UNdemocracy - General Assembly Session 49 meeting 7

Date	27 September 1994
Started	15:00
Ended	20:10

Links for full page

URL:

wiki:

Instructions

Click on the Link to this button beside the speech or paragraph to expand it to a useful panel containing:

The date of the speech
A link to the original page of the PDF document
A URL that can be used in most blogs
A structured Citation template suitable for use in a Wikipedia article.

Those last two rows ("URL" and "wiki") use textboxes to hide most of the text.

To access this text, right-click in the textbox with your mouse and choose "Select All", then right-click again and choose "Copy". Now you can right-click into another window and choose "Paste" to get the text.

A-49-PV.7 1994-09-27 15:00 27 September 1994 [[27 September]] [[1994]] /

The President: Mr. Essy (Cote d'Ivoire)

The meeting was called to order at 3.30 p.m.

More on this topic

Address by Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, President of the Republic of Latvia

The President

The Assembly will first hear an address by the President of the Republic of Latvia.

Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, President of the Republic of Latvia, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Latvia, His Excellency Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Ulmanis (Latvia)

Allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session and to wish you every success in leading this august body. May this session be constructive and productive for you and all delegations.

New geopolitical, economic and technological realities have appeared at the close of the twentieth century. The destructive cold war has come to an end and its symbol - the Berlin Wall - has collapsed. The insuppressible long-held yearnings of many peoples for freedom and independence led in the end to the disintegration of even the seemingly indestructible Soviet empire, clearly reaffirming the lasting strength and integrity of the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations - peace, equality and justice. That is why this Organization has always played and will continue to play a role in furthering the progress of nations, as evidenced by its vast undertakings in the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as its efforts to increase the well-being of society and every individual.

Two years ago, the Secretary-General in his report "An Agenda for Peace", comprehensively analysed aspects related to the maintenance of peace and security. This report led to a broad debate on concepts such as preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building. Preventive diplomacy by the United Nations and other organizations undoubtedly furthered the resolution of a very difficult issue for Latvia and all of Europe - the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territories of the Baltic States.

With satisfaction I should like to report to the General Assembly that, on the whole, General Assembly consensus resolutions 47/21 of 25 November 1992 and 48/18 of 15 November 1993, entitled "Complete withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territories of the Baltic States", have been implemented. The last Russian military units departed Latvia and Estonia at the end of August. Thus, the Second World War has ended for the Baltic States. Our bilateral negotiations with the Russian Federation, which lasted for more than two years, culminated with the signing on 30 April 1994 of agreements the ratification of which has been included in the agenda of the Parliament of Latvia.

I can state with full conviction that the international calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops, made by the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), amongst others, were pivotal to the successful resolution of this long drawn-out matter.

We believe that this approach may be useful as an example for the resolution of other global issues and we are prepared to share our experience with others.

The United Nations and the CSCE will continue to have an important role in the implementation of the agreements. According to the bilateral agreement between Latvia and Russia on the Skrunda radar facility, any attempt to settle disputes or differences of opinion connected with the agreement by means of military threats or by the use of armed force shall be considered a threat to international peace and security and shall be brought before the United Nations Security Council. For its part, representatives of the CSCE will observe the implementation of the agreements and the fulfilment of the respective parties' obligations.

However, we have yet to exhaust the opportunities for preventive diplomacy in the Baltic region. Baltic regional security continues to be a pressing issue. On his visit to Latvia last summer, Mr. William Clinton, President of the United States of America, stressed that the sovereign and independent Baltic States must not be part of any sphere of influence. It must be noted that President Clinton played a vital role in disentangling problems which had developed during negotiations with the Russian Federation on the withdrawal of its troops from Estonia and Latvia.

I should like to remind the international community that the Russian radar facility will remain in Skrunda for five and a half years, and nuclear reactors will remain in Paldiski, Estonia. Heavy Russian military transit takes place through Lithuania to Kaliningrad, where a high military concentration is maintained. On the whole, these are risk factors which potentially threaten the Baltic States and, in fact, the entire Baltic Sea region. In many respects, Baltic security is a guarantee for peace and stability in Europe. The Baltic States are already considering the possible solutions to this important question, and I hope that the Member States will devote their full attention and interest to these ends.

