The gap between words and actions in the US policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina is widening by the day. From the principled position of aiding the people who were being subjected to "ethnic cleansing'' that President Clinton promised immediately after getting elected, to the present one of total inaction, which in fact is all but allowing the Serbs to annihilate the people of Bosnia-Herzegovtna. is a complete reversal to say the least. The lack of action on the part of the Americans has been a subject of criticisms all over the world. But now the criticism has come from his very staff and Mr Clinton has got the clearest of signals that his policy — or the lack of it — is raising serious doubt about his ability to provide global leadership In similar situations.

The resignation of the State Department s desk officer in charge of monitoring the events of the Bosnia-Herzegovina is the strongest rebuff coming from within Mr Clinton's administration against the unprincipled nature of the policy that is being followed by Washington. The much-talked-about air strikes against the Serbs— considered by observers as too little too late — has not materialised. In fact it is not at all clear if the US will take any action at all to show that aggression will not be allowed to win. Marshall Freeman Harris, the official to resign last Wednesday reflecting widespread dissent from within the administration, has raised a very serious question. What should be the role of a permanent member of the Security Council, regarding the dismemberment of another member ofthe United Nations, especially when that dismemberment was being brought about through force of arms? The role of the United States and that of the leading countries of Europe in dealing with the plight of the Bosnians smacks of religious Intolerance, ethnic discrimination and every other 'crime' that the United Nation's Charter renounces in the strongest of terms. A country is being broken into pieces, a people being deliberately killed, their homes being systematically destroyed and their land being taken over — and yet the international community could do little better than uttering some pious words.

President Clinton may not realise It but he is losing credibility. Along with his policy indecisions, the United States is losing all moral authorities to take credible and effective positions on such issues as democracy and human rights. Mr Freeman Harris may not be a high enough official to cause President Clinton a lot of embarrassment, but the reasons for which he has decided to make public his dissent Ue at the very core of what our civilization stands for. The US President would be foolish not to see the deeper meaning of Mr Harris's action.