General Assembly Session 56 meeting 91

The President

I request the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee, Mr. Santiago Wins of Uruguay, to introduce the report of the Fifth Committee on this sub-item.

Mr. Wins (Uruguay)

During the main part of the fifty-sixth session, the Fifth Committee considered the financing of five peacekeeping operations. The report before the Assembly (A/56/722) relates to the financing of United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East, in this instance the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

The Committee adopted a draft resolution on this sub-item by a recorded vote of 110 votes in favour to 2 against. In paragraph 11 of its report, the Fifth Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft resolution.

Before concluding, I should like to draw the General Assembly's attention to the fact that, in accordance with established practice, expenses incurred in support of peacekeeping activities at Headquarters -- which are financed through the support account for peacekeeping operations -- are paid through the apportionment of the support account's expenses in financing each individual peacekeeping operation.

At present, the Fifth Committee is still considering additional requirements for the support account, derived from a broad examination of all of the issues involved in peacekeeping operations in all their aspects. Until the Fifth Committee takes a decision on additional resources for the savings account, the amount needed for those additional requirements will not be able to be drawn from the support account for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

For that reason, there are blanks in the draft resolution where the requisite references to the amounts to be allocated or assessed are to be filled in. Those references will be inserted once the portion pertaining to the UNIFIL support account has been determined.

The President

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the report of the Fifth Committee which is before the Assembly today.

The President

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position.

The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that

"When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee."

May I remind delegations that, also in accordance with the General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the report of the Fifth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take a decision in the same manner as was done in the Fifth Committee.

I give the floor to the representative of Israel, who wishes to make a statement in explanation of vote before the voting.

Mr. Adam (Israel)

I should like to refer to four paragraphs of this draft.

My delegation's position with regard to the incident at Qana is well known and has been articulated before the Assembly and the Fifth Committee on several occasions.

Allow me to reiterate several essential points.

The draft resolution before the Assembly today blatantly violates the principle of collective responsibility, which dictates that costs resulting from peacekeeping operations are to be shared equally among Member States. This is the only time in history that one Member has been singled out to bear the sole financial burden of costs resulting from peacekeeping operations.

The reason behind this principle is fairly obvious. When peacekeepers are deployed in areas of conflict, it is with a full understanding of the dangers inherent in such a task. As such, any damage that is incurred should be absorbed by the general budget for peacekeeping operations, in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility and accepted practice.

I should like to point out that, since the first United Nations peacekeeping operation, there have been several incidents in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere in which damage occurred to the property of a peacekeeping operation. In these incidents, no one has sought to place sole financial responsibility on the shoulders of one Member State. Our case should not be treated any differently.

The representative of Lebanon referred, during the debate in the Fifth Committee, to a report (S/1996/337) dated 7 May 1996 prepared by Franklin Van Kappen, a military adviser for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. He did so by selectively quoting from the text in a manner that served his purposes, while ignoring other paragraphs to which I should like to draw the attention of the Assembly.

In paragraph 9 of that report, the following sequence of events is detailed:

"(a) Between 1200 and 1400 hours on 18 April, Hezbollah fighters fired two or three rockets from a location 350 metres south-east of the United Nations compound."

The rockets were targeted at cities and villages in northern Israel.

"(b) Between 1230 and 1300 hours, they fired four or five rockets from a location 600 metres south-east of the compound. The location was identified on the ground.

"(c) About 15 minutes before the shelling, the Hezbollah fired between five and eight rounds of 120-millimetre mortar from a location 220 metres south-west of the centre of the compound. The location was identified on the ground. According to witnesses, the mortar was installed there between 1100 and 1200 hours that day, but no action was taken by [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] personnel to remove it. On 15 April, a Fijian had been shot in the chest as he tried to prevent Hezbollah fighters from firing rockets.

"At some point ... two or three Hezbollah fighters entered the United Nations compound."

Although the conclusions of the report of the United Nations Secretariat were vague on the question of responsibility, it nevertheless made clear that Hezbollah aggressed against the State of Israel from Lebanese territory from a position in dangerous proximity to the United Nations compound.

Needless to say, my country -- like any other sovereign State in the world -- cannot and will not tolerate rockets falling on its territory and will not stand by while people are being killed. Every country in this situation would exercise its sovereign right of self-defence, in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

I should like to remind delegations that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization included on the list of the United States Department of State. Hezbollah operates in the Beka'a valley in Lebanon and has established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America and Asia. This terrorist organization deliberately positioned itself in close proximity to the compound, knowing full well that civilians, including children, had taken refuge there and that their operations would imperil their safety, in blatant violation of the principles of international humanitarian law.

Israel regrets that United Nations peacekeeping operations were caught in this crossfire. This, unfortunately, occurs in instances when peacekeeping operations are deployed in areas of conflict, especially in a situation such as this one, in which a guerrilla force deliberately attempts to draw fire towards the peacekeeping operation.

But beyond this issue of financing compensation, there is an even greater issue at stake: the politicization of the work of the Fifth Committee. The insertion of politically motivated elements into this draft resolution will prevent us from adopting it by consensus.

Finally, I wish to reiterate that, although we will be voting against this draft resolution, Israel has fully cooperated with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and supports the approval of its budget. We are hopeful that the coming months will see UNIFIL fulfil all aspects of its mandate and the Government of Lebanon assume its responsibility in the southern region up to the blue line, so that we will all benefit from the return of peace and security along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

The President

The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 11 of its report. The draft resolution is entitled "Financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon".

A single separate vote has been requested on the fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 13 of the draft resolution. As there is no objection to that request, I shall put to the vote the fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 13.

The President

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole.

The President

I call on the representative of the United States for an explanation of vote.

Mrs. Marcus (United States)

The United States strongly supports the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon as it continues efforts to implement a difficult and important mandate. Because this resolution is procedurally flawed and politicizes the work of the Fifth Committee, we were forced to vote against it.

We opposed General Assembly resolutions 55/180 B, 55/180 A, 54/267, 53/227, 52/237 and 51/233 because they similarly contained sections which require a Member State to pay for costs stemming from the Qana incident several years. These resolutions were not consensus resolutions.

The use of General Assembly funding resolutions to pursue claims against a Member State is not procedurally correct. Since shortly after the United Nations inception, the procedure which has been followed is that the Secretary-General presents and pursues the settlement of claims against a State or States. This procedure has been applied before in the Middle East and continues for peacekeeping-related damage claims in the Balkans.

Using a funding resolution to legislate a settlement is thus inappropriate. We hope that, in the future, such politicization can be avoided.

The President

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply.

Mr. Assaf (Lebanon)

I wish to respond to the falsehoods contained in the statement made earlier by the representative of Israel.

