Security Council meeting 3428

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, Senegal and Turkey in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The President

I have also received a request dated 23 September 1994 from Ambassador Dragomir Djokic' to address the Security Council. With the consent of the Council, I would propose to invite him to address the Council in the course of the discussion of the item before it.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations.

Members of the Council have before them document S/1994/1083, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council's prior consultations; document S/1994/1084, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Argentina, the Czech Republic, Djibouti, France, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America; and document S/1994/1085, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.

I should also like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the following other documents: S/1994/1037, S/1994/1038, S/1994/1046, S/1994/1056 and S/1994/1087, which contain letters dated 7, 12, 14 and 22 September 1994 from the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1994/1040 and S/1994/1072, which contain letters dated 9 and 19 September 1994, respectively, from the Permanent Representative of Croatia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1994/1044 and S/1994/1079, which contain letters dated 8 and 21 September 1994, respectively, from the Deputy Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1994/1052 and S/1994/1062, which contain letters dated 14 and 16 September 1994, respectively, from the Permanent Representative of Croatia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; S/1994/1055, which contains a letter dated 9 September 1994 from the Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1994/1060, which contains a letter dated 15 September 1994 from the Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1994/1074, which contains a letter dated 19 September 1994 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, transmitting the report of the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia on the establishment and commencement of operations of an International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia Mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); S/1994/1075 and S/1994/1076, letters dated 19 and 20 September 1994, respectively, from the Charge d'affaires ad interim of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; S/1994/1081, letter dated 21 September 1994 from the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; and S/1994/1088, letter dated 22 September 1994 from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council.

The first speaker is the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina on whom I now call.

Mr. Sacirbey (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Mr. President, let me assure you of our highest cooperation in your efforts this month and commend you on your work so far.

Let me also indicate our appreciation for the long service of Mr. Yuliy Vorontsov, both as a President of the Council for the last month and as one of our colleagues over the last 20 years.

My delegation has decidedly mixed views with respect to the three draft resolutions before the Council. On the other hand, our opinion regarding the manner by which these draft resolutions have been brought before the Council is unambiguous.

Unfortunately, it is the procedure by which these draft resolutions are being brought to a vote before the Council that most reflects on the efficacy and integrity of the Contact Group peace process and the overall response to the aggression and to the human rights and humanitarian crises in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We do endorse the draft resolution contained in document S/1994/1083, which is intended to address the crimes of ethnic cleansing now being perpetrated against thousands of men, women and children in Serb-occupied areas of our Republic.

We must raise two questions, though:

Firstly, why did it take in excess of three months to bring this draft resolution to a vote even after numerous appeals from human rights organizations, countless stories in the press, evidence provided to the Council and even the eye-witness reports directly provided to the Council by such individuals as the Bishop of Banja Luka? Is there not a perversion of priorities when this draft resolution is finally brought to a vote as the crimes are completed, and those who inspired the crimes are now rewarded by an easing of sanctions?

Secondly, why is the draft resolution so watered down as to diminish the commitment of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to deploy its forces in the places where ethnic cleansing is being executed? Can the Security Council afford to send the message that soldiers will not dare go to those places where old men are beaten, women are raped, young men are sent off to forced labour and concentration camps, never to be heard from again, and young children are made to traverse an obstacle course of battlefields and mines in bare feet?

I do understand that it is safer for such soldiers to receive the proper invitation to enter these areas from those carrying out the ethnic cleansing, but I dare say that a rapist or molester would tend to prefer that there were no witnesses, and certainly no law enforcement personnel, to confront their crimes.

None the less, I do hope that the UNPROFOR Commander in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is as successful in securing an invitation for his troops to Banja Luka as he has been in arranging for visits of foreign dignitaries to General Mladic. If UNPROFOR is to make a positive contribution to the peace process and its overall humanitarian mandate, it cannot limit itself to a traditional peace-keeping mission when there is no peace to keep and to waiting for invitations from the war criminals to stop their crimes.

Otherwise, we are not impressed by projections of doomsday scenarios by those who now promote the continuing role of UNPROFOR as an excuse for reneging on their commitment to lift the arms embargo on our Government.

We also support the spirit of the draft resolution contained in document S/1994/1084 on the enhancement of sanctions with respect to the so-called Bosnian Serbs. We, however, must question the effectiveness of this measure in securing the desired objectives, especially the reversal of the consequences of aggression and ethnic cleansing.

We have proposed amendments that would be more likely to promote these latter goals, but they have been ignored by the sponsors. The reasons given for this ignoring of our proposals seem to reflect intra-Contact Group politics rather than the impact on the desired objectives and overall peace in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We also must question the practical implementation of this draft resolution. How do we distinguish between the so called Bosnian Serbs and the Croatian or Krajina Serbs, who are not targeted by this draft resolution, but in fact do fully coordinate their activities? How do we separate the arm of the criminal conspiracy in Banja Luka from its brain, inspiration and torso in Belgrade?

It is Belgrade's vision that is still now taking shape in occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is the weapons of Serbia and Montenegro that carry out the destruction, and it is still the tactical support and resources of Serbia and Montenegro that flow to Bosnia and Herzegovina to maintain the aggression.

Which brings us to the third draft resolution, which is contained in document S/1994/1085, concerning the easing of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

Our opposition to this draft resolution is not born out of habit or a desire to punish; it stems from our deep fears as to the consequences. This draft resolution lacks balance; for while it seeks to reward those who now have admitted to at least complicity in crimes and war-making, the victim is not assisted, even as promised, in confronting the still expanding and ongoing crimes and aggression and the consequences thereof.

Secondly, this draft resolution undermines the necessary improvements in human rights standards within Kosovo, Vojvodina and Sandjak, as well as not addressing the ongoing occupation of the Republic of Croatia. Thirdly, this draft resolution seeks to solely reward Serbia and Montenegro for a set of implausible, self-designed measures of self-policing.

Serbia and Montenegro has not been required to endorse the peace plan by recognizing the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its current borders, an essential element of the Contact Group plan. Instead, Serbia and Montenegro is being rewarded for taking tactical steps that are designed to make it appear that Serbia and Montenegro is splitting from its offspring and agents.

This brings us to the issue of monitoring.

Are we to believe that the monitoring regime negotiated for this purpose in Belgrade will be capable of fulfilling its theoretical task? While those already deployed on the border in conjunction with this task issue Serbia and Montenegro a clean bill of health, other United Nations personnel witness massive violations of the border.

If the monitoring regime is structured in such a fashion as to be limited in its scope and distance of vision, then, like a man in a dark theatre, it will see only what is projected for it to see.