A significant dialogue between our two countries has concluded with the completion of Russian troop withdrawal from Latvia. Thanks to the support of many countries and international organizations, Latvia today is free from foreign military presence. Nevertheless, without the foresight and the civility displayed by both parties, we could not stand here today and speak of social harmony and tolerance in Latvia, nor could we say that both Latvia and the Russian Federation have one less problem to address. Last spring, when I met with President Yeltsin in Moscow, I gained the conviction that in solving our problem he was guided by good will.

In 1995, Europe and the world will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Allied victory over nazism. Latvians, too, fought against Hitler's occupying forces in the belief that an Allied victory would be followed by the restoration of Latvian independence. However, whilst many nations breathed freely again after the end of the Nazi occupation, the Baltic States were engulfed for the second time by the totalitarian Soviet empire. As other nations celebrated the defeat of nazism, Latvia was subjected to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of innocent persons and the systematic destruction of the Latvian State and national identity. Latvia and its people are the victims of both regimes - nazism and communism.

Justice would prevail if the new democratic Russia, which played a decisive role in the destruction of the "Evil Empire", were to engage with Latvia in the appraisal of the actions taken by the Soviet Union against Latvia in 1940. The signing of truthful bilateral documents would preclude any petty psychological feelings of revenge and would provide amends to the victims of the totalitarian regime in both countries. These "truth" documents would foster even greater harmony between the various nationalities in Latvia and, we believe, lift some of Russia's unenviable inherited burden.

Such cases already exist. The documents signed by the Presidents of Russia and several Central and Eastern European States have marked an end to the legacy of the past, which had also been a burden to Russian society.

We believe that it is impossible to fully comprehend the consequences of the Soviet occupation without an objective analysis of the events of 1939 and 1940. These consequences have been and continue to be felt in Latvia in the areas of political, economic and social development. No other country lost nearly 40 per cent of its native population during the Second World War; in no other post-war European country has the native population become a minority in seven of its largest cities, including the capital; and no other country has experienced population transfers and mass deportations on such a scale. The Latvian language, too, was under threat of extinction, despite the fact that it had survived for 4,000 years, partly in the form of a unique collection of more than one million folk songs. We wish to protect Latvia's historical and cultural heritage, because Latvians can preserve their national identity only in this small land on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Latvians never have and never will ask for any other land.

I should like to draw the Assembly's attention to the necessity for regional cooperation. History has repeatedly shown that geographically and historically close States have forged the deepest relations, thereby enriching and furthering mutual development.

Following the restoration of independence, the Baltic Parliamentary Assembly was formed, and this month work was begun by the Baltic Council of Ministers, which coordinates our policies in foreign affairs, trade, legislation and other matters. In other words, a balanced and active Baltic union has been created. At the same time, an evolutionary process towards an expanded European Union with a dynamic Nordic-Baltic dimension is taking place. The model for regional cooperation in Northern Europe aspired to by Latvia is "three plus five" - three Baltic States and five Nordic States.

Recognizing the important role played by the United Nations in international peace-keeping, Latvia, together with its neighbours, Estonia and Lithuania, has established the Baltic Battalion, which in the future may participate in the peace-keeping operations of the Security Council. The Nordic States, the United Kingdom and the United States have greatly contributed to the establishment of the Baltic Battalion. We believe that the three Baltic States will thereby further the aims shared by the Member States of the largest and most influential of international bodies - the United Nations.

During the cold war the Baltic Sea was a boundary. Nowadays the Baltic Sea unites rather than divides States. Five years ago the "Baltic Way" - a human chain reaching from Tallinn through Riga to Vilnius - symbolized the shared road towards independence and democracy. Today this road has also regained its historical and economic significance in our region. At the turn of the century the Baltic Way will already be an established part of the global information highway.

I wish to reaffirm that Latvia will do its utmost to foster peaceful cooperation and the spirit of understanding, mutual trust and tolerance on the shores of the Baltic Sea.

International peace and security and good-neighbourly relations between States are inextricably linked to economic and social development. The end of the cold war has created new opportunities to devote greater attention to these issues. Last spring the Secretary-General issued a report (A/48/935) entitled "An Agenda for Development". Latvia welcomes this initiative, which marks a historic turning point in the work of the United Nations. From being an international forum primarily serving the interests of individual States, the United Nations is becoming a representative and defender of the needs of humanity. Economic and social development increases the security of every inhabitant of our planet.