The representative of Israel referred at the outset of her statement to the principle of collective responsibility. We are in full agreement with that principle, under which the costs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations throughout the world should be collectively shared. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and no one can deny it. We are fully in compliance with it.

We would pose the following question: Is it possible, on the basis of the principle of collective responsibility, to conclude that a State, regardless of its status, may deliberately -- and I insist on the word "deliberately" -- bombard a United Nations compound and then ask other States, on the basis of that principle, to pay for the damage that it intentionally caused?

The principle of collective responsibility does not contradict the principle of international responsibility, by which any State that may damage or harm another State or an international organization, such as the United Nations, must pay reparations. The desired result of holding Israel internationally responsible is to deter it from launching a similar action in the future. This is fully in accord with all the reports of the Secretary-General, which insist on the need to ensure the security and stability of all peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Paragraph 20 of the resolution just adopted encourages the Secretary-General to ensure the safety and security of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

How can peacekeeping operations be protected when a State is not held responsible for launching 36 artillery shells at an international compound? In the report that was before the Fifth Committee a few days ago, the Secretary-General says that we must send a clear message to the effect that attacks on humanitarian personnel cannot be made with impunity. The Group of 77 is ensuring this by calling on Israel to pay reparations not to Lebanon, but to this Organization, which it attacked and of which it is a Member.

As for what the representative of Israel said regarding the military consultant's statement, I would like to say that for the first time, Israel is recognizing the military consultant's report. For the past five years, Israel refused to acknowledge the existence of this report. Now the representative of Israel is using it against my country.

In this connection, Israel should not be selective by acknowledging certain paragraphs of the report while ignoring others. We accept the whole report -- we are unashamed of our resistance for the liberation of our land. The representative of Israel is not in a position to instruct others. Israel has no right to occupy territory belonging to others and then attempt to dictate what they should and should not do. Before dictating to others, Israel must first desist from forcefully occupying their territory and must respect the rules of international legitimacy.

With regard to the description of terrorism by the representative of Israel, we refer him to the General Assembly resolutions that give all peoples the right to self-determination and to liberation of their land. The concepts of resistance and terrorism should not be confused. Had it not been for the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, there would have been no resistance. Resistance came as the result of occupation.

As for politicization, we are of the view that the paragraphs of the resolution do not contain political language and that the requested compensation is not owed to my country but to the United Nations. Had we asked for compensation for our martyrs, it could have been said that we were politicizing the issue, but since the compensation is owed to the United Nations, it cannot be said that we are doing so.

Finally, with regard to the statement of the Israeli delegate about achieving peace in the region, we all wish for that. All of us, including the representative of Israel, know that in order for peace to be achieved, the resolutions of international legitimacy must be applied and Israel must withdraw from all occupied Arab territories. This is the cause for which 244 United Nations troops have died in southern Lebanon.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Israel, who wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply.

Mr. Adam (Israel)

First of all, we welcome and fully respect the message of peace by the delegate of Lebanon. However, to say that Hizbullah, Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization is a resistance organization is, of course, not proper. I would like to raise three points to remind the delegate of Lebanon in this regard.

In the aftermath of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, in full and confirmed compliance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978), any remaining responsibilities under the resolution fell on the Government of Lebanon to reassert its effective authority in the south and to restore international peace and security along the Blue Line. We withdrew totally from Lebanese territory. Neither of these obligations has been met, despite repeated calls by the Security Council and the Secretary-General for Lebanon to conform to the will of the international community.

As a result, southern Lebanon remains one of the world's most vigorous bastions of terrorist activity. Hizbullah terrorists occupied posts immediately after they had been vacated by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and before that by Israeli forces, thereby gaining free rein to carry out attacks against Israel at will. Hizbullah's actions are destabilizing the area along the Blue Line, endangering the lives of United Nations personnel in the area, and they constitute a threat to international peace and security.

The attack just levelled against my country by the Lebanese representative is a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from Lebanon's failure to live up to its international responsibilities and the danger to lives and property resulting from that failure. It is further meant to distract from the fact that as the world unites to combat the threat of terrorism, Lebanon has yielded large portions of its territory to a recognized terrorist organization responsible for the death of civilians on several continents.

Mr. Assaf (Lebanon)

What the representative of Israel has said forces us to reply to the distortions and errors in his statement.

The representative of Israel tries to represent its withdrawal from southern Lebanon as if it were a favour or service that it did for the world. Everyone knows, however, that Israel would never have withdrawn its forces from Lebanon had it not been for Lebanon's valiant resistance against Israel. If Israel withdrew from Lebanon in conformity with resolution 425 (1978), why did it wait 22 years to do so instead of withdrawing immediately after the resolution was adopted? If Israel had respected and complied with the provisions of that resolution, there would have been no need for resistance to dislodge its forces from that part of my country. Moreover, if Israel was keen on applying United Nations resolutions, then we would present it with a bundle of international resolutions that are waiting to be applied. There are such resolutions as 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 194 (III) of 1948 and many more.

Regarding what the representative of Israel said concerning violations of the Blue Line drawn by the United Nations, I would like to make available to the Assembly dozens of documents that were issued, not by my Mission but by the United Nations and the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General in southern Lebanon. The most recent of these is dated Beirut, 20 December. I would like to provide the Assembly with these documents so that the representative of Israel can take note of them. Permit me to read a part of one such document:

Mr. Assaf (Lebanon)

"The Blue Line and Lebanese airspace were violated yesterday by one Israeli military jet.

"In this connection, the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for southern Lebanon, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, again calls upon the Israeli authorities to cease such air violations and to fully respect the Blue Line."

Mr. Assaf (Lebanon)

The Blue Line has not been respected. There are dozens of documents that I would like to make available to the Assembly so that the representative of Israel can study them.

The President

I give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply.

Mr. Nakkari (Syria)

Every year we hear the same misleading statements from the representative of the occupying Israeli forces. However, bearing in mind that brevity is the soul of wit, I would like to say merely that I agree entirely with the comments made by the representative of Lebanon in both his first and second statements in exercise of the right of reply. His response was eloquent, and served as a frank rebuttal of all the allegations and slanderous comments made.

In this connection, I would like to reaffirm the right of peoples to self-determination and to take action to remove the occupying force from their territory. It seems that an attempt is now being made to distort facts and to say that the opposite is true, and that people who are defending their territory are occupiers and aggressors. That is a slanderous claim. I agree with the representative of Lebanon that if it had not been for the valiant national resistance of the Lebanese people, Israel would never have withdrawn from Lebanese territory. Israel was forced to withdraw.