How can the Security Council be asked to rely upon the authority of a monitoring regime that is, firstly, almost totally reliant upon the cooperation and resources of the object of the monitoring and, secondly, staffed by fewer than 200 people along a 450-kilometre border, when the Secretary-General has already on two occasions asserted that at least 800 to 4,000 individuals, well coordinated and equipped, are necessary for the task?

This can only bring us to one of the following conclusions: first, the monitoring regime has been constituted in response to political considerations rather than a serious view of the task; secondly, the monitoring regime is designed to succeed by failing to see and by providing the necessary collaboration to exonerate the aggressor and those that have no heart to confront the aggressor.

The last conclusions are not advocated lightly. They are in fact supported by all of the processes that have brought us here.

First, the self-designated Contact Group has placed a higher priority on the perception of its unity than on a real solution to the problem.

Rather than proceed with measures that were initially committed to by the entire Group as part of the peace plan and its rejection by the Serbian side, they chose a road of avoidance when some members of the Group reneged on those initial commitments.

Secondly, with some second thoughts on the part of one or two members that unfortunately did not prevail, the Contact Group as a whole has made the Security Council a rather convenient and self-serving chamber to relentlessly steer its programme and legitimize premature and inadequate measures.

Not only is the Security Council being told that no changes can be made to the draft resolution because of the sanctity of the Contact Group, but it is being compelled to vote on the draft as a matter of urgency.

What is the urgency? Why are some so anxious to avoid the participation of our Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers who will be here next week? I suspect we all understand that this draft resolution is not defendable under the current circumstances and is an embarrassment to some.

However, what is most embarrassing for all of us is that the urgency of Sarajevo's strangulation, the deliberate denial of water, electricity, gas and road access is accorded secondary priority to the parochial interests served by this draft resolution.

An update on Sarajevo: its bakery has had to shut down and the people have now run out of bread.

I suspect that many will agree with me that the Security Council itself is an unfortunate victim of this process. I also know that many of the members of the Council who are not sponsors will characterize their role as that of helpless bystanders.

However, unless members confront this victimization of the Security Council, they will have to bear their share of the responsibility as victimizers.

Simply put, I urge members not to support this draft resolution as structured and offered to them today.

The President

I thank the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the kind words he addressed to me.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Croatia, on whom I now call.

Mr. Nobilo (Croatia)

We wish to thank His Excellency, Mr. Yuliy Vorontsov, for the excellent way in which he steered the work of the Council during his presidency last month.

We also wish to commend you, Mr. President, for your wise leadership in guiding the Council's work this month.

From the very outset of the conflict in the region, Croatia has consistently pursued a policy which favoured political process over any other solution. My Government remains steadfast in its support of this policy. We are firmly committed to the present peace process under the auspices of the Contact Group and we welcome the Group's plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Federation established between Bosnian Croats and Bosniacs has the full support of Croatia, and we call on the Bosnian Serb party to join these two parties in accepting the Contact Group peace plan as well. It is the only viable political solution that would avoid more horrific human suffering for all of the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Croatia also welcomes the decision of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to give its support to the Contact Group plan, and its decision to take measures against the Bosnia Serb party. However, it is still too early to judge whether this decision is genuine and whether the measures undertaken are viable or sufficient, especially in view of the capacities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, political and real, in this regard.

Therefore, my Government must express serious reservations about the draft resolution that would suspend some of the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at this time. The sanctions regime should be suspended only after the Council receives concrete and undisputed evidence about real progress on the ground, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also in Croatia. The members of the Council should not be deceived by mere political declarations when the Council has seen three years of empty or broken promises from the same party.

The draft resolution can set a dangerous precedent in the region. Belgrade would be rewarded for altering relations with certain proxies, while still recognizing the illegal entities that the proxies control, and while those illegal entities continue to use matériel and personnel previously deployed by Belgrade and, further, while those assets and personnel continue to cooperate in one way or another and to be replenished by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

A telling example of this cooperation is the recent offensive against the Council-declared safe area of Bihac. The offensive was coordinated "in-progress" from Belgrade, as was pointed out in the letter dated 16 September 1994 from my Foreign Minister to the Secretary-General, using assets from the occupied territories of Croatia and from the paramilitary units under the control of the Bosnian Serb authorities. Some members of the Council may have additional information in this regard.

The Bosnian Serb authorities and the Serbs in the occupied territories of Croatia will continue replenishing their war machine in several ways. My delegation has already brought to the attention of the Council, in a letter dated 19 September 1994, one very likely way in which the border blockade is being violated: by air - violations which were reported by the Secretary-General on 13 September. We hope that the Council will not condone this new type of "no-fly zone" violations, as it already has a legal capacity to observe and prevent such violations.

Another vehicle of replenishment of the Bosnian Serbs will be the proxies in the occupied territories of Croatia. Belgrade has not imposed a blockade against the latter, and some high-ranking Belgrade officials have publicly stated that the latter group will continue to be supplied through the crossing points on the Bosnia/Serbia border. This policy presents the obvious problems of "leakage" which neither the draft resolution nor the Monitoring Mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia will consider. We hope that the Council will take steps so that this serious problem can be addressed by the Monitoring Mission, and that the Mission will take steps consistent with resolution 820 (1993), which prohibits transshipments to the occupied territories in Croatia.

My delegation cannot overlook the fact that this draft resolution may not follow the spirit of resolution 871 (1993), which links the sanction regime imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to implementation of

"all relevant resolutions of the Security Council including those relating to the United Nations peace-keeping plan for the Republic of Croatia" (resolution 871 (1993), para. 5).

Belgrade has continued its programme of integration of the occupied territories in Croatia into the legal, administrative and military systems of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yet it is being rewarded solely for a half-political gesture in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

My Government would support the suspension of the sanctions regime against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under a clear programme that would take into consideration real progress on the ground and resolution 871 (1993). The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's recognition of the new States on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, within their internationally recognized borders, would be an essential first step in such a programme. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ample capacity to impose necessary measures on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the occupied territories of Croatia, and the international community should insist that Belgrade pursues this type of pressure as well.

Croatia cannot accept mere political declarations as a basis for suspending the most efficient mechanism the international community has used to pursue a peaceful solution to the problems in the region. We must emphasize that even this declaration is a political half-measure, because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has slightly altered relations with a certain proxy, but continues to recognize the entity the proxy represents.

Should the Council decide in favour of this draft resolution, we must emphasize the importance of the ICFY monitoring Mission, which is operating with meagre resources and has been organized in hasty circumstances. The Mission must not be allowed to be used to satisfy short-term political goals. It would seriously jeopardize the viability of the present peace plan pursued by the Contact Group and put into question the credibility not only of the Contact Group but of this noble body as well and its executive role in the whole process.

