U.S. Department of State 95/10/22 Interview on Face the Nation Office of the Spokesman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman INTERVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER WITH BOB SCHIEFFER - CBS-TV AND EVAN THOMAS - NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE ON CBS-TV "FACE THE NATION" New York City, New York October 22, 1995 MR. ROBERT SCHIEFFER: Welcome again to the broadcast. We start this morning from our New York studio where Secretary of State Warren Christopher is standing by. Joining in the questioning this morning is Evan Thomas, the Washington Bureau Chief of Newsweek Magazine. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us. You are in New York, of course, for the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations. It's a memorable event, if for no other reason than the traffic there in New York. I was there last night with 200 world leaders. It's quite a gathering. Let's start right in and talk a little bit about Bosnia. You went to the Hill this week with Defense Secretary William Perry and made the case for putting 25,000 American troops into Bosnia should there be a peace agreement there. You said yourself that the Administration has not yet made the case for this. I guess I would have two questions: Why haven't you made the case? And what exactly are these troops going to do? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Bob, the fact is that there is not yet a peace agreement. Thanks to President Clinton's leadership we have the best opportunity we've had in the four years of this terrible war to reach a peace agreement. Those talks will commence on the 31st of October in Dayton, Ohio. I think the time has now come for us to begin to make the case. But until a peace agreement is reached, of course, we won't have the parameters of what a peace settlement would look like. The Implementation Force will be there to implement the agreement, to separate the parties. But I think it's now time to start making the case. We're doing that. But what I would want to caution about, Bob, is how many tough days there are ahead before we reach a peace agreement. We've got an unusual opportunity, but I would say we ought to focus right now on seeing how many different kinds of vectors of pressure we can get on the parties in order to reach a peace agreement to end that deadly conflict. MR. SCHIEFFER: Is what you're saying, sir, is that until the peace agreement is reached, you don't know what the troops would do there? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: What the troops would do is to implement the peace agreement, to separate the parties, to deal with violations of the peace agreement. But until there actually is a peace agreement, you cannot make the final plans. NATO is a relatively long ways down the road, Bob, in making those plans, but until the peace agreement is reached, those plans simply can't be finalized. MR. THOMAS: Mr. Secretary, what's going to keep us from taking sides in this? How are we going to avoid choosing sides with the Bosnians? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I think we need to be as evenhanded as we possibly can be. The implementation force needs to separate the parties. It needs to deal in an evenhanded way with any brush-fire violations that might occur. And I think that the peace agreement itself will call for evenhandedness in the implementation of the peace. MR. SCHIEFFER: But, Mr. Secretary, I'm still not clear. You're saying that until the peace agreement is made, you can't know exactly what the troops are doing, and yet you're going to the Congress and saying, "We'd like to send these troops there." Are they going to be in harm's way? Are they going to be called on to defend one side or the other, should one side or the other or any of the three combatants attack one another? It's still not clear to me exactly what you have in mind. SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Bob, the United States will not send its troops there along with NATO troops until there is a bona fide peace agreement. The parties. I think, are entitled to some help in carrying out the first steps in that peace agreement. What the troops will do is, I think, fairly clear. There's a well articulated NATO plan as to how they would act; what they would do. I just wanted to make the point, "Let's not get the cart before the horse." Let's remember we need to reach the peace agreement first. The ultimate parameters of the peace agreement might require some fine tuning in the plan that NATO has been developing. MR. THOMAS: Mr. Secretary, is there such a thing as an acceptable level of casualties? I mean, suppose we do get in there, and we're going to go in with a lot of armor, I gather, and heavy force. How many casualties should we tolerate? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: We want to avoid casualties if we possibly can. That's the way the United States conducts its operations. This will be a risky endeavor. Any military operation has risks. There were risks in Haiti, and they certainly minimized those to a very, very fortunate degree. It's our military doctrine to go in heavy, to make it clear to the parties that they do not want to challenge the United States or NATO. MR. THOMAS: But there's almost a feeling in this country that no casualties are acceptable? Is that our position, or are you willing to see a dozen, a score? What's a number that you could use? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: What I would say -- and this is, of course, what General Shalikashvili said when we were testifying together last week -- we want to keep them down to the lowest possible number of casualties. Any military operation has some risks, but we'll do everything we can to minimize it. There's no acceptable level of casualties, but I think you have to recognize that any operation of this size and character has some risks in it. MR. SCHIEFFER: Let's get back to the question I asked just a moment ago that let's suppose that the Muslims and Croats decide to attack the Serbs; that once these U.S. troops are there, they'll be stronger, and they might at some point decide to attack the Serb forces. Would we then go in on the side of the Serb forces against the Croats and Muslims? