Should We Care? Yes, But . . .

By Bruce W. Nelan

During the cold war's long struggle, when one superpower's gain in territory or influence was a loss for the other, the maverick communist state of Yugoslavia was a strategic target for both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But the region's ethnic hatreds have been around much longer than that, epitomized by the rancorous quarrels that touched off World War I.

Ironically, the end of the East-West conflict has rekindled those old animosities, tamped down for decades under communist rule. The re-emergence of Balkan rivalries unnerves many in Europe, but Yugoslavia's turmoil today is important -- and dangerous -- mostly to its own people and its nearest neighbors. When reports of fighting in Slovenia reached Washington, Secretary of State James Baker fell back on some of the old terminology. "It is truly a powder-keg situation," he said. Actually, while bloodshed in Yugoslavia is tragic and unnecessary, this time it does not threaten to ignite a world war.

It does, however, increase the risk of a full-scale civil conflict and the possible involvement of countries with national minorities living in Yugoslavia, including Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania. Such an upheaval might also drive thousands of frightened refugees across the borders into Austria and Italy.

What worries many is that the spectacle of violent disintegration in one multi-ethnic federation may increase the pressure for separatism in other amalgams, like Czechoslovakia, as well as the Soviet Union's Baltic republics. That is one reason Moscow last week backed "the unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia."

Outsiders, however, have done little to head off the breakup, largely because there have been no obvious ways to do it. Like Moscow, the U.S. and the European Community are voicing support for unity and refuse to recognize the secessionist republics.

That stance is more an objection to the irresponsible way the split was carried out than a rejection of the principle of self-determination. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater explained, "We will not reward unilateral actions that pre-empt dialogue or the possibility of negotiated solutions."

In other words, an agreed, peaceful loosening of Yugoslavia's federal system would be fine. There is no thought of trying to send any peacekeeping troops into the country, so the traditional methods of diplomacy are all the outside world can offer.

Baker has again appealed to the Yugoslavs to express their "national aspirations" through bargaining and dialogue. The E.C. helped arrange the Saturday truce and is urging renewed negotiations during a three-month cooling-off period. The 35-nation Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe will probably convene soon, but any action it suggests must have unanimous approval -- including Yugoslavia's. That is appropriate because in the end this is a crisis the Yugoslavs will have to settle for themselves.

With reporting by Christopher Ogden/Washington, with other bureaus