The President

I thank the representative of Croatia for his kind words addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Malaysia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Razali (Malaysia)

It is a source of satisfaction and pleasure for my delegation to see you, Sir, presiding over the Council.

While Malaysia supports action to adopt the draft resolutions on "ethnic cleansing" and the tightening of sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs, we are opposed to the draft resolution on the easing of sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro. We believe that to ease sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro at this juncture would be premature, unbalanced and counter-productive. We are not convinced as yet that the border has been effectively closed, in the absence of an effective mechanism fully to verify such an action.

We have strong doubts as to whether 135 observers stationed at the border have the capacity to monitor 300 miles of frontier. We are deeply concerned over recent reports that there have been gross violations of the relevant Security Council resolutions, such as the unauthorized flights by Serbian helicopters over northern Bosnia. The flights could be carrying military supplies to the Bosnian Serbs.

It is clear that the present strength of international observers is inadequate. According to studies conducted earlier, the number of people needed to police the border would involve 4,000 soldiers and a more restricted enforcement would require another 800 civilians. We would need more time to verify the situation on the ground and should not take any hasty decision until we are fully convinced that there have been no violations or breaches at the border. Malaysia is disappointed that important countries that have the capacity within the Council to apply judiciousness and proper consideration should permit such a precipitate action in furtherance of the objectives of a few which will only exacerbate the conditions of the Bosnians defending their country and trying to survive. We are as much intrigued as we are appalled by the haste to adopt this draft resolution.

The international community cannot, in good conscience and judgement, ease sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro without taking simultaneous steps to relieve the difficult military and humanitarian handicaps that the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to face. Clearly, before the aggressor is rewarded, the victim must at least be simultaneously assisted and relieved of the very ominous humanitarian, military and political consequences of the aggression that persists.

Malaysia is of the view that, before any easing of sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro is initiated, the international community should ensure the following. The border monitors should comprise a cross-section of the international community and be effectively deployed in sufficient force. Serbia and Montenegro must recognize the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its current borders. Serbia and Montenegro should fully cooperate with the International war crimes Tribunal, including the surrender of wanted suspects for trial. The current safe areas/exclusion zones must be effectively defended. The Security Council should lift the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The imposition of tougher measures as envisioned by Security Council resolutions - including resolutions 770 (1992), 771 (1992), 824 (1993), 836 (1993) and 913 (1994) should continue so long as "ethnic cleansing" persists.

The drafters of the peace plan are obliged to undertake disincentive measures in the event of a rejection of the plan and to provide incentives to those that have accepted the plan. The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has already made numerous and painful concessions by accepting the plan. Yet the five-nation Contact Group has failed to stand by its commitments. The lack of firm action could be interpreted as a weakening of the commitment of the five-nation Contact Group.

The five-nation Contact Group has committed itself to undertake three steps on the basis of the rejection of the peace plan by the Serb side: intensifying sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, enhancing the exclusion zones and lifting the arms embargo on the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yet what we are considering today is in sharp contrast to and a total reversal of what should have been done following the rejection of the peace plan by the Bosnian Serbs.

If the Council is unable to deal effectively with Serbian aggression, how can the general membership have faith in the Council, the United Nations body entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security? If the Security Council fails to fulfil its Charter responsibility, the recourse for the general membership is to request the convening of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We are alarmed by the accelerated campaign of "ethnic cleansing" being implemented by the Bosnian Serbs despite international condemnation, the more recent examples being in Banja Luka, Bijeljina and Prejedor. We wish to call for the immediate cessation of such activity wherever it occurs and whoever commits it.

As we talk, the strangulation of Sarajevo by the Serbs continues. The people of Sarajevo have been denied water and power and even the food supply-line has been cut. Is it not a mockery and a travesty of justice that, while the so-called countries with influence remain ineffectual in assisting the victims, they would in turn want to rush to reward the aggressors?

Malaysia wishes to express and underline its disagreement with the approach taken by the five-nation Contact Group. The Security Council should be guided by the views of the full membership before taking any step that would lead to the easing of sanctions. We wish to appeal to the Council to reconsider this action. The adoption of the draft resolution on the easing of sanctions will be a mistake unless the international community is fully convinced, backed by incontrovertible verification, that Serbia and Montenegro is really serious and sincere in breaking off political and economic relations with the Bosnian Serbs for rejecting the peace plan.

The President

I thank the representative of Malaysia for his kind words addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Kharrazi (Iran)

Let me first congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of September. Your diplomatic skills have given us the confidence that the Council has been and will be guided effectively during the current month. I should also like to thank the former Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation for the excellent manner in which he conducted the deliberations of the Council last month.

The Security Council has three draft resolutions before it today. We fully support the Security Council's strong condemnation of all violations of international humanitarian law, including in particular the unacceptable practice of "ethnic cleansing" by the Bosnian Serb forces, and its reaffirmation that those who have committed or have ordered the commission of such acts will be held responsible. We also support the Council's request of the Secretary-General to arrange - and we believe it should be immediately - the deployment of UNPROFOR troops and United Nations monitors, not only in Banja Luka and Bijeljina, but in many other areas of concern.

The draft resolution in document S/1994/1084 is the Security Council's reaction to the incorrigible stance of the Bosnian Serb forces and their mockery of the entire international community. The draft resolution has the aroma of tightening sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs but not the taste, nor will it work to that end. The draft resolution in question falls hopelessly short of an effective decision on the part of the Council commensurate with the magnitude of Serbian atrocities and stubbornness.

The Security Council is also discussing a draft resolution to ease the sanctions imposed by previous resolutions of the Council against Serbia and Montenegro. Some members of the Council have argued that the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro deserve leniency because of their decision to close the international border between Serbia and Montenegro and the Bosnian territories occupied by the Bosnian Serbs. The sponsors of the draft resolution must have assumed and subsequently portrayed to the international community that the closure of the border has already been effective. This is an assumption that has not been substantiated. There is even information and documentation to the contrary. My delegation cannot accept the argument of the draft resolution's sponsors for easing the sanctions. There are widespread reports of several hundred flights by Serbian helicopters over the north-eastern part of Bosnia in the past week, many of which appear to have originated in Serbia. These flights are in gross violation of relevant Security Council resolutions. It is totally unjustified to reward the violators with the draft resolution at hand.