The truth of my comments is borne out by the many resolutions adopted by this Organization that have not yet been implemented by Israel. Those resolutions have not been implemented because of the attitude taken by Israel, which is completely at odds with international law.

The President

We have thus concluded this stage of our consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 134.

The President

I give the floor to the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to introduce draft resolution A/56/L.65.

Mr. Kusljugi (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Since 1992 the General Assembly and the Security Council have regularly considered and discussed the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That fact indicates that the problems in my country were of major international importance. In the resolutions adopted, the causes of the problems were explicitly addressed and actions aimed at improving the situation recommended. This year the situation in my country has been discussed in the General Assembly and the Security Council under agenda items relating to reports of the Office of the High Representative, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, all of which addressed specific aspects of the situation in my country.

The draft resolution before us today is being presented on behalf of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and has been co-sponsored by Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United States and Yugoslavia.

The draft resolution gives an overall picture of the current situation and of the progress achieved last year, and emphasizes the need for a holistic and coordinated approach to future activities. In general, there was significant progress last year in the implementation of the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement. That was the result of joint efforts by the international community and the new democratic, multi-ethnic, European-oriented Government of the Democratic Alliance for Change. The partnership and the relations that have been established demonstrate that the comprehensive engagement of the international community, which complements the work of elected officials and other local stakeholders, is the only working model that can heal the wounds inflicted by the conflict and put the country on the path to reconciliation, stabilization and recovery.

My country has thus gradually ceased to be a major international problem, and more and more it is becoming a possible model for the resolution of numerous regional and global conflicts. Hence, the full implementation of the Peace Agreement and the development of a sustainable, multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina which will be a model for the peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups, confessions and cultures is a special challenge for the international community, too. Of course, the implementation of the Peace Agreement, and the continuous adjustments to and upgrading of our legal framework in accordance with European standards, is the foundation of the activities of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina at all levels. The success of this mission is an indispensable prerequisite for stabilization and development in the region of South-Eastern Europe.

However, we consider the progress achieved last year to be only the first step in the long-term transition process from war to peace, from a destroyed economy to sustainable development, from the rule of rulers to the rule of law. The driving force in this process is the vision of a functioning, democratic, multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina, integrated into the region and into European structures.

The first priority in this process is to fully establish the rule of law. We would like to take this opportunity to note the efforts of international entities, especially UNMIBH, which have facilitated the action of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a view to achieving that goal. We would like to emphasize the positive results achieved in restructuring the police and strengthening the judicial system. We would also like to recall the prompt action of the State and entity institutions in adopting the comprehensive plan of action to prevent terrorist activities, increase security and protect people and property in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which underlines the active role of our country within the alliance against terrorism. We appreciate the assistance provided by the international community in this regard, especially in connection with the establishment of the State Border Service, and we expect further support for these activities in the next year.

The decision taken by the Constitutional Court relating to the equality of all three constituent peoples throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina represents a cornerstone for the substantial improvement of human rights. However, the delayed implementation of the decision indicates that further support from the international community might be needed to ensure the adoption of necessary constitutional changes in the State and entity parliaments.

We are fully aware that, without far-reaching economic reform, positive achievements in many areas could be jeopardized. The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina are determined to create a self-sustaining, market-oriented economy, operating in a single economic space; to complete, as soon as possible, the process of privatization; to improve banking and capital markets; to reform the financial system; and to provide adequate social protection. It is obvious that only the successful completion of economic reforms in the period to come will strengthen peace and stability in the country. Because of that fact, we urge the international community to provide further necessary assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina, using the positive experience of other countries. We also realize that corruption and the lack of transparency seriously hamper economic development in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we expect that the restructured police and judiciary system will combat corruption and other illegal activities more successfully.

The fulfilment of annex VII of the Peace Agreement is another task that is very much linked with the success of economic recovery and the establishment of the rule of law. The results of the last two years are encouraging, and we should not lose momentum. It is evident that security in general has been improved significantly throughout the country. We have seen a considerable increase in the number of returnees in the first 10 months of the year 2001, in comparison with the year 2000. Further progress should be made in the work of the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees, and we expect all sides to implement the property laws adopted on 27 October 1999.

We also recognize the importance of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and we are taking into account the orders and requests of the ICTY. We also urge Member States to offer their full support to the Tribunal, particularly with regard to the surrender of all indictees and adequate financial support in order to ensure achievement of the purposes of the Tribunal and relevant Security Council resolutions. We welcome the ICTY's proposal to develop, in close cooperation with the international community, national court capacities to investigate and prosecute the cases of war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the continual efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the issue of missing persons.

Once again, we would like to emphasize that the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina lies in integrating into the Euro-Atlantic structures and improving regional cooperation. The crucial event in the next year in the development of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be its admission into the Council of Europe. We have fulfilled the conditions of membership in the Council of Europe, including the adoption of the electoral law. We have also made considerable progress in fulfilling the conditions listed in the Road Map towards a feasibility study for the European Union Stabilization and Association Agreement. Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities have defined a common defence policy and declared the intention to commence the process of formally joining the Partnership for Peace.

Overall mutual cooperation among the successor States of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and with the region as a whole, has been improved further with the agreement reached in Vienna regarding succession and with its implementation, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the strengthening of the Stability Pact commitments after the high-level conference held in Bucharest on 20 November 2001.

The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina is committed to work together with the international community to fulfil the vision of developing a modern, democratic, multi-ethnic, viable European country. We are looking with such a vision at the important challenges and tremendous tasks ahead of us. We are already implementing a specific entry strategy to integrate the country with the rest of Europe. We hope that, in the near future, we will be able to solve our problems without substantial international assistance. In that regard, we also welcome the intention of the international community -- and especially the United Nations -- to design a specific exit strategy for Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are fully convinced that the European entry strategy for Bosnia and Herzegovina is at the same time an exit strategy for the substantial presence of the international community.

Mr. De Loecker (Belgium)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union on the draft resolution on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the Assembly today.

The Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union -- Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia -- and the associated countries of Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as the European Free Trade Association countries belonging to the European Economic Area, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, align themselves with this statement.

I would first of all like to thank Mr. Wolfgang Petritsch, the High Representative of the international community, for the outstanding work he has done to date in implementing the Dayton Agreements. Our thanks also go to all those who have provided help and support in that task, in particular, the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), the International Police Task Force (IPTF), the Stabilization Force (SFOR), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Their daily efforts play a major role in the process of rebuilding a multi-ethnic and peaceful Bosnia and Herzegovina.

On the whole, the European Union is satisfied with the progress made in implementing the Dayton Agreements. The positive results achieved in Bosnia and Herzegovina are reflected in the draft resolution before us today.