We believe that the United Nations and each Member State should recognize the need not only for a coalition for democracy, but also for a fight against organized crime and the trafficking of nuclear materials and narcotics. Without effective solutions to these problems, the security of each inhabitant of our planet and the development of every country and society are endangered. I invite the United Nations to consider organizing a high-level meeting for the solving of those problems.

Many components of the United Nations system, primarily the Development Programme, are concerned with the promotion of economic progress. Therefore, within the framework of the aims of the proposed Agenda for Development, one of the challenges is to simplify, renew and integrate the United Nations system. Latvia is among those countries whose economic, governmental and social structures are undergoing a period of transition. Effective United Nations assistance to these countries would speed this process, allowing them to become donor countries sooner.

The concept of development is very broad. It includes social and economic progress; justice and democracy, as the foundation of society; and the protection of human rights and the environment. Even if the threat of global nuclear war has subsided, the prospect of environmental catastrophe remains. I therefore restate Latvia's proposal, first made at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, to host in Latvia before the end of this century a world summit at which participating States would commit themselves to diverting all resources gained from disarmament towards long-term development, especially for the protection of the environment and reversal of ecological damage caused by military activity. This conference could take place in Jurmala, on the shores of the Baltic Sea.

Latvia attaches great importance to international conferences organized by the United Nations. As a member of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, Latvia has become actively involved in the preparation for the World Social Summit. Furthermore, Latvia is one of the few States whose head of delegation is also a Vice-President of the Conference.

Each global conference is an opportunity for every participating State to review and compare the sum of its experience. The issue of implementing the adopted resolutions at both the national and international levels is yet to be fully addressed. I would like to inform the Assembly of the extent of Latvia's adherence to the recommendations adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights. In its Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action the Conference invited States to establish and strengthen national institutions for the protection of human rights. The Conference recommended that each State consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would improve the promotion and protection of human rights.

Latvia demonstrated its commitment to United Nations principles and its readiness to implement the recommendations of the Conference by establishing in March 1994 the post of State Minister for Human Rights, as well as forming a Government Working Group on the Protection of the Rights of Individuals, allocating the necessary resources towards these ends. We believe that the United Nations should devote a greater percentage of its regular budget to the promotion and protection of human rights.

In response to a request by the Working Group, a high-level international mission organized by the United Nations Development Programme visited Latvia in July this year. The mission, which included representatives of several international organizations, including CSCE and the Council of Europe, consulted Latvia on the development of a national programme for the protection and promotion of human rights. At Latvia's invitation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights will visit Latvia in October this year.

I am proud that Latvia is one of the first countries to have demonstrated an awareness of its responsibility by establishing a national programme for the protection and promotion of human rights. Latvia is prepared to discuss and share its knowledge and experience with all interested parties.

We support the proposal made to the General Assembly by Mr. Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation, that the principles of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities be embodied in the legislation of all Member States. At the World Conference on Human Rights Latvia called for the establishment of standards and implementation mechanisms for the rights of minorities and foreigners.

Those activities in the sphere of human rights are grounded in history. Prior to the Second World War, as a member of the League of Nations, Latvia fostered harmonious inter-ethnic relations. We are now trying to renew and cultivate this great tradition. Immediately after the restoration of its independence Latvia declared its accession to all the principal international human rights instruments. As I have already mentioned, a major effort is being made in the establishment of a national programme for the promotion and protection of the human rights of the individual in order that every individual be guaranteed equal rights and an equal opportunity to defend these rights. I believe that the concept of equal opportunity not only characterizes the fundamental rights of the individual, but is also a prerequisite for development.

Latvia has always been open to cooperation with the United Nations, the CSCE and other international organizations. Latvia reaffirmed this when it passed its Citizenship Law. In promulgating this legislation, it followed the recommendations of the CSCE and the Council of Europe, and the passing of the law has been evaluated positively by these organizations.

