INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BOSNIA DISCUSSES SFOR MANDATE

ZAGREB, March 16 (Hina) - A two-day international conference called "Bosnia-Herzegovina After Dayton", on Sunday discussed military and political elements of the peace mandate of Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia. The conference, organised by the Croatian strategic research centre, began in Zagreb yesterday. An SFOR logistics deputy commander, MGen Klaus Fruhhaber, said that SFOR three divisions, consisting of troops from 15 NATO member-states and 17 other nations, had fulfilled the obligation to prevent re-eruption of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but failed to prevent the hindering of development of civil life. According to Fruhhaber, it is obvious at interentity boundaries, and highest tensions occur in Mostar and Brcko. Mostar was indicative of the situation in the (Croat-Moslem) Federation. But it was the matter of the IPTF (International Police Task Force), which we supported, he said. He made it clear that disarmament of parties and arrest of war criminals were not SFOR's obligations. Our mandate lasted 18 months and I did not know what would happen when we left. A decision on our pull-out was certainly political rather than military, Fruhhaber said. An advisor to the RAND Corporation in Washington D.C, Bruce R. Pirnie, told the conference that the United States had only indirect interest in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The U.S. being the first power of NATO, must act where NATO had interest, he added. From the very beginning, the United States had known that Serbs were aggressors, but this country continued to vote for UN resolutions which shared the guilt, and it became involved only when either justice or peace had to be chosen, Pierne expounded. Peace was chosen, since the establishment of justice required the use of force in which nobody was interested, he added. He said that strong Croatia and Serbia were the grounds for peace as well as a condition for signing the Dayton accords. The United States based its relations on the sheer calculation. In this regard, Croatia, being a country that could oppose to Serbia with inherited JNA weaponry, was closer to the U.S., he added. He said they would hardly catch war criminals, as most of them were in the Serb side, and Serbs could think then that America was biased. In connection with Bosnia's future, Pirnie voiced optimism about Bosnia's parts where Croats lived being connected with Croatia, but he was pessimistic about Bosnia's Moslem-populated parts, which were strategically untenable without cooperation with the Croat side. The Croatian people must want that Moslem community, he concluded. An associate in the NATO political relations department, Luc Gardien-Furhmann, said that signatories rather than NATO were responsible for implementation of the Dayton accords. He described the deal as a compromise and balance between the integrity of the country (Bosnia-Herzegovina) and self-government of each entity (the Federation and the Serb entity). NATO would help consolidate peace and reconstruct economy, whereas Croatia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro) were responsible for contributing to peace in Bosnia. The international community was resolute in the implementation of the accords and there would be certainly no new agreement. SFOR was leaving in summer, but then the framework for continuation of the Dayton deal's implementation would be given. It would not be the end of our interest and of our support to the peace. Military supervision might be carried out by other means after that, Luc Gardien-Furhmann said. The conference will finish on Sunday evening. (hina) mš 161756 MET mar 97