COLUMN: Deployment of troops a necessary price of peace

---

by Usman Baber

---

Following the conclusion of the recent peace talks in Ohio, there is finally a real chance for peace and hope in the Balkans.

Two specific characteristics of this conflict which have set it apart and made it of specific importance to the international community are the historical geographical significance of the region (World War I started there) and alleged war crimes that the world has not seen since World War II, such as "ethnic cleansing."

Despite these two evidently significant characteristics, for a long time the international community -- in the form of the United Nations -- seemed only too disinterested in the slaughter of civilians.

Instead, peacekeepers were sent to a region where there was no peace, and the United Nations, an international body which is supposed to enforce international law, was ignored repeatedly by the Bosnian Serbs.

Finally, a few months ago, the United States essentially "bombed the Serbs to the peace table," and an end to the bloody conflict seemed possible. A peace agreement has been signed, and the next step in ensuring peace is the deployment of U.S. troops to the region.

The House of Representatives, though, voted to block funding for any military action in the Balkans.

Clearly, the will of the American people, as shown by this congressional action, is to steer clear of any direct military intervention.

I feel, however, that the American people should reconsider and in fact support the deployment of U.S. troops in the former Yugoslavia.

First of all, as the only remaining superpower, we have a certain responsibility in the international arena. Even though people may dispute this fact, we have assumed an international role numerous times since the end of World War II.

The two most recent examples of our involvement outside our borders were in Haiti and Somalia. Also, another peace agreement, between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel, was recently reached with considerable U.S. involvement.

It seems clear, then, that we have set a precedent for ourselves and are aware when we are obliged to become involved in troubled parts of the world.

In the specific case of Bosnia, therefore, it would make sense to follow our previous examples of global leadership rather than make an exception and remain isolationist.

Secondly, by not sending troops to the region, we would be acting in a hypocritical manner.

The reason is that we have clearly shown an interest in providing peace to the Balkans with the recent peace talks, and the next step in assuring that peace is the use of U.S. military support. We have promised the Europeans our aid, and by backing out now, we would be greatly weakening the NATO mission and jeopardizing any sort of peace which we have attempted to create.

Many people, though, don't want U.S. soldiers to be in Bosnia because they are afraid that this mission will be another Somalia. These fears, however, are unfounded. The mission to the Balkans will be a completely different one than that of Somalia.

Also, Clinton has already laid down clear mission goals and estimated time and cost. In Somalia, however, it was unclear what the mission was. At first our soldiers were distributing food, and by the end they were fighting Somali warlords.

In the Balkans, though, the purpose of U.S. soldiers will be to patrol neutral regions between the Serb and Muslim-Croat federation.

We will be neither rebuilding a country nor fighting an enemy, but rather trying to make a peace which has been signed on paper into a reality.

Usman Baber is a Hanszen College freshman.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the December 1, 1995 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.