Much progress has been made since a resolution was adopted on under this agenda item in the General Assembly, during the fifty-fifth session. Above all, past efforts have been consolidated. However, we must stress once again that responsible political management combined with total and immediate determination to implement institutional, legal and economic reforms in full are essential prerequisites for full implementation of the Dayton Agreements and the rapid integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into European Union structures.

We warmly welcomed the adoption of the electoral law by the parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina last August. This basic building block of any democratic State or society was sorely lacking. Its adoption marks the beginning of a new stage in the redefinition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an autonomous and multi-ethnic State. It is a step towards Bosnia and Herzegovina's admission to the Council of Europe, as well as a step towards European institutions in the spirit of the Road Map laid out at the Zagreb summit in November 2000.

We strongly urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue with the implementation of that Road Map, particularly with regard to the economic situation, which still requires further improvement. Economic growth should continue to be stimulated, and the welfare of its citizens must be improved. As the draft resolution stresses, corruption and lack of transparency must be vigorously combated in order to ensure the country's economic development. A similar battle must be waged against the evils of smuggling, trafficking in human beings and organized crime, scourges that must be urgently eradicated.

Generally speaking, progress has been made in helping refugees return to all parts of the country. In that connection, we would encourage the High Representative to continue his campaign to raise the awareness of international, national and local institutions in order to step up their cooperation in this regard. We welcome all the national and regional initiatives taken to help refugees return to the region. Moreover, we strongly condemn all acts of intimidation, violence and murder, especially those intended to deter refugees and displaced persons from returning voluntarily.

The European Union has great interest in cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). We renew our call to all the parties concerned, without exception, to do their utmost to support the Tribunal's endeavours and to surrender indictees immediately.

We continue to support the work of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly the measures he has taken, or will have to take, to tackle obstructionism. No obstacle can be allowed to stand in the way of the implementation of the Dayton Agreements, and it is of paramount importance that the High Representative should be able to continue to oversee that process.

With regard to the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), we had an opportunity to discuss the subject of rationalizing that Mission at a recent meeting of the Security Council. At the current pace, the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina should complete its core tasks by the end of its mandate in December 2002. Then, monitoring and assistance activities will be undertaken. The European Union appreciates and supports the comprehensive approach of the High Representative towards restructuring the current civilian presence on the ground. The transition must be planned intelligently, and we all must explore possible ways of streamlining the international community's presence on the ground. Here, there are two goals to be borne in mind: effectiveness and coordination.

The encouraging developments in the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina are taking place in the framework of a regional trend towards stability and peace. At the regional level, the European Union promotes cooperation projects, supports economic integration and encourages firmer anchoring to Europe under the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. The Zagreb Summit, held in November 2000, which resulted in the formulation of a road map for Europe, fostered progress towards that rapprochement and made it possible to consider the region as a whole.

The European Union reaffirms its commitment to peace and development in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its commitment throughout the region. The European Union is the principal troop contributor, the chief donor and the main provider of technical assistance. The results so far have been very heartening and confirm the European Union in its intention to continue its engagement.

Mr. Cengizer (Turkey)

Turkey has aligned itself with the statement just made by the representative of Belgium on behalf of the European Union. Therefore, I shall confine myself to brief comments on the points which we think are of particular importance from my country's perspective.

I should like at the outset to remind the Assembly that Turkey, itself a Balkan country, has always been directly involved in efforts seeking the establishment of peace and stability in the Balkans. Fostering friendly relations and cooperation among the countries of the region was and remains the most reliable and productive avenue to that end. Within that larger picture, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been at the forefront of our concerns, given our shared history and the ties that we have consistently fostered.

Developments over the past year attest to the relevance of reaching the key strategic targets set for Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Peace Implementation Council, namely the consolidation of State institutions, the pursuit of economic reform and the return of refugees and displaced persons. Turkey, as a member of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council, strongly believes that reaching lasting solutions is dependent upon the attainment of those targets. The way to reach them is through the full implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords. We cannot fail to acknowledge the many accomplishments made to date in the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Accords; nor, however, can we deny that much remains to be done in that respect.

Mutual confidence among Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs remains the key to achieving lasting peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is the duty of all leaders representing their peoples at the cantonal, entity and State levels to work hard for the political stability and economic development of the country. At the same time, they, along with the people who constitute Bosnia and Herzegovina, should resist all attempts by any group to derail the process towards normalcy. We believe that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina should and can meet this historic challenge.

There have been many important positive developments in the course of the past year, some of which I wish to highlight here. There has been major progress in efforts both by the international community and by the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina to conclude the power transfer process in conformity with the principle of ownership. In that context, the partnership forum and the civic forum are useful mechanisms that should be resorted to. We welcome the adoption of the election law, because that was a key condition set by the Parliamentary Assembly for accession to the Council of Europe. Passage of the election law brings Bosnia and Herzegovina a significant step closer to accession to that organization. We hope that this will be followed by speedy completion of the ongoing constitutional reform.

The return of refugees and displaced persons is the litmus test of the Dayton Accords. The improved security conditions and the more cooperative and receptive political mindset that should prevail in some areas, as well as country-wide implementation of property legislation, could have a positive effect on returns.

We also welcome the apprehension of a considerable number of indicted war criminals. However, many more are still at large. On that issue, we need the cooperation of the respective Governments. Inter-ethnic respect and confidence need to be consolidated by the handover of Radovan Karadzi and Ratko Mladi to justice.

We support efforts to reconfigure the presence of the international community, to be devised in accordance with functional parameters. The international community requires much better mechanisms for policy-making and coordination. In that context, as one of the main contributors of civilian police to the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we are closely following plans for the post-Mission period. I would also like to stress the ongoing need for the international community to be firmly involved in efforts to ensure the sustainable development of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We cannot forsake such support for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina while their country moves into a crucial stage towards becoming a full member of the European family of nations.

The commitment of the international community to the military implementation of the Dayton Accords has been instrumental in consolidating safety, security and stability in the region. Turkey has played an energetic role in that regard through its presence in the multinational stabilization force (SFOR). The continued commitment of the international community to that aspect of the Dayton arrangements remains an essential element in attaining lasting peace.

Mr. Yahaya (Malaysia)

My delegation is gratified that the general situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has improved substantially. Nevertheless, we should not be complacent or contented, because much more needs to be done. The physical and psychological devastation and destruction of the country will have to be urgently addressed so as to expedite the process of rehabilitation and healing. Sustainable peace and development in Bosnia and Herzegovina require the right political, economic and social atmosphere. In that regard, all actors must focus their efforts on attaining the three key strategic targets set by the Peace Implementation Council last year at Brussels.