There is no doubt that the existing monitoring regime is ineffective and cannot be relied on as the basis of such an important decision as the easing of the sanctions against the Government of Serbia and Montenegro. Moreover, while the strangulation of Sarajevo and "ethnic cleansing" are being intensified an unprecedented rush to adopt at this juncture a draft resolution calling for an easing of sanctions results in nothing but the sending of a wrong message to the aggressors to continue their acts of aggression, genocide and inhumanity.

My delegation recalls that the European Contract Group committed itself to a series of steps, including, inter alia, expanding the exclusion zones in Bosnia and Herzegovina and taking appropriate steps towards lifting the de facto arms embargo on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My delegation, along with other members of the Contract Group of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, believes

"that the failure of the (European) Contact Group to honour its commitments would further encourage and embolden the aggressor to continue to defy the will of the international community with impunity."

Against this background, my delegation believes that any action now to ease the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro is premature, unbalanced and counter-productive. In our view, before taking any action towards easing the sanctions a truly effective border-monitoring mechanism should be established, measures must be taken commensurate with the intensified strangulation of Sarajevo and "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs and the previous commitments of the European Contact Group must be fulfilled in a balanced and comprehensive manner in order to enable the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise its right to self-defence on the basis of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

By rewarding the patrons of the Bosnian Serbs the Security Council will not be lessening the agonies of the victims of this tragedy. It will not be making a political step in the right direction. It is in fact a retreat on the part of the Security Council in the face of aggression, genocide and "ethnic cleansing", now combined with artful deception.

The President

I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his kind words to me.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Senegal. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Cissé (Senegal)

The delegation of Senegal is happy to see you, Sir, presiding over the Security Council during the month of September, a task that you are performing with your usual talent and skill. I should like to extend to you our warmest congratulations.

To those congratulations I should also like to add our thanks to your predecessor, Ambassador Vorontsov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, for his remarkable performance as President last month.

Lastly, I should like to thank all the members of the Security Council for having allowed me to participate in this important debate dealing with the tragedy that is taking place in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The peace plan submitted to the parties to the conflict by the Western Contact Group on 5 July this year had roused some hope that a peaceful and negotiated solution was finally within our grasp.

Our optimism was particularly warranted because, in keeping with the deep commitment to the ideals of peace and justice that it has always displayed through all the critical stages of the Serbian aggression the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in an effort to arrive at a compromise and at the cost of enormous sacrifice, had agreed to the terms of the peace plan.

Further, along with the Croat party, whose courage and political far-sightedness we should like here to hail, it has begun to move towards a federal solution capable of consolidating the peace and reconciliation to which all the inhabitants of the region so earnestly desire.

Unfortunately, this peace initiative, like preceding ones, has been shattered against the usual wall of arrogance and blindness on the Serbian side.

The rejection of the peace plan confirms that that party, as well as the forces which support it, have not relinquished their plans to achieve those goals that were at the very origin of the aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Engaging in a new escalation of hostilities and adopting a defiant attitude towards the international community, the Bosnian Serbs broke off the fragile truce that had prevailed for some months in Bosnia and Herzegovina by resuming and intensifying the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" as well as the shelling and strangulation of Sarajevo.

We are all the more concerned since alarming reports have reached us from various sources of continual air and land crossings by convoys of Serbian helicopters and trucks of the frontier between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and those territories occupied by the Serbs in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in flagrant violation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.

These incidents seriously call into question the credibility of the claims by the Belgrade authorities regarding the closure of their borders with the territories occupied by their Bosnian Serb allies, and raise serious doubts about the effectiveness of the international observer force deployed on the ground.

It is obvious that if there is no appropriate response, along the lines of the rigorous steps contemplated by the western Contact Group when it met in Geneva on 30 July last, there is a danger that the attitude of the Bosnian Serbs will bring to naught all the efforts so far made in the search for a peaceful solution.

This is why my delegation believes that in the current circumstances any decision by the Security Council to relax the sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro would be premature, inappropriate and perilous, and likely to encourage aggression that violates the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter.

The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to us to be sufficiently confused, precarious and dangerous for us to appeal to the Security Council to guarantee, before taking any decision to relax sanctions, that such a decision will neither reward aggression nor help to perpetuate it.

Accordingly, my delegation believes that the Council should immediately ensure that the following conditions are effectively met. First, the land and air boundary between Serbia and Montenegro and the territories occupied by the Serbs in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be closed by a force strong enough numerically and technically to carry out this delicate surveillance mission effectively. Secondly, the siege of Sarajevo should be lifted and the city should be demilitarized. Thirdly, the safe areas should be extended to cover the entire 51 per cent of territory allocated to the Croatian-Bosnian Federation.

The President

I thank the representative of Senegal for his kind words addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Albania. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Kulla (Albania)

Allow me at the outset to extend to you, Mr. President, my warm congratulations on your masterly conduct of the work of the Security Council this month. At the same time, I should like to express our appreciation to your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Vorontsov, for the excellent manner in which he conducted the Council's proceedings last month.

We also wish to thank all the members of the Security Council for the invitation to us to express our views on this subject.

In this open debate, I should once again like to state the position of my Government, which believes that the regime in Belgrade is the main instigator of, and the party really responsible for, the tragedy that has been going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the past 30 months.

My delegation believes that the three documents before the Council testify to the goodwill of the international community and to its continuing persistent efforts to put an end to the hostilities and to find a satisfactory solution to this interminable crisis.

The Government of the Republic of Albania unswervingly supports the draft resolution providing for strengthening the sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs, whose opposition to all the significant efforts of the Contact Group we condemn. The Bosnian Serbs' continuing opposition to the various peace plans, including the most recent one of the Contact Group, is undeniably a rejection of the fundamental values underlying international relations between civilized countries. Their total rejection of cooperation, which is hardly new, has for long encouraged consideration by the international community of other means available to it to impose its desire for peace.

As regards the draft resolution condemning "ethnic cleansing", I must say that we have already spoken out on a number of occasions against this forcible, inhuman and medieval method of usurping the territory of other people.

As for relaxing sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), as provided for in the third draft resolution, we are convinced that approving that proposal would soon lead to irreversible consequences and result in an escalation of the conflict.

We maintain that any relaxation of sanctions will be abused; it will help the Belgrade regime and prolong the crisis that led to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, this bloody chapter in modern history. We must not forget that this is not the first time the international community has received promises from those who caused the entire crisis.

Apart from all that, my Government firmly believes that what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina is only the most obvious - and definitely not the sole - manifestation of the crisis. Suspending or relaxing sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must be made conditional on resolving the other problems in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Kosovo, where more than 2 million Albanians are denied their human rights. Repression, murder and plunder are all in a day's work for the police and the State.

