KOSOVO: WAITING AND WATCHING

Most Americans probably have less interest in the Serbian-Albanian conflict than they demonstrated during the year-long process that included the impeachment of a U.S. president. But newspapers and news broadcasts are filled with reports from negotiations in Paris over a place called Kosovo.

What little most of us understand includes the fact that President Clinton supports a plan to send NATO troops to the war-stricken area to keep the peace. These forces would, of course, include Americans.

Serbia has been firm on one key point: Even if an agreement can be hashed out in the Paris negotiations that have already lasted more than two weeks, it will not accept NATO peacekeeping forces.

And why should it? If all sides agree to a settlement, there ought to be some faith that those same factions will abide by such an agreement. If there is no such expectation, then the NATO peacekeepers would become combatants in a conflict that is already mired in blood.

Clearly, threats of military action by the U.S., including bombing, if an agreement isn't reached hasn't had much effect. The absolute final date for reaching an agreement now has been shoved back to mid-March after a similar deadline this past weekend didn't produce any results.

How this tense situation will be resolved remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Americans will be keenly interested in the outcome if U.S. planes start bombing over there or if American troops are placed in harm's way.