We should spare no effort to advance the strengthening of State institutions, comprehensive economic reform and the return of refugees and displaced persons. The international community has to remain engaged and must assist in the reconstruction and democratization of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a view to building an independent, unified, multi-ethnic, multicultural State within its internationally recognized borders.

We are pleased that the Council of Ministers is now functioning quite well, despite the setbacks suffered in the first five months following the November 2000 elections. We are equally pleased that the House of Representatives recently adopted the Permanent Election Law, paving the way for the further democratization of the country. We further urge the Bosnian authorities to fully support and promptly implement the decision by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina granting equal status to all three constituent peoples.

My delegation also notes with interest that there has been a visible improvement concerning the return of refugees, including minority returns. It is encouraging to note that in the first 10 months of 2001, 66,856 minority returns were registered by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This constitutes an increase of 40 per cent over the same period last year. However, we are concerned that the return of refugees and internally displaced persons has not been evenly implemented in the two entities. This situation has to be addressed to promote the return process further. Existing political and administrative obstructions to the return process must be overcome effectively and promptly.

Inter-ethnic reconciliation is one of the preconditions that will provide the basis for a stable atmosphere to spur the necessary economic activities, which are crucial to the building of a sustainable Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are delighted that the Bosnian authorities will work closely with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to further strengthen the capacity of the national court to investigate and prosecute cases of lesser war crimes perpetrated during the Bosnian conflict. We maintain that it is important for the Tribunal in the Hague to receive the full cooperation of all the parties concerned in the implementation of its mandate. Major indicted war criminals will have to be dealt with by the Tribunal. The mandate of the Tribunal would not be considered complete if Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and their ilk remain at large. The failure to apprehend 30 publicly indicted perpetrators, including major indicted war criminals, will have serious implications for the process of healing the wounds of the violent conflict and bringing about reconciliation and lasting peace among the ethnic communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We note that the reform process instituted by the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) is well under way and that UNMIBH is expected to complete its core mandate by the end of 2002. We also note the intention of the Secretary-General to let regional actors assume the responsibility of a follow-on mission. We urge the relevant actors to react positively to this so as to ensure a seamless transition. We also note that such a follow-on mission would have to be sanctioned by the Security Council. The follow-on mission should work closely with UNMIBH and learn from its experiences. We note that the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board meeting held early this month in Brussels observed that the follow-on police mission should be closely coordinated with judicial reform. My delegation hopes that the Secretary-General will take this into account in his future report.

The successful establishment of the State Border Service is one of the recent success stories of the peace process. This multi-ethnic law enforcement agency has taken control of 75 per cent of the border of the country, contributing to the promotion of the rule of law and securing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country in a short period of time. We commend the efforts of the Office of the High Representative, UNMIBH, the leadership and people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the international community in this regard. It should provide a good example of how the peace process could be implemented and augurs well for the future of the country.

The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are aware that they are ultimately responsible for the future of their country. Further strenuous efforts on the part of the Bosnian leadership, as well as the population, are therefore pivotal and they have to be commended for the achievements made so far. Together with the international community, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina will have to overcome the critical remaining challenges so that peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be irreversible and so that the country can emerge from the current protective care of the international community.

It is our earnest hope that the recent developments in the region will augur well for a speedier implementation of the Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We hope that all its neighbours will continue to support and cooperate with Bosnia and Herzegovina in realizing the full implementation of the Peace Agreement.

For its part, Malaysia is proud to have been associated with the efforts to rebuild peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both the Malaysian Government and the private sector have taken a keen interest and participated in the economic rehabilitation and infrastructure reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Malaysia is also making available, under its Technical Cooperation Programme, training and other facilities. We have also shared our experiences in the field of socio-economic development, including in the area of privatization, that have been successfully implemented in Malaysia.

We will continue to participate in the International Police Task Force, in the Peace Implementation Council and in the work carried out by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the United Nations. In spite of the enormous challenges that lie ahead, we are confident that, given the continued support of the international community, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be able to rise from the conflict of the past and to forge a viable and united multi-ethnic nation.

Mrs. Marcus (United States)

The United States is pleased to be a sponsor of draft resolution A/56/L.65 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We view this year's text as symbolic in many ways of what has been achieved over the past six years. It is a substantially shorter but more focused text that reflects the challenges facing the people and leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the years ahead.

The tasks are well known to us all: the return of refugees; economic reform; a streamlined and unified military and defence establishment; justice with regard to war crimes; and the development of effective State institutions.

The draft resolution makes clear that the responsibility for addressing these issues lies first and foremost with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their leaders. The United States remains committed to the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement and to working with those who have the political will to follow through on the enormous progress that has been made since the signing of the Dayton accords.

In this regard, we are encouraged by the actions taken by the leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina to address the problem of terrorism in the wake of the murderous attack on the World Trade Center just over three months ago. What has come through loud and clear in their ongoing efforts is the unwavering political commitment to effect a responsible policy that is responsive to this most serious threat facing not only the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but each and every one of us around the world. The efforts of Bosnia and Herzegovina's political leadership to step up to its international responsibilities in this struggle are laudable, particularly given the gaps in capabilities that have been revealed in the process.

The draft resolution takes particular note, for example, of the substantial progress that has been made and the continued efforts that are still needed in organizing the State Border Service. We are pleased that all seem to be committed to doing what needs to be done.

The United States remains committed to working with other Member States and organizations and with Bosnia and Herzegovina's leaders to identify how we can best channel our help in the coming years.

Mr. Sahovi (Yugoslavia)

The current deliberations on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina are taking place in an atmosphere and context much more favourable than were previously the case. This is due to several factors. First and foremost is the gradual internal stabilization in the country over the past few years. The international community, in particular the High Representative and the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the efforts of other involved organizations played a significant role in this respect. Of equal importance has been the general improvement of conditions in the region. An important contributing element has been the fact that the States of the region have taken concrete steps to improve bilateral relations, which had a positive impact throughout the area and on each country, including Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Indeed, the primary objective of my Government in the past year has been the establishment of good relations with our neighbours based on general cooperation and mutual respect, as well as on respect for the principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence. Particularly good results in that regard have been achieved in our relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have advanced from discussions on general political issues to a phase of concrete cooperation in areas of particular interest for their citizens. The aim has been to enable the peoples of our two countries to facilitate mutual contacts and communication.

In this connection, let me point out some of the steps Yugoslavia has taken to broaden and strengthen cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only a few days ago, President Kostunica visited Sarajevo and took part in the first session of the Inter-State Cooperation Council, established at the level of State presidents to promote cooperation and improve contacts between the institutions of the two countries.