Another "ethnic cleansing", slow but relentless, has been going on for decades. In Kosovo and Sandjak the same scenario is taking place: "ethnic cleansing". In those areas the international observers are long gone, having been driven out by the Yugoslav authorities, but the alarm bells are still ringing.

The President

I thank the representative of Albania for the kind words he addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Germany. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Graf zu Rantzau (Germany)

Mr. President, allow me to assure you of my delegation's full confidence in your wise counsel and guidance of the Council. I would also like to express our appreciation for the leadership shown by your predecessor, Ambassador Vorontsov.

I speak on behalf of the European Union and its member States. Finland, Norway and Sweden support this statement.

The crisis in the former Yugoslavia continues to be a cause of deepest concern to the international community. The ongoing fighting and bitter hostilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina pose a serious threat to international peace and security, causing immense and unacceptable human suffering.

From the beginning of the crisis, the European Union has consistently worked for the most intensive peace efforts possible on the part of the international community, involving the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America and the Russian Federation, to ensure the cohesion of their initiatives. Our aim was and still is to exert the strongest possible pressure in order to bring an end to the war and tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina through a negotiated settlement.

On 6 July, the Contact Group submitted a proposal for a territorial settlement to the parties, offering a viable and realistic basis for a peaceful solution. The European Union welcomes the fact that the proposed territorial settlement has now been accepted in full by all sides except the Bosnian Serb party, and strongly urges this party to do likewise.

The European Union and its member States firmly believe that the three draft resolutions on which the Security Council is about to take decisions constitute an important step in the international peace effort. In essence, these decisions by the Council will convey an unequivocal message to the Bosnian Serbs.

First, we condemn the "ethnic cleansing" which the Bosnian Serbs have systematically carried out in the areas they occupy. This persistent and systematic campaign of terror must stop immediately and those responsible must he held personally accountable. In this context, we again emphasize the importance of the work of the International Tribunal set up to punish crimes in the former Yugoslavia. We therefore fully support the draft resolution elaborated by the non-aligned members of the Security Council.

Secondly, the Bosnian Serbs must realize that they will remain totally isolated as long as they block the peace process and continue the abhorrent practice of "ethnic cleansing." We welcome the tightening of sanctions provided for in the present draft resolution as a means to increase the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to accept the territorial proposal submitted by the Contact Group.

Thirdly, with regard to the third draft resolution, concerning the suspension of certain sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), we are united in our view that the decision of President Milosevic to close the border deserves a positive reaction from the international community. Of course, we must have positive proof that the border with Bosnia is and will remain closed to all but humanitarian supplies, in particular to weapons and fuel. We welcome the arrangements made for the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) Mission, as contained in its initial report, which aim to determine clearly and unequivocally whether or not the border closure is implemented.

Thus, through the adoption of the three draft resolutions, the Security Council will emphasize today that those who choose the course of peace will receive our support and those who persist in rejecting peace and embracing war will be isolated and prosecuted.

The draft resolutions that will be put to the vote today need a chance to prove their effectiveness. Time is now required for the peace process to achieve the desired tangible results, even though we would all prefer immediate results. It would be a tragic mistake to undermine the search for a negotiated settlement by decisions that could have dangerous and unforeseeable consequences.

The day must come when the flames of war in Bosnia are finally extinguished. The time must come when the peoples and States on the territory of the former Yugoslavia coexist peacefully side by side, within internationally recognized borders. The members of the European Union believe that the time has now come for the international community to support in full unanimity the intensive peace effort currently under way.

The President

I thank the representative of Germany for his kind words addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Egypt. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Elaraby (Egypt)

Thank you Mr. President. Allow me at the outset to express my delegation's sincere congratulations upon your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. We are fully confident that your well-known wisdom and leadership abilities will yield the desired results in the Council's consideration of the international crises before it. I should also like to express my thanks to your predecessor, Ambassador Vorontsov, the former permanent representative of the Russian Federation, for his valuable efforts during his presidency of the Council last month.

Today, the Council resumes its consideration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the backdrop of developments that have deadlocked the international efforts towards peaceful settlement, due to the intransigence of the Serbian aggressor and the refusal by that party to heed the behests of international legality.

The continuation of the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the inability of the Security Council to take decisive and immediate measures to rectify that situation throws into question the credibility of the Council and its ability to serve as the custodian of international peace and security. It also puts the entire United Nations and the contemporary international system in the balance.

We are about to create an historic precedent: unable to stop aggression, the international community will have resigned itself to accepting a fait accompli, thus allowing the fundamental aspects of the question to become obfuscated. The Council will have relinquished its commitment to protect and support the victim and to stand up to the aggressor until the aggressor complies with United Nations resolutions.

The purpose of the Council's meeting today is to review the sanctions imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). It has become abundantly clear to world public opinion that there is no tangible progress on the ground. The situation remains unchanged; the capital, Sarajevo, remains cut off from the rest of the world. We have heard the statement made today by the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina: there is no electricity and all basic services are at a standstill. Even the bakeries that should provide the people with their most basic food, bread, are unable to operate because the Serbs will not permit access for provisions. This constitutes a violation of Sarajevo's special status as declared by the Security Council.

The Government army has been stripped of the means of self-defence. The areas designated by the Council as safe areas have been disarmed although they continue to be under repeated Serbian attacks. The situation of the civilian populace continues to deteriorate, and the practice of "ethnic cleansing" persists.

All of this requires a firm unanimous international stand.

The delegation of Egypt has several questions for the Council. We hope the Council will consider them before it takes a decision on the draft resolution by which it would relax the sanctions. First, what has become of the Council's earlier resolutions with respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)? Those resolutions contained provisions and demands that should have been implemented and complied with before a review of sanctions. Have those resolutions been nullified?

Secondly, has the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia recognized the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent State within internationally recognized borders, so that the Belgrade authorities may be exonerated with respect to the causes and development of the military conflict in Bosnia?

Thirdly, it is currently being reported world-wide that hundreds of helicopters are flying in the air space of northern Bosnia and Herzegovina in stark violation of the no-fly regime for the air space of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such intensive air sorties cast doubt on the seriousness and commitment of the Belgrade Government with regard to closing its borders with the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the Belgrade Government has really cut its ties with the Bosnia Serbs, why will it not agree to effective international military monitoring of its borders with Bosnia and Herzegovina, as called for by the Council in resolution 838 (1993)?

Fourthly, is the Belgrade Government prepared to notify the United Nations that it accepts the designation of 51 per cent of the territory allocated to the Muslim-Croat federation as a safe area?

Fifthly, is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia showing the necessary degree of cooperation with the International Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for the war crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia?

