VIEWSrnSocial Engineering in the BalkansrnBuilding a “New World” Staternby William R. HawkinsrnIn his November 27 televised speech explaining his rationalernfor sending United States troops into the Balkans, PresidentrnBill Clinton said his goal is “preserving Bosnia as a single state.”rnTestifying three days later before the House National SecurityrnCommittee, Secretary of State Warren Christopher said “onlyrnwith peace does Bosnia have the chance to exist as a single state.rnOnly with peace does it have a chance to build a multi-ethnicrndemocracy.” These sentiments reveal that the administrationrnhas an agenda larger than peace. Bosnia is to be an experimentalrnlaboratory for every liberal notion of “new world” nationbuildingrnthat the fertile imaginations in the State Departmentrncan concoct.rnCritics have focused on the contradictions within the DaytonrnAccord which, while speaking of the “sovereignty, territorialrnintegrity and political independence of Bosnia” also partitionsrnthe country into two “Entities” (a Muslim-CroatrnFederation and a Serbian Republic) with three armies (“ThernArmy of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the CroatrnDefense Council Forces and the Army of the Republika Srpska”).rnEach Entity will have its own citizens, parliament, andrnpresident. The two Entities will be separated by a four-kilometer-rnwide demilitarized “Inter-Entity Boundary” patrolled byrnthe NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR).’rnFor a central government to exercise its “sovereignty”rnthroughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina would requirernprojecting power across this boundary in a way that wouldrnWilliam R. Hawkins is Senior Research Analyst on the staff ofrnRepresentative Duncan Hunter (Republican-California).rnThe views expressed are his own.rnsurely reignite a war whose origins lay in the unwillingness ofrnthe Serbs (and to a lesser extent the Croats) to live under arnMuslim-led regime. There has been concern expressed inrnCongress that if Clinton pursues a “single state” Bosnian strategy,rnAmerican troops would be caught in just such a renewedrnstruggle—and, indeed, might even spearhead it.rnA close look at the Dayton Accord reveals, however, that thernchances of a central Bosnian state emerging to carry out anyrnkind of concerted policy is quite slim. The liberal “New WorldrnOrder” structure imposed on Sarajevo by the Clinton administrationrnrenders any rhetoric about sovereignty and independencernmoot. The Bosnian “state” has all but disappeared.rnWhere once its existence was threatened by advancing Serbianrntroops, it has now been rendered incompetent by a constitutionalrnstructure that would bewilder Lani Cuinier. The remnantsrnare then absorbed by international organizations and foreignrnbureaucrats. The poor, suffering Bosnians faced a morernhonorable fate in open combat.rnThe Dayton Accord included a new constitution for Bosniarnand Herzegovina, designated as Annex 4. The preamble doesrnnot declare for a “more perfect union.” Instead, it is “Cuidedrnby the Purposes and Principles of the charter of the United Nations”rnand “Inspired by the Universal Declaration of HumanrnRights, the International Covenants on Civil and PoliticalrnRights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and thernDeclaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National orrnEthnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, as well as other humanrnrights instruments.” Attached at the end of the constitutionrnis a list of 15 of these other human rights instruments, includingrnthe 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Formsrn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn