Whose Apologies?

It's not everyday that a famous New York Times columnist asks you to apologize. But yesterday, it happened.

In his column on yesterday's op-ed page A.M. Rosenthal wrote: "Apology is due to these two honorable men [Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen] from all the columnists, editorial writers, politicians and academics who vilified them while they fought for a political basis for peace."

As one of those columnists who has often criticized Vance and Owen, I suppose I fit Rosenthal's criterion. (I'll flatter myself by pretending he has actually read my columns.).

The headline for his column was "Time for Apologies." In it he argued that the Bosnian Serb leader's signing of the Vance-Owen peace plan is a vindication of the peace efforts in the former Yugoslavia. Rosenthal then issued his call for apologies.

First, a brief moment for the facts: two days ago the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan. Karadzic, signed on to the Vance-Owen peace plan. This development came only after months of outright rejection of the plan by the Serbs.

Throughout this time, the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign had continued, leaving thousands dead and thousands more as refugees in its wake. The Serbian agreement to the plan came only a day after the Clinton administration finally approved air strikes against Serbian targets.

Common sense suggests that the threat of air strikes had something to do with the sudden Serbian agreement to the plan.

But Rosenthal doesn't buy it. He mocks proponents of bombing as the "American Bombing Association," and then makes the fantastic statement that "resisting bombing for so long paid off for the U.S.... Belgrade backed far off from its Bosnian Serbian clients."

He also points out that the Vance Owen plan, which calls for dividing Bosnia into ten largely autonomous provinces, is the only plan on the table, and that no one has come up with a better one.

With all due respect, Rosenthal has simply missed the point.

The Vance-Owen plan itself is not the main reason that the two negotiators have been vilified; its merits are debatable.

The reason that Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen have been rightly criticized is that for months they staunchly opposed any military action in their quest for a negotiated settlement.

Their opposition was music to the ears of the Serbs, who wanted nothing more than a guarantee against outside intervention while they continued their drive for a greater Serbia.

For all those months, Vance and Owen simply didn't grasp the fact that Bosnia was a case of aggression that could only be stopped by force, or a credible threat of force.

So they continued trying to find that magical negotiated solution that would stop the war, and Bosnians continued dying.

When finally the West, and the Clinton administration in particular, became outraged enough to seriously consider military action, the Serbs quickly scurried to sign the plan, which the Bosnians and Croats had already signed.

Make no mistake, the decision to sign was motivated by fear and nothing else.

Their signature is a promising, but still essentially meaningless step. The "Bosnian Serb parliament" still must agree to the plan, and even if they do, their compliance is far from assured. Signing the plan could be nothing more than a gimmick to defuse building world pressure.

So all the talk about who deserves credit for making the Serbs capitulate is woefully premature. Military action will likely still be necessary to truly convince the Serbs that their gimmicks will no longer work. The war is far from over.

It is not "time for apologies" now, it is still time for action. When the time for apologies does come though, Vance and Owen should be near the front of the line.

When the time comes for apologies, Vance and Owen should be near the front of the line.