My delegation believes that relaxing the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not the appropriate step the Security Council should take at present. If the Council takes this step, it will be sending a wrong signal which would have major negative repercussions. Rather, the Council should shoulder its historic responsibility by opting boldly for one of the two following courses of action:

The first is to discharge its Charter mandate and adopt the mandatory measures provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. By so doing, the Security Council will demonstrate that it enforces the implementation of its earlier resolutions, vis-à-vis the aggressor in every region and every situation without any double standards.

The second course of action should be the enablement of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to engage in legitimate self-defence by lifting the arms embargo imposed against it. This would allow Member States to provide assistance to that Government to enable it to defend its territory in keeping with Article 51 of the Charter, which sets out the right of individual and collective self-defence.

The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), in which my country participates, is stationed on the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to protect that territory and its population, especially since declared safe areas have been disarmed in accordance with Council resolutions. Hence, it is essential for the Force to provide genuine protection of those areas until the army of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is able to defend its own territory. The delegation of Egypt believes that, in the current power vacuum, the threatened withdrawal of UNPROFOR now or in the future would mean, quite simply, clearly and frankly, handing over those areas and their unarmed populations to the aggressor to be annexed in addition to the other territory already acquired by force.

Finally, the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has shown flexibility and has cooperated with the international community. It has accepted all the successive stages of the plans of peaceful settlement. It is time for the Council to pause for reflection, to ponder its responsibilities under the Charter, and to review its earlier unimplemented resolutions adopted under Chapter VII before it adopts a draft resolution that would relax the sanctions.

The President

I thank the representative of Egypt for the kind words he addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Turkey. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Batu (Turkey)

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of September. We are confident that under your able guidance the Council will successfully carry out its responsibilities. I would also like to pay tribute to Ambassador Vorontsov of the Russian Federation for the remarkable manner in which he conducted the work of the Council in August.

The Council is gathered here once again to consider the ongoing tragedy in Bosnia. On many occasions, we have voiced before this body our deep anguish over the lack of an appropriate response by the international community to the grave situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yet, despite our calls and other similar appeals, numerous Security Council resolutions still remain unenforced. The abhorrent crime of "ethnic cleansing" has been intensified. The strangulation of Sarajevo and other safe areas cannot be stopped. The blatant defiance of international law by the aggressors continues incessantly. The will of the international community to put an end to the aggression is still being tested.

There are three draft resolutions before the Council. The first draft resolution, which is contained in Security Council document S/1994/1083, deals with the persistent and systematic campaign of terror and "ethnic cleansing" perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs. The second draft resolution (S/1994/1084) suggests the further political and economic isolation of the Bosnian Serbs. We see both of these as timely steps in the right direction. It is vital that these draft resolutions be adopted immediately and implemented effectively.

However, we have serious doubts about the timing and content of the third draft resolution, contained in Security Council document S/1994/1085.

Serbia's claim that it has closed its borders with the Serb-held areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina has to be checked effectively. We have observed only a symbolic step in this respect. The International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) Mission to Serbia and Montenegro was established a few days ago, on 17 September. The scope and status of this Mission are not clear. The members of this Mission are not even permitted to be called monitors. How they could control a very long border with such limited manpower and resources is a question which should be answered adequately.

Despite all these legitimate questions and outstanding issues, we have been provided with a "quick fix" report two days after the establishment of the Mission. The conclusion of this report is in direct contradiction with the reports of independent sources that there have been continuing unauthorized helicopter flights between Serbia and Montenegro and the Serbian-held areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have appealed to the President of the Security Council to postpone consideration of the draft resolution on easing the sanctions on Serbia in order to make a comprehensive investigation possible. Regrettably, our call has not been given favourable consideration.

At a time when the campaign of "ethnic cleansing" has been accelerated and the stranglehold on Sarajevo and other "safe areas" has been intensified, the easing of sanctions on Serbia will constitute yet another wrong signal sent to the aggressor and will undermine the peace process.

We must focus our energy on how we could create effective and meaningful enforcement measures for the implementation of the latest international peace plan, which was again rejected by the Bosnian Serbs in defiance of the will of the international community. The five-nation Contact Group committed itself, in case of rejection, to the tightening of sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro. Now we are moving in the opposite direction. We are concerned that this will be a further blow to the credibility of the international community.

We call upon the international community to stand at long last by its commitments and start acting accordingly. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has accepted the peace plan in good faith, is still looking forward to the fulfilment of the promises made by the five-nation Contact Group. In this context, we are expecting true and effective border-monitoring, measures in response to the intensified strangulation of Sarajevo, the expansion of the exclusion zones and appropriate steps towards lifting the de facto arms embargo on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We strongly urge the Serbian side to stop its genocidal campaign to consolidate its territorial gains and to accept the peace plan. If they fail to do so, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be provided with all the means necessary to exercise its inherent right to self-defence.

The President

I thank the representative of Turkey for the kind words he addressed to me.

In accordance with the decision taken earlier in the meeting, I now invite Ambassador Dragomir Djokic' to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Djokic´ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

The Security Council is considering today the partial suspension of the sanctions imposed against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We see this as an important step that is opening new prospects for the acceleration of the peace process in the area.

On 30 May 1992, by resolution 757 (1992), the Security Council imposed sanctions against the citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, unjustly singling them out as the sole culprits for the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One hundred and twenty weeks have gone by since this unprecedented verdict was passed on an entire nation, without even a right of appeal. The peoples of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were condemned to total isolation from the contemporary world and thus became victims of collective punishment, which is in contravention of international humanitarian law.

The sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have been politically motivated and were imposed on the basis of a biased and one-sided identification of the causes of the Yugoslav crisis and on the basis of false premises and misconceptions concerning the nature and origin of the conflict, and concerning ways to resolve it.

By choosing to recognize the results of the referendum that sanctioned the unconstitutional secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in which one of its constituent peoples did not take part, the international community, disregarding constitutional provisions, granted the Croats and Muslims the right to decide on the fate of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, the constitutionally guaranteed right to self-determination - one of the fundamental human rights granted to all other peoples of the former Yugoslavia - was denied only to the Serb people. That was one of the major causes of the outbreak of the civil war.

The international community is well aware of the fact that the key decision-makers on the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina subsequently conceded that such a decision was wrong and premature and that it directly contributed to the tragic chain of events that followed.

In a recent interview given to the French paper Le Figaro, President Mitterrand of France stated

"that the international community made a mistake because it allowed the break-up of Yugoslavia before the problem of internal republican borders was addressed".

President Mitterrand also wondered

"why internal administrative borders should automatically become internationally recognized ones".

