect of Bosnia? Later on he says "feeble western response has prompted comparison with the appeasement of Adolf Hitler." Wrong. It has prompted comparison with the genocide of the Nazi regime.

* "European leadership has failed." Correct, but it has failed because of the totally dominant hold of the U.S. on any European policy or planned action. This neatly comes back to my original point -- European conflict, European shame, European responsibility -- not American. The American people are right to be skeptical of the "flirtation" with involvement in the far flung theaters of war, and we, Europeans, share that skepticism with our "leaders" -- why?, because we know, from experience, that indecision and consensus government puts the lives of our armed forces at great risk. However, we do generally support our elected leaders in a just cause, and what is more just than stopping further genocide.

Take heed of Mr. Baker's closing words: "only a substantial containment strategy, (resolutely led by the U.S.), and an overwhelming NATO force can stop the war." But, with the greatest respect to our American friends and allies (and long may they continue to be so), in this special European conflict, we need a NATO without U.S. influence in any way, shape or form, then we will succeed and then we (Europeans) can finally prove to the Moslem nations that, although the problems and difficulties were enormous, we did care, we did act, we did accept responsibility.

BILL GUERIN

Jakarta