The need for rationalizing and revitalizing the work of the United Nations is becoming ever more apparent. Latvia is actively participating in the search for optimal solutions. Latvia supports the enlargement of the Security Council, perceiving this as a fair opportunity for small nations to increase their role in important international decision-making. Latvia also supports the improvement of cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and other international organizations, including the CSCE, the European Union and the Council of Europe.

We also welcome and support the action taken by the Secretary-General to introduce a new, effective system of accountability and responsibility, and, pursuant to the United States initiative, to establish the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

Latvia supports especially the initiative to reform the calculation of United Nations assessments, based strictly on the principle of "capacity to pay". This would be a step towards improving the dire financial situation of the Organization and would pave the way for a fair solution to the issue of the assessments of Latvia and many other States.

Although the inescapable difficulties associated with a transition period can still be felt in our economy and social sector, Latvia is endeavouring to fulfil its international obligations and commitments. However, contrary to standard United Nations practice, the current assessment of Latvia has been calculated without taking into account its actual capacity to pay. Instead, the data of a non-existent country - the former Soviet Union - has been used to determine Latvia's assessment. Latvia has consistently and unwaveringly stated that it was forcibly incorporated into the former Soviet Union and therefore is not, and cannot ever be, its successor, with all the rights and obligations that this would entail. This was also stated in a letter to the Secretary-General in 1992.

Latvia expects that the General Assembly will address this issue in the course of this session on the basis of the principle of sovereign equality.

We consider that the same importance should be accorded to the United Nations principle of universality.

Next year, the world will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Latvia, too, has begun preparations for this great anniversary. We hope that the Riga Dom Boys Choir will sing at the celebration concert to be held here in New York. This would be deeply symbolic, since future generations will shape the fate of nations. In many ways their fate will be decided by the heritage we leave to our children. We must do our utmost to draw closer to the age when nations will not fight against nations, but all will join forces in the battle against darkness. This sentiment, which has been drawn deep from the well of our national wisdom, seems to embody the essence of the United Nations now and in the future.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of Latvia for the statement he has just made.

Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, President of the Republic of Latvia, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.

More on this topic

Address by Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The President

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, His Excellency Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Izetbegovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Allow me, at the outset, to commend Mr. Samuel Insanally for the able manner in which he conducted the work of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly.

I would also like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as President of this, the forty-ninth session. I wish you success in pursuing this very important task.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina at this distinguished gathering.

I come from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a far-away country that has currently been the subject of many discussions.

Unfortunately, I have to begin my statement by repeating facts that, for most of you, may be or should be well known.

At the time - some three years ago - when Yugoslavia experienced its dissolution, we were doing our best to carry out the separation in a peaceful fashion and without any violence. For reasons already known, our initiatives did not bear fruit.

When Slovenia and Croatia seceded, and the dissolution of Yugoslavia had become inevitable, we organized a referendum in order to decide, in a democratic manner, the fate of Bosnia. By a two-thirds majority - exactly 64.4 per cent of the body of registered voters, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, opted for the country's independence in the referendum of 1 March 1992. International recognition of our country followed soon thereafter, and so did the aggression against it. The decision on its recognition was made on 5 April 1992 and was announced the following day, 6 April 1992. The Serbian and Montenegrin aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina began on 5 April 1992, the very day when the decision on recognition of the country was adopted.

The aggression has continued to this day with more or, at times, less intensity, and without any prospect of its coming to an end in the near future.

The war that was forced upon Bosnia and Herzegovina and its peoples - and that has now entered its thirty-first month - is one of the bloodiest wars in the history of mankind. At the very beginning, it was not a war but rather an attack by a well-armed and equipped army, the former Yugoslav army, against defenceless citizens.

The results of this uneven struggle are as follows: 70 per cent of our country came under occupation in the first months of the war; more than 200,000 civilians have been killed; over 1 million - or one fourth - of our inhabitants have been expelled from their homes; hundreds of cities and villages have been destroyed and burned. This cannot be described as a classic example of warfare between two armies. This has been a war of an army against civilians, followed by genocide and, to date, unprecedented destruction of cultural and religious objects.

The world has not responded in an appropriate manner to such barbarity.

Whether it was because of the brutality of the attack, or because it was morally and psychologically unprepared, or perhaps because of its entanglement in its conflicting interests, the world seemed confused and hesitant.