During the visit, an understanding was reached on the need to coordinate activities related to the problem of terrorism as well as in the field of regional cooperation. In addition, agreements were signed on the protection and promotion of investments and on customs cooperation and mutual assistance. It is expected that an agreement on the abolition of visas and travel documents will also be signed soon. Furthermore, steps are being taken to resolve outstanding border issues between Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. To that end, the Inter-State Diplomatic Commission has been established and has commenced its work.

The visit and the agreements represent only some of the very extensive exchanges between Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina since the establishment of diplomatic relations a year ago. A number of high-level meetings have been held since, and, in addition to those just mentioned, several other bilateral accords in various fields have been concluded.

As a part of this process, the Special Parallel Relationship Agreement between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska was signed in March this year with the consent of the High Representative. The purpose of the Agreement is to strengthen and diversify the overall ties between Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The basis for cooperation thus far, and for the future development of relations between our two countries, was and will remain the Dayton/Paris Peace Accords. My country is committed to full respect for and consistent implementation of this agreement.

Notwithstanding the general progress, one serious issue remains in large measure unresolved -- the return of refugees and displaced persons. Although the return record in Bosnia and Herzegovina is better than those in some other parts of the region, the results are still unsatisfactory, which adversely affects many thousands of individuals and families. Therefore, Yugoslavia has initiated a project for the return of smaller groups of refugees of all three ethnicities -- Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs -- to their original place of residence where their return appears to be possible at this time. In addition, we have proposed a trilateral agreement among Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Yugoslavia on refugee return.

Considering the humanitarian nature and importance of this issue, as well as the slow pace of dealing with the problem thus far, Yugoslavia believes that a full and comprehensive solution can be reached by way of agreement among the three countries -- all the more so as relations among them have improved and preconditions have been created to address speedily and fully the issue of refugee return.

The question of refugee return is only one of the issues that demonstrate clearly the need for a more comprehensive regional approach to the situation in South-Eastern Europe. Over the years, efforts have been made to contain problems or ease tensions in various parts of the region. However, the overall picture has not always been taken into account. Yet many of the problems are regional in nature and require regional solutions.

There is an evident willingness on the part of the countries of South-Eastern Europe to enhance mutual cooperation. In addition, all of them aspire to join Europe sooner or later. An integrated concept of development will go a long way towards helping them achieve that goal. It is within this broad context that Yugoslavia intends to continue to develop relations with its neighbours, including Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. Krokhmal (Ukraine)

Six years after Dayton, we are witnessing a wide range of positive developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let me join previous speakers in paying tribute to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the High Representative, Mr. Petritsch; the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Klein; and all men and women working with them to implement the peace agreement.

During the last year, the general situation in the country became more stable and secure. The multi-ethnic Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, established after the general elections of November 2000, has already proved its commitment to cooperate closely with the international community in order to develop a democratic, united and multi-ethnic society.

Important signs of progress are visible in the further strengthening of the State institutions and the establishment of the rule of law. Significant achievements include the improvement of inter-entity and regional police corporation, the effective work of the State Border Service and the success in the fight against the traffic in human beings. With regard to the latter, I would like to express our support for the activities of the Special Trafficking Operations Programme and to express my Government's interest in stepping up its interaction with the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities and the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina in this field.

Another encouraging sphere is the banking sector. By introducing a modern commercial banking system, the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina made a successful contribution to the improvement of the economic situation in the country.

Let me also mention the adoption of the Common Defence Policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which contributes to the further development of the country's security and defence identity. In this context, my delegation supports the intention of Bosnia and Herzegovina to join the Partnership for Peace. We hope that a positive response to this intention can provide an important incentive for Bosnia and Herzegovina in taking forward the political and military reform.

In support of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in its move towards European integration, the decision of the House of Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina to adopt the election law became one of the major steps on the road towards the Council of Europe.

As for the economic dimension, we are confident that the advancement of economic reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to be a key element of the international community's strategy. At the same time, we should be realistic. Bosnia and Herzegovina will continue to face serious economic difficulties until structural reform is implemented. My delegation welcomes the decisions taken by the High Representative in pursuit of economic reforms in the financial, labour and pension sectors to create a favourable environment for the effective functioning of industry and trade and in promoting the privatization process.

While noting the remarkable progress on the return of refugees over the last year, we believe that more should be done to ensure the conditions for their safe return and for the equality of their human rights. The Ukrainian national minority constitutes the fourth largest ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Along with other people, the Ukrainians experienced considerable suffering during the war. However, the latest report on human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted by José Cutileiro, Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, shows that ensuring the rights of persons belonging to ethnic minorities remains an issue of particular concern. We believe that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina will do their utmost to improve the conditions for their national, political and cultural revival in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

From our standpoint, further progress in the political and economic reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina will depend on three major factors. First, there will be no visible breakthrough unless the State entities and local officials of Bosnia and Herzegovina take the primary responsibility for strengthening multi-ethnic society in the country. The rule of law is the basis for further democratic transformation. Secondly, it is obvious that the failure of international efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina would have an immediate and dramatic impact on the whole region. In that regard, we believe that the international community should continue its involvement in the country. Thirdly, we believe that the way towards inter-ethnic reconciliation and the development of stable and democratic State institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina lies in thorough implementation of the European road map for the country. We call upon the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to follow that guideline actively.

Finally, my delegation supports the intention of the Secretary-General, and the efforts of his Special Representative, Mr. Klein, to complete the implementation of the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, and to transfer its activities to regional actors. Such a transition will provide the international presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina with an important political and practical impetus. From our standpoint, it fully corresponds to the policy of Europeanization of the country, thus fostering its political and economic recovery. In that regard, my country supports the objectives and methodology elaborated for a follow-on mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and expresses its readiness to make its own contribution to the fulfilment of the mission's task.

Mr. Simonovi (Croatia)

The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is an issue of special importance to my Government. The fact that Croats represent one of the three constituent peoples of the neighbouring State is far from being the only reason. The stability of the region and, as a direct consequence, its prosperity cannot be achieved without a stable and prosperous Bosnia and Herzegovina.

For most of the last decade, Croatia was trying to find the most appropriate policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, but with varying results. With the current Government, elected in January 2000, relations between the two countries improved substantially, with transparency being the guiding principle. Croatia's assistance to Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina changed in terms both of method and of substance. It became transparent and oriented towards economic, cultural and social programmes.

The new coalition Government in Sarajevo gave fresh impetus to that process. The latest high-level meeting between representatives of the two countries, which was recently held in Zagreb, proved that this process is on the right track and that much can be achieved through open and sincere dialogue. Following the meeting, both delegations expressed their satisfaction with the discussion and with its results.