Numerous statements of other leading political figures, including Lord Carrington, former Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia; Cyrus Vance, special representative of the Secretary-General; former Italian Foreign Minister Gianni De Michelis; Lord Owen, Co-Chairman of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia; former United States Secretary of State James Baker; Jacques Delors, President of the European Union; and Roland Dumas, former French Foreign Minister, to mention but a few, have all underlined the mistake of the premature recognition of the former Yugoslav republics before the overall political settlement was reached, which, indeed, triggered the civil war. Mr. Henry Kissinger, former United States Secretary of State, said in a commentary in The New York Times of 25 February 1993, that Bosnia was not a nation except in a geographical sense. He added that there were no Bosnians per se and that it remained unclear why it should ever have been thought that the same ethnic groups which had refused to coexist in a relatively large Yugoslavia would be able to coexist in tiny Bosnia. These statements, though belated, confirmed the position that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has advocated from the very onset of the Yugoslav crisis.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been falsely accused of involvement and territorial pretensions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite the fact that it repeatedly acknowledged and clearly stated in the Declaration of the Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 27 April 1992 that it did not harbour any territorial pretensions towards any of the republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

At the time when the sanctions were imposed against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for alleged aggression, not a single member of the Army of Yugoslavia was outside its territory.

The international community acknowledged soon after the imposition of sanctions that the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a consequence of involvement by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but a true civil war, with elements of inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflict.

Unfortunately, all those facts were deliberately ignored. The sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were not only kept in place, but were strengthened, although as was widely recognized the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia clearly supported all major peace initiatives of the international community.

Even though the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has never accepted the reasons for which the sanctions were imposed in the first place, it fully cooperated with the international community and has met all the conditions contained in the Security Council resolutions.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has continually made efforts to reach a peaceful and negotiated solution to the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It should be recalled that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia supported the so-called Cutileiro plan for the political and territorial arrangement of Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed by all three ethnic communities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, before the onset of the tragic conflict. However, even though the Muslim side accepted the plan at the beginning, it subsequently withdrew its approval, under the influence of certain foreign Powers.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did everything in its power to have the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina accept the Vance-Owen Plan. Ignoring this fact and in spite of it, by its resolution 820 (1993) the Security Council decided to tighten the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia supported, and the Bosnian Serbs accepted, the so-called Owen-Stoltenberg Plan, which actually replaced the Vance-Owen Plan, subsequently abandoned by its authors. That plan was also rejected by the Muslim side. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia used all its influence with the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina to persuade them to accept the Plan of Action of the European Union, based on the Juppe-Kinkel initiative, which they did.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia gave full support to the efforts of the Contact Group for Bosnia and Herzegovina in its search for a peaceful solution within the framework of the Geneva Declaration. The following question should be asked: how was it possible, then, that the sanctions were imposed only against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Croatia has deployed its regular forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina with total impunity?

The Yugoslav Government and the leaders of its two republics have publicly urged the Bosnian Serbs to accept the plan of the Contact Group as a way of enabling the resumption of the peace process. The Federal Government has asked the Bosnian Serb leadership to show its commitment to peace and the peace process by taking an unequivocal, positive stand on the Contact Group's proposals. In the choice between accepting a compromise peace or an escalation of the war, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has never hesitated to choose the option of peace. Although it cannot be said that the Contact Group took into consideration some major interests of the Serb people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, equally it cannot be said that it has turned against them. The plan in fact makes official the Bosnian Serb entity by acknowledging the Serb Republic and guaranteeing its borders with the Croat-Muslim federation. The sacrificing of peace was considered by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be leading to a new and even bigger disaster.

It is of particular importance that it has been agreed that the Bosnian Serb entity can establish confederal ties with Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, just as the Croat-Muslim federation has been allowed to establish confederal links with the Republic of Croatia.

There is, however, no doubt that a compromise is necessary, that peace is fairer than war and that life and reason must prevail over death and devastation.

It is indeed this reasoning and logic that has prompted the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to sever political and economic relations with the Bosnian Serb leadership and to close the border with them.

In order to simplify procedures for the unimpeded dispatch of humanitarian assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina along the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federal Government proposed that the representatives of international humanitarian organizations, together with the Red Cross of Yugoslavia, jointly cooperate at the border crossings. This offer of the Yugoslav Government has been accepted, and members of the humanitarian Mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia are already in the field.

At a time when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia wholeheartedly supports the plan of the Contact Group, even though it is not a party to the conflict, and is making the utmost efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it stands to reason that the Security Council should lift the sanctions as a matter of urgency.

Further insistence on the collective punishment of the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, coupled with the insistence of certain countries on the lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina, is an absurd policy. It would inevitably further inflame the conflict, with unforeseeable consequences, not only for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but for the region as a whole, which, we are confident, cannot be the goal of the Security Council.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considers that a decision to partially suspend the existing sanctions represents an important shift in attitude towards Yugoslavia. However, only partial lifting of the sanctions does not represent an adequate response to the constructive role and contribution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the process of a search for a just and lasting solution to the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The decision to open for civilian transport the airport in Belgrade and the ferry service between Bar on the Montenegrin coast and Bari in Italy and suspend the sanctions in sports and culture is certainly a step in the right direction, though very modest in scope. International cooperation in sport, culture and science represents a significant part of the heritage of mankind, and should not be subject to any barriers.

What is really needed now is the complete lifting of all sanctions, which the Security Council should consider as a matter of urgency. That would be the quickest and best way of obtaining a final political solution to the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It is therefore very unfortunate that the conditions are set for the ultimate and absolute lifting of all sanctions exclusively in the function of maintaining political pressure. The international community, through the Security Council, continues the practice of punishing the citizens of a sovereign country for events over which it has no control. Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations certainly should not be used for that kind of political manoeuvering.

Furthermore, it is even less understandable and is indeed unacceptable to link further suspension of the sanctions with conditions that were not valid at the time they were imposed or that have no connection with the resolution of the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rightly expects that, with the adoption of this draft resolution, the process of lifting all forms of sanctions will gather momentum and that the legitimate rights of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations and other international organizations will be restored so that it can be fully reintegrated into the international community.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia firmly believes in the ongoing peace process. We appeal to the Contact Group to continue its work in order to reach as soon as possible a final solution that would accommodate the vital interests of all three sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any solution that is not satisfactory to one side will only further escalate the conflict. Any other option is fraught with risks and unforeseeable consequences, not only to the warring parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina but to the international community as a whole.

Despite the fact that the international community has taken an unfounded negative stance towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall continue, as it has done so far, to make its utmost contribution to the peace process in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as to the resolution of all outstanding questions in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, deeply convinced that there is no alternative to peace.