When the news and pictures of new concentration camps in the heart of Europe came out, the public was astonished or shocked, but for the most part those responsible kept silent. Tens of thousands have perished in those camps and many thousands have disappeared without a trace. The more brutal an attack, the more hesitant the world became. The free world neither defended nor supported freedom. Our people, facing the threat of extermination and a clearly pronounced death sentence, decided to defend itself.

But then it encountered a new absurdity. It found its hands tied. In short, before the war broke out against Bosnia and Herzegovina the United Nations imposed a notorious resolution that banned any import of weapons into the territory of former Yugoslavia. Everything changed: the war began, the aggressor and the victim were clearly discernable, but the arms embargo has remained in place as if nothing had happened in the interim. Justice was turned into injustice because the aggressor had weapons - weapons that had been stockpiled over the course of 40 years - while the victim was unarmed and its hands were kept tied.

The resolution on the arms embargo became its own contradiction. By maintaining the imbalance in weaponry, it has prolonged the war and turned the peace negotiations into diktat by the better-armed aggressor.

We said to the world, "You do not have to come to defend us, but do at least untie our hands and allow us to defend ourselves. While they kill our children, rape our women and destroy all our relics, do recognize our right to self-defence."

So far, however, the arms embargo has remained in place. With only guns and rifles in their hands, our defenders have faced artillery and tanks. We have lost many people, and reports indicate that more than 90 per cent of them have been killed by grenades and artillery shells. Our cities and villages have been left at the mercy of the powerful military technology in the hands of the murderers. In the capital city of Sarajevo alone, more than 10,000 people have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded. Not a single family is without casualties, either killed or wounded.

To all this, the world has sent us one message: negotiate. In the belief that the only right path was to continue to defend our land and that in this just struggle the peace-loving and freedom-loving peoples of the world would support us, we refused for a very long time to negotiate with war criminals.

Finally, faced with the unbearable plight of our people and the world's indifference, without any choice we accepted negotiations. It turned out that the aggressor had only been using negotiations as a way to bargain for time and to cover up its continuation of the aggression. In March 1993, after long and painful negotiations and with many concessions from our side, we signed the so-called Vance-Owen plan. The aggressor rejected it.

The next bloody round in the war ensued, to be followed by another round of negotiations that resulted, on 5 July 1994, in a peace plan drawn up by the Contact Group consisting of five great Powers: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Russian Federation. Again, we chose peace and the attackers, once again, opted for a continuation of the war.

We accepted the unjust peace offer in order to halt the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We did so in the hope that the injustice of the peace plan could still be corrected in the years of peace. Knowing the Bosnian soul, we believed - and we still believe - that peace can save - but that war will destroy - all that we call Bosnia.

What we call "Bosnia" is not merely a small piece of land in the Balkans. For many of us, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not only a homeland: it is an idea; it is a belief that peoples of different religions, different nationalities and different cultural traditions can live together. Were this dream to be forever buried, were this idea of tolerance among the peoples of the area to be irretrievably lost, the guilt would lie not only with those who have been relentlessly killing Bosnia with their mortars for over 30 months now but also with many of the powerful elsewhere in the world who could have helped yet have chosen to do otherwise.

Two days ago, I left Sarajevo. I did not leave by plane because the airport was closed. I had to take land routes through woods that are constantly exposed to fire and where many people are killed daily. For days there is no electricity, water and gas in the city. The capital is completely blocked and is virtually dying.

Yesterday, after I had arrived at United Nations Headquarters, I received a letter from Srebrenica, a small town on the river Drina. The letter was supposed to be a report, but it was also a cry from a real human hell. I could not find the strength to read it a second time.

Over three months ago "ethnic cleansing" was reignited, and there is now a new wave. Thousands of civilians whose only fault is that they are not Serbs have been expelled from their homes in Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Janja and other towns under the control of Karadzic's army. Once again, nothing has been done. The world seems to have grown gradually accustomed to unpunished violations of the basic norms of international law. This is a sorry situation, and one that concerns every man and every woman in the world, no matter how near or far from Bosnia they may be.