One of the results of that meeting was the signing of the agreement on the return of refugees, one of the issues of crucial importance to the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have developed very substantial cooperation in this field. The Croatian Government will continue to provide financial assistance for the return of Croatian refugees to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That assistance will also enable the return of Croatian citizens of Serbian origin to their homes in Croatia, thus contributing to easing the problem at the regional level.

For the first time, Croatia, the Republika Srpska and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will participate together, contributing $150,000 each, in rebuilding a Croatian village in Posovina. We urge the authorities in Banja Luka to expedite the process of the return of refugees to other parts of the Republika Srpska where the process of return is still far from satisfactory.

The coming year will most probably bring the closure of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At this juncture, I would like to commend the work done by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Jacques Klein, and the people working with him in the very daunting task of building a professional police force, thereby contributing to the establishment of the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The introduction of the State Border Service proved to be timely and efficient, especially when it comes to dealing with various forms of illegal trafficking. Croatia's longest border is the one shared with Bosnia and Herzegovina, so we take a special interest in the existence of effective measures capable of putting an end to all illegal activities.

We support the exit strategy for the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the proposals in the Secretary-General's report on how to proceed with police reforms in the post-United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina setting. We hope that regional organizations capacitated to continue this task will take over from the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and bring this process to a successful end.

Turning to the international presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we welcome the outcome of the Peace Implementation Council meeting held in Brussels two weeks ago. For a long time, together with many other nations and organizations, we advocated the streamlining of the international community's efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Too much energy and too many financial assets were unintentionally being misplaced or misused, and too many unnecessary misunderstandings were created due to the fact that the role of coordinator for the international community did not exist. We hope that this new pillar will better work to the benefit of both Bosnia and Herzegovina and the efficiency of the international community.

We support the work of High Representative Wolfgang Petritsch and would like to assure him that he can count on our assistance.

There has been a lot of debate lately about the Dayton Agreement and whether it has become redundant or still has a purpose. Croatia, as one of the parties signing the Agreement and as one of the guarantors of its implementation, certainly believes that it has something to contribute to those discussions. We consider that the Dayton Agreement ultimately brought peace and stability to the country and laid down the necessary -- and, at the time, the only realistic -- institutional framework. We of course prefer to see Dayton as part of a dynamic process, one that is capable of addressing new challenges with new means, having as a goal a sustainable and prosperous Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In that respect, we attach special importance to the implementation of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the sovereignty of all three constituent peoples throughout the entire territory of the country, in all the entities.

Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is one of the obligations undertaken by the parties that signed the Dayton Agreement. A major breakthrough has definitely been made with the arrest of Slobodan Milosevi and with the indictments raised against him for the crimes committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. The indictment for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which includes charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, will bring justice for the victims and also serve to help to discover the truth about events in the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, it will ultimately benefit reconciliation among the people of the region.

On a more sombre note, we simply cannot comprehend that two most-wanted indictees -- Karadjic and Mladic -- are still at large. We sincerely hope that their time is running out and that those who are in a position to arrest them will finally do so. There can be no sustainable Bosnia and Herzegovina with Karadjic and Mladic at large.

Positive processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been outnumbering negative ones for some years already, and we are convinced that there is no turning back. These results have been accomplished through joint endeavours and the concentrated efforts of the international community and of the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We have reached a time when the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina seem to be ready to take on more responsibility on their own shoulders and continue on the path towards the achievement of a self-sustainable State capable of providing a good life for its citizens and integration in the European neighbourhood and institutions. As a first step in this direction, we strongly advocate and support the early admission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Council of Europe.

As a good neighbour, Croatia will continue to do its utmost to continue to build ever-better and broader relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina -- relations that will benefit the peoples of both countries and the stability of the region as a whole.

The President

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/56/L.65. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/56/L.65?

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 40.

The President

It is my understanding that, after the necessary consultations, consideration of this item may be deferred to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to defer consideration of the item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session?

The President

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 52.

The President

It is my understanding that it would be desirable to defer consideration of this item to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly.

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to defer consideration of this item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session?

The President

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 53.

The President

It is my understanding that it would be desirable to defer consideration of this item to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly.

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to defer consideration of this item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session?

The President

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 54.

The President

It is my understanding that there is no request to consider this item at the present session.

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to defer consideration to the fifty-seventh session and to include this item in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session?

The President

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 55.

The President

May I take it that it is the Assembly's wish to defer consideration of this item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session?

The President

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 56.

The President

It is my understanding that, after the necessary consultations, consideration of this item may be deferred to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly.

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to defer consideration of this item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session?

The President

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 57.

The President

In his letter, the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya recalls that the item on the elimination of coercive measures as a means of political and economic impulsion is considered biennially and that the General Assembly, at its fifty-fifth session, in its resolution 56/6 of 6 October 2000, decided to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-seventh session.

However, as indicated in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, paragraph 11 of the annex to General Assembly resolution 55/285 of 7 September 2001 reads as follows:

"The following item shall continue to be considered biennially at even-numbered sessions: 'Elimination of coercive measures as a means of political and economic compulsion'".

It is my understanding that the reference to even-numbered sessions is a technical error and that the paragraph should have indicated instead that the item would continue to be considered at odd-numbered sessions, in keeping with the previous decisions of the General Assembly.

In order to correct paragraph 11 of the annex to resolution 55/285, may I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to include the item entitled "Elimination of coercive measures as a means of political and economic compulsion" in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly and to continue to consider the item at odd-numbered sessions?

I see no objection.

The President

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda items 59 and 60.

The President

I give the floor to the representative of Romania to introduce draft resolution A/56/L.66.

Mr. Niculescu (Romania)

I have the honour to take the floor in my capacity as representative of the Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and to introduce to the General Assembly draft resolution A/56/L.66, entitled "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe", on behalf of the 29 sponsors named in that document, namely Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and my own country, Romania.

In addition, the following States have joined in sponsoring the draft resolution: Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, the Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Thailand and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

On the eve of the completion of our chairmanship of the OSCE, allow me to recall that Romania served in that office in a year during which we have witnessed dramatic changes in the political and security environment, both within the OSCE area and at the global level. Following the barbaric attacks of 11 September, the main concern of the OSCE and of its current chairmanship inevitably became the war against terrorism. Consequently, the OSCE promptly echoed the resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly in condemning terrorism as the most dangerous threat to our system of security and stability. Thus, the meeting of the Ministerial Council of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe adopted on 4 December 2001 a broad-ranging plan of action for combating terrorism, reflecting the shared views of OSCE member countries and their will to cooperate both among themselves and with other international organizations and institutions in fighting this modern-day plague. In our opinion, that fact and the idea behind it represent a new and interesting concept that is reflected in the draft resolution on which the Assembly will take action today.