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: The purpose of the implementation force will be to carry out the peace agreement, to separate the parties, and to deal with any incidents that might threaten the peace. We wouldn't expect the parties to restart the war. Frankly, the parties, if they sign this peace agreement, will have reached the point where they recognize the advantages of peace. Just look at how different things are in Bosnia -- MR. SCHIEFFER: May I just interrupt with respect -- if you don't expect anything to happen, then why would it be necessary to send troops? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Because the parties have been fighting for four years. The separation of the forces is one good reason, making sure there's a buffer zone between the forces, making sure that some rogue element does not threaten the peace by taking some action at the present time. It's not a simple "yes/no" situation, Bob. I think it will be a limited mission for a limited period of time, and that's why we think it can be accomplished. MR. SCHIEFFER: Will part of the mission also be to arm and train the Muslim side? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: That's a tough question, Bob, an important question. Let me say this about it. It's important that neither side be so weak as to invite attack from the other. They each need to have a level of protection so they deter the other side. Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn have suggested we achieve that equilibrium -- we achieve that correlation of forces -- by building down, and certainly that would the desirable way to do it, rather than equipping and training. But before the implementation force leaves, we think it's important to try to achieve, one way or the other, some equilibrium of forces. That's an important and difficult question, and we're working with it. MR. THOMAS: Mr. Secretary, could we see a situation where you have Russian troops on one side with the Serbs and Americans on the other with the Bosnians facing each other? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I don't think that's the right way to approach it, Evan. That might create some tensions that would be quite harmful in carrying this matter. I don't see assigning sectors -- one sector to the Russians and the other sector to NATO. That doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it, in considerable part because one of the prescriptions that we have is that this operation shall be under the command and control of NATO. That's a red line for the United States. We have that because we think that it gives reassurance to the American people and the other allies that it will be conducted in an effective way. No dual-keys this time. MR. SCHIEFFER: But haven't the Russians -- hasn't Mr. Yeltsin said that he will not put his troops under the command of NATO; that they're going to have to operate separately? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: We're working with that problem. I think it's desirable for Russia to have a dignified, substantial role, but not one that would in any way impair the NATO command and control. We haven't resolved that problem yet. Incidentally, Bob, although that will be discussed between President Clinton and President Yeltsin when they meet at Hyde Park on Monday, I wouldn't expect an outcome there on that question. I'm sure what the Presidents will be concentrating on is, how can we work together to get a peace agreement, to try to bring peace to that land that's needed it so badly? We'll deal with the implementation questions as we move along, as we move through this peace agreement. MR. THOMAS: Mr. Secretary, in this troubled part of the world, what makes us think that we can get out in, say, a year? What is the timetable, and what makes us think we can stick to it? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Our military planners, Evan, think that a year is a reasonable period of time. As the President said the other day, we haven't fixed any precise period of time. We haven't fixed a target date. We're using a year as the approximate date. It would be a year, of course, from the time the peace agreement is reached; then, after the NATO forces have taken a final decision to go in. So I think a year is a solid estimate of the amount of time that our military forces would be there. That's basically a military estimate coming from the NATO planners and coming from our Pentagon planners. MR. THOMAS: What happens if a year has gone by and they're still shooting at each other? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: We don't expect that to happen, Evan. I think our obligation here is to give the parties an opportunity to achieve peace. We've had a good record of sticking by our timelines. We did it when we put some forces in Rwanda. We've certainly kept our time commitments in Haiti, and we would intend to do so here. MR. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, Bob Dole, the Republican leader of the Senate, says the Serbian President should not be given a visa to come to this country. And if you do give him a visa, you ought to at least confine it to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, out there where these peace talks are going to be held. What's your position on that? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I certainly don't quite understand how we can achieve peace without having in the discussion the person who is going to speak for the Serbs. As you know, President Milosevic of Serbia has been identified by both the Bosnian Serbs and the other Serbs to be their spokesman. You can't make peace without having the warring parties here. I just don't understand the position that would not permit him to be in the peace talks. As far as locale is concerned, we would expect him to come here and to be at the air force base in Dayton. That's the purpose of his trip. There are no other purposes as far as I know. I think it's really most unusual to suggest that somehow we exclude the person with whom you would have to reach the peace agreement. MR. SCHIEFFER: Do I take that to mean that his visa will require him to stay in that area? He won't be allowed to go around the country, for example, and make speeches while he's here? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Certainly not the latter. I just want to focus on the fact that the purpose of his trip would be to participate in the peace talks. They're going to take place in the Dayton area, and that's what we have in mind. MR. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you very much for joining us this morning.To the top of this page