For a very long time I rejected - indeed, I still reject - any so-called conspiracy theory, the theory that all that has happened to Bosnia has happened because its majority nation is Muslim and there are dark powers that consciously impel the Serbs towards the extermination of Bosnian Muslims.

Those who support this theory have their arguments, and I believe they have been heard here before. They maintain that overt aggression, followed by genocide, concentration camps and other forms of the darkest fascism, is at work in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that the world must be blind not to see it. Is the world blind? Does it consciously condone all these evils? It cannot be blind, and there is thus only the other alternative. This is the argument that has gained an increasing number of supporters. It will not be a good thing if the world's billion Muslims come to accept it.

The latest events surrounding the plan of the Contact Group have given the supporters of the so-called conspiracy theory an additional argument, namely, that Bosnia and Herzegovina has been offered a proposal backed by five major Powers and, therefore, by the majority of the international community, and it has been clearly stated that the side that rejected the plan would be punished while the side that accepted it would be protected. Yet the opposite has happened. The Serbs rejected the plan, and they have been rewarded by the suspension of sanctions. We have accepted the plan, and we have been punished by a complete blockade of Sarajevo. Both processes have occurred simultaneously, in parallel.

Today, the highest civilian and military United Nations authorities are warning us: If you demand and succeed in achieving the lifting of the arms embargo, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) will pull out of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and so on.

I have certainly not undertaken this long and arduous journey from Bosnia to America solely to convey facts that may be known to the majority of those here. We in Bosnia believe that, despite the hardships, good and justice cannot be defeated. We do not abandon our faith that the world can be better and that we should all work and strive continually to make it better.

In this conviction, and despite all our disappointments and frustrations, I have come to speak here before the Assembly and to present some of our proposals. From the General Assembly and the Security Council, we are asking the following: first, that all resolutions on Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly be implemented; secondly, that measures be taken effectively to monitor the border between Serbia and Montenegro, on the one side, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the other, so that any transport of troops, weapons and military equipment across that border may be prevented or detected in timely fashion; thirdly, that should this transport occur, the decision on the suspension of some of the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro - Security Council resolution 943 (1994) - be immediately revoked and that tightened sanction measures be imposed in accordance with the plan of the Contact Group of July 1994; fourthly, that there be no further easing of the sanctions towards Serbia and Montenegro until they recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia within internationally recognized borders; fifthly, that a resolution be adopted, without delay, to strengthen the protection and mandate the extension of the safe areas provided for in Security Council resolutions 824 (1993) and 836 (1993), and in accordance with provisions of Article 6 of the Contact Group plan; and, sixthly, that decisions be taken to ensure an immediate end to the strangulation of Sarajevo and to prevent a recurrence of such a situation.

The last-mentioned of these measures should envisage, as an integral element, the opening of the city along the north communication route - road and highway - through the creation of a demilitarized belt 2.5 kilometres wide on both sides of the thoroughfares. In this demilitarized belt, only United Nations troops and police might remain. The potential use of force against the strangulation of Sarajevo is envisaged under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's decision of 9 February 1994.

Provided that the above conditions were fulfilled, and on condition that UNPROFOR continued to carry out its mission, the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be willing to accept a new, modified formula to deal with the problem of the arms embargo. Under this formula we would limit our demand for the lifting of the arms embargo to the adoption of a formal decision, and the application or consequences of that decision would be deferred for six months. In this case UNPROFOR troops could remain in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Contact Group would fulfil its promise, and a clear message would be conveyed to Karadzic's Serbs.

I should like, in conclusion, to state our two commitments.

First, our irrevocable objective is a democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina within internationally recognized borders, and with full ethnic, religious and political rights for all its citizens. In such a Bosnia and Herzegovina the Serbs will have all rights, up to the highest level of autonomy, but they cannot have a state within a state.

Secondly, we consider that, like all other nations, we have an inalienable right to self-defence. Therefore, if our compromise proposal on the arms embargo is rejected for any reason, we shall ask our friends to secure the immediate, and even unilateral, lifting of the embargo. Unfortunately, I have to inform representatives that, just today, I learned that this compromise proposal is meeting resistance, and even rejection, from some Contact Group countries.

Finally, I take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all friends of Bosnia and Herzegovina who have supported its struggle for survival and freedom.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the important statement he has just made.

Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.