Leading Article: Nato's necessary evolution

IF, by a miracle, Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance succeed in persuading all three warring parties to sign their peace plan dividing Bosnia into 10 semi-autonomous areas, the best hope of enforcing the plan would be for the Security Council to call on Nato.

The extent to which elements of Nato are already involved in the former Yugoslavia is not widely appreciated. First, there are ships from the standing Mediterranean naval force operating the blockade of Serbia and Montenegro in implementation of UN trade sanctions; second, one of the two Awacs planes monitoring the no-fly zone over Bosnia is Nato-based (the other is British, both operating from near Venice); third, 'de-baptised' elements of Northern Army Group HQ are manning the UN's headquarters at Kiseljak, north-west of Sarajevo in Bosnia.

Ironically, the five, predominantly Nato- derived UN groups come under the command of a French general, though France is not part of Nato's integrated structure. The German commander and crew members of the Nato Awacs plane would have to return home for constitutional reasons if the Security Council decided to enforce the no-fly zone. Since this was proclaimed last October, there have been more than 400 violations, but mainly by helicopters bearing medical supplies.

In effect, the command structure of the UN forces in Bosnia is essentially derived from Nato. That is only logical, since Nato is the sole regional organisation with long experience of co-ordinating and controlling forces of diverse nationality. Although it has enjoyed a gently rising curve of visibility in Bosnia, only a fraction of its potential has so far been called upon. No other organisation would be capable of mounting the kind of military effort required to police a Bosnian peace settlement, should one be signed; or to ensure that Sarajevo became and remained a free city if all parties agreed to such a solution. Neutral and Third World countries, such as the Swedes or Indians, have considerable experience in peace-keeping, but inevitably they have no training in working together in front-line situations.

Nato was formed to provide stability and security for Western Europe. During the Cold War, it proved to be outstandingly effective in deterring the Soviet Union from seeking to expand its empire westwards. Now Western Europe faces different threats, not least from the wholesale displacement of people by ethnic wars in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. To act alone in dealing with these conflagrations would risk doing more harm than good. But in Europe it is uniquely well placed to intervene on behalf of the Security Council.

For the moment, despite Lord Owen's incorrigible optimism, the prospects for a peace settlement in Bosnia look bleak, and the Serbs and Croats are at each others' throats again in Croatia. The readiness of the Clinton administration, let alone the Bosnian Muslims, to endorse a deal rewarding the Serbs for their ethnic cleansing is in doubt. It is, however, just possible that all three parties might sign up, secretly planning to renege on the deal. That would be the moment for the Security Council to call on Nato to enforce respect for the agreed boundaries, and so begin Nato's necessary evolution towards a new role of regional peacemaker.