The U.N. military commander in Sarajevo on Monday said he would have "no hesitation" to ask for NATO air strikes in Bosnia-Herzegovina to force Serbs to withdraw or turn over their artillery by Sunday.
Lt. Gen. Michael Rose's assertion signaled an end to confusion and conflicting statements between U.S. and U.N. officials over the Sarajevo deadline.
"NATO and the United Nations are completely aligned as to what our plans are . . .," he said. "As far as I'm concerned I'm working from the same sheet of music as NATO."
The NATO ultimatum came four days after a mortar attack on Sarajevo's central market killed 68 and wounded 200. Bosnian Serbs are widely believed to be responsible for the attack.
Previous statements from Rose and subordinates had caused President Clinton to emphasize: "I expect that the terms of the NATO agreement will be followed . . . I don't think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on that point."
The confusion stems from the different roles played by the U.S.-led European NATO alliance and U.N. officials in the joint effort to halt the shelling of Sarajevo.
Further muddying the waters, U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his staff have the final say before NATO air strikes can begin.
U.N. peacekeepers on the ground are charged with overseeing the handover or withdrawal of heavy weapons at least 12 miles from Sarajevo.
Recent reports of potential U.N. compromises on NATO timetable for Serb withdrawal reached a climax Monday.
Lt. Col. Bill Aikman, a U.N. military spokesman in Sarajevo, made a seemingly defiant comment: "The 10-day ultimatum is a NATO ultimatum. It is not our ultimatum."
Those words brought Clinton's pointed remarks and Rose's clarification.
So far, only a few of the 500 Serbian heavy artillery pieces have been turned over to the United Nations.
Bosnian Serbs have had a huge advantage in weapons in a civil war that has killed 200,000 people since Bosnia's Muslim government declared independence from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia 22 months ago.
The Bosnia crisis is not the first time U.N. and U.S. policies have drifted apart.
"There's a lot of role confusion," said Dick Thornburgh, former attorney general and U.N. undersecretary.
A rift developed in Somalia last year when the U.N.-authorized, but U.S.-led, operation changed its mission from humanitarian relief to a direct role in ending a civil war between rival warlords. U.S. troops died fighting militias loyal to Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
"I think there is an uneasiness about the relationship between American forces that are committed to a U.N. mission in terms of command and control and ultimate responsibility," Thornburg said.
Former assistant secretary of State John Bolton, saying the United States dominates both NATO and the United Nations, blamed a lack of leadership by Clinton for any problems.
"You've got to ask not what's wrong with NATO and the U.N., but what's wrong with the United States," Bolton said. "The problem really lies in a fundamental confusion of American foreign policy.