The draft resolution retains the structure and methodology of similar texts in past years. At the same time, it seeks to stay in tune with the language of the OSCE ministerial declaration and ministerial decision adopted by consensus at Bucharest. Hence, we shall make only a few very brief comments.

The draft resolution underlines the need to strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and the OSCE by introducing new methods of consultation, joint planning and common action, and at the same time welcomes efforts aimed at strengthening the organization's efficiency and at fostering its role as a forum for political dialogue on issues of security and cooperation in Europe. As in the texts adopted in previous years, the main part of the draft resolution provides information on developments in the OSCE region over the past year, especially as regards regional conflicts where the United Nations too is actively involved.

In that regard, the draft resolution underlines the active involvement of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its commitment to continue to contribute to the consolidation of peace and stability in the area. It welcomes the establishment and the work of the OSCE Mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It expresses its appreciation for the contribution by the OSCE to implementing Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), in particular for its substantial role in the preparation and organization of the Kosovo-wide election on 17 November 2001. It salutes the commitment of States participating in the OSCE to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unitary character of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It supports the priorities of the work of the OSCE for the continuous development of civil society and increasing local ownership of the reform process in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It commends the efforts to improve the coordination and efficiency of international engagement in the field of civilian implementation of the Dayton/Paris Peace Accords.

Regarding other areas of conflict and tension that still exist and that constitute areas of concern shared by the United Nations and the OSCE, the draft resolution refers to efforts undertaken in 2001 towards negotiation for a comprehensive political settlement of the Transdniestrian issue, based on full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, and welcomes the fulfilment by the Russian Federation, ahead of the agreed time, of the commitments undertaken at the OSCE summit held in Istanbul in 1999. The draft resolution welcomes the developments in the peace process in Tshkhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia, and the progress made in 2001 towards meeting the commitments made in Istanbul on the future of Russian forces in Georgia.

The draft resolution acknowledges the significant contribution to stability and confidence in the region made by the OSCE Border Monitoring Operation along the border between Georgia and the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. It notes with satisfaction the engagement of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe towards cooperation with the five participating States of Central Asia.

The draft resolution reaffirms that the prompt resolution of the protracted Nagorny-Karabakh conflict will contribute to lasting peace, security, stability and cooperation in the South Caucasus region.

I cannot conclude without expressing my delegation's gratitude for the assistance received from the Secretariat and from the other members of the OSCE Troika -- Austria and Portugal -- during the entire year and in the preparation of the draft resolution before the Assembly. I would also like to express my thanks to all delegations that participated in the consultation process for their suggestions, understanding and patience, which were all necessary to the success of our drafting exercise.

The President

I call on the representative of Azerbaijan to introduce an amendment to draft resolution A/56/L.66, contained in document A/56/L.67.

Mr. Aliyev (Azerbaijan)

Allow me to call attention to an issue that is of exceptional importance to my nation, namely draft resolution A/56/L.66, entitled "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe" (OSCE). The core of the matter directly concerns the highest interests of my country: its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Unfortunately, this year's draft resolution, like last year's, fails to accommodate my country's deepest concerns. Its paragraph 21, although it relates to the problem, is not in the direct context of the agenda item under consideration, namely cooperation between the United Nations and the OSCE. Regrettably, our appropriate proposal to add United Nations consensus language to draft resolution A/56/L.66, which would have made the draft resolution balanced, was rejected.

With no other choice before it, our delegation has been compelled to propose an amendment formally; it is contained in document A/56/L.67. In 1994, consensus language virtually the same as that of the amendment I am now introducing was adopted without a vote by the entire Assembly in this very Hall as paragraph 8 of resolution 49/13, bearing the identical title, "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe".

It is relevant to recall that 50 Member States -- namely Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uzbekistan -- co-sponsored documents A/49/L.20 and A/49/L.20/Add.1, which contained this very same wording.

Nothing has changed since that time. Today, at the end of 2001, the reasons for proposing this amendment are the same, and still pressing. Unfortunately, it is 20 per cent of Azerbaijani land, not Armenian land, that remains under foreign occupation. It is my country, not Armenia, that must defend itself and struggle for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is my country, not Armenia, that has been dealing with some 1 million refugees and internally displaced persons -- the victims of ethnic cleansing.

Accordingly, the amendment is not new and repeats exactly the same language that was adopted by the General Assembly at its previous six sessions.

The amendment directly reflects the position taken and the language used by the international community, primarily by the Security Council in its resolutions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict -- resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993); by the General Assembly itself, in resolution 49/13, resolution 51/57, resolution 52/22, resolution 53/85, resolution 54/117 and resolution 55/179; and by the Secretary-General in his relevant reports: A/50/564, A/52/450, A/53/672, A/54/537, A/55/98 and A/56/125.

By checking these documents, one can easily establish the fact that all three principal organs of the United Nations have consistently and unequivocally reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country and have emphasized that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is an integral part of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Over the past five years, Armenia has been the only State to vote against our amendment, although Armenia itself joined the aforementioned consensus and agreed on that particular language.

From this lofty rostrum, I appeal to all Member States to support the just cause of my country, thereby reaffirming the principle of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to vote in favour of our amendment, as contained in document A/56/L.67.

The President

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/56/L.66 and the amendment thereto, contained in document A/56/L.67.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to make statements in explanation of vote. May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mrs. Marcus (United States)

The three co-Chairmen of the Minsk Group in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Russian Federation, France and the United States, taking into consideration their role in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, have decided to abstain on any amendment to the text prepared by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office.

At the same time, our abstention in no way changes our commitment to helping the parties achieve a settlement through negotiation based on mutual compromise, with the understanding that the principle of territorial integrity, as well as other important United Nations and OSCE principles, will continue to be respected.

Mr. Abelian (Armenia)

The draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), contained in document A/56/L.66, is the result of lengthy negotiations at OSCE headquarters in Vienna and New York among all OSCE member States and reflects a consensus among them, including Armenia and Azerbaijan, on the conflicts in Europe dealt with by the OSCE.

Operative paragraph 21 of draft resolution A/56/L.66, which deals with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is no exception in this regard. It contains language agreed upon by all parties to the conflict and by the co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group -- France, the Russian Federation and the United States, the body immediately responsible for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Operative paragraph 21 is also entirely based on the relevant paragraphs of the statement of the OSCE Ministerial Council adopted by consensus in Bucharest on 5 December 2001. That particular paragraph best reflects concerns as to the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and the current status of the negotiations in that respect. It is therefore illogical for one of the parties to the conflict, which had already joined the consensus on operative paragraph 21, to break with this consensus in the General Assembly and to try t