In conclusion, allow me to state the following. My delegation expresses regret that some countries have taken advantage of this meeting to repeat their well-known allegations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia based on arbitrary presumptions without foundation. Such positions, the purpose of which is primarily to satisfy domestic political and propaganda needs - and which indeed deserve no answer - do not contribute to ending the ethnic and civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the contrary, they generate a further fanning of the flames of war, the consequences of which are increasingly being felt by the innocent civilian population.

Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be achieved through one-sided accusations and irrational demands to lift the arms embargo from one party to the conflict. The only solution is a political one based on the interests of all three constituent peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reached through three-way negotiations, since, as I have stated, there is no alternative to peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Canada. I invite her to take a place at the Council table and to make her statement.

Mrs. Fréchette (Canada)

As this is the first time my delegation is speaking since you assumed the presidency of the Council, Sir, permit me to offer you our sincere congratulations and to pledge our fullest cooperation. We know you will bring great skill and fairness to the task.

I also congratulate and thank your predecessor, the former Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, for his excellent conduct of the work of the Council during the month of August.

A few hours ago, following an extensive debate in Parliament, the Canadian Government announced that it would renew its current contribution to the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) for a period of six months. The Government made this decision, pending the Council's views on mandate renewal, after extensive reflection.

This was not a routine or easy matter. We know the considerable challenges facing the United Nations and Member States in the former Yugoslavia. Our own peace-keeping tradition heightens our concern that the United Nations and Canadian peace-keepers should be a force for peace, not an excuse for inaction or delay.

We understand that there is no shortcut to a durable and fair settlement. All sides must abandon the military option and the expectation that weapons will achieve more than negotiations. We therefore oppose a lifting of the arms embargo because we are convinced that it would escalate this conflict, end the humanitarian mission of UNPROFOR and push back the prospects for peace.

We believe that the draft resolutions before the Council today represent small but significant steps towards a negotiated solution. They speak to a concerted international effort to increase pressure on the one party now holding hostage a negotiated settlement, the Bosnian Serb leadership.

The draft resolution easing sanctions on Belgrade is a challenge to Serbian leadership in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: "Stand by your commitments". We appreciate the concerns of some members of the Council in this regard. International observers, small in number for a long and inherently porous border, have only just arrived in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Canadians will soon be among them.

We say to Belgrade: "We welcome your acceptance of the Contact Group plan because it is key to your winning back the confidence of the international community. We are counting on your close cooperation with the Mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. There must be no easing of border controls or leakage, particularly with military-to-military contacts and along the Montenegrin border. We are pleased the draft resolution provides for frequent and periodic review."

To the Bosnian Serbs these draft resolutions say clearly: "Your intransigence will not prevail." Canada is pleased that the Security Council is choosing to approve increased sanctions on Pale while condemning "ethnic cleansing" in Banja Luka and Bijeljina. Canada and all Canadians abhor this repugnant policy; we will be unable to entertain normal relations with Serbian representatives until this practice ceases. All Serbs should recognize their responsibility to ensure that their name is not irretrievably sullied by these outrages.

Mrs. Fréchette (Canada)

Canadians have considerable experience on the ground in Bosnia, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We know that it will be difficult to achieve lasting peace. We do not and will not accept any solution based on ethnic exclusivity or the law of the strongest.

Our decision to renew our contribution to UNPROFOR bears witness to our commitment to the United Nations and the principles of our Organization. This commitment takes it for granted that these draft resolutions will be implemented in good faith and in the service of peace.

The Contact Group has proposed a framework that would allow the parties to cast off the cruel logic of war. We urge all parties to the conflict and all those in this Chamber not to allow this new chance for peace to slip by yet again.

The President

I thank the representative of Canada for her kinds words to me.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Jordan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Bataineh (Jordan)

I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council this month. We are quite sure that, thanks to your competence and wisdom, you will conduct the Council's proceedings successfully.

Our thanks go also to your predecessor for the successful manner in which he conducted the Council's work last month.

The Security Council has held several meetings and adopted numerous resolutions in an attempt to address the tragic situation of one United Nations Member State, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Regrettably, this tragic situation is affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that Member State and has inflicted many violations of human rights on its people, the victims of waves of ethnic cleansing with their attendant atrocities of mass murder, rape and trampling of human dignity.

The Security Council, the international body trusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, has failed completely to discharge its responsibilities with regard to the problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite its powers and competence under the Charter in all matters pertaining to international peace and security and in situations that far exceed in complexity the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. My delegation has spoken on this matter in every meeting held by the Security Council and everyone is familiar with our point of view. What is new, and what I should like to discuss on this occasion has to do with the new and potentially dangerous tendency in the Council's handling of the dimensions of this tragedy. That tendency, as we see it, could complicate matters and push the situation to the brink. We speak here of the Council's tendency to reward the indirect aggressor, Serbia and Montenegro, and to strengthen the position of the direct aggressors the Bosnian Serbs by allowing them to tighten their grip on their victim.

The reward I have just mentioned is the Council's willingness or the Council's intent to relax its sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, the aggressor State, on the basis of promises made with regard to an alleged closing of its borders with the Serbian side in Bosnia, to prevent the flow of weapons. Jordan, however, does not see any new development that would justify the rewarding of such promises. There are dangerous elements involved here that relate to the grave imbalance in the balance of power between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Moslems. Even if we choose not to believe the various international reports, especially those by UNPROFOR, which throw into doubt the closing of the borders between those two States and the halting of the flow of strategic material, we cannot ignore the physical aspects of the situation that justify such doubts, such as, inter alia, the construction of secondary and temporary roads and bridges, whose sole purpose must be the illegal transportation of weapons. We must not ignore also the press reports on sorties by Serbian helicopters over northern Bosnia over the past few weeks. We cannot disregard the possibility that those helicopters may have been transporting war material.

If the Council has made up its mind to take that measure which will reward the aggressor on the basis of mere promises that it will change its conduct in the future, we can only ask you to think of the victims and to extend to them some of the largesse you shall generously lavish on the aggressor in order, at least, to make it possible for the victims to bear the negative results of the benefits that will accrue to the aggressor. We do hope that, should the Council see fit to relax sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, the Council may see fit also to adopt measures that would help the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to mitigate the human suffering of its people and to address the defence difficulties it faces as a result of the continuing Serbian aggression. In short, any review of the sanctions regime against Serbia and Montenegro must embrace other concomitant measures that would, include effective border monitoring by the international community and aerial surveillance. The Security Council must make public all violations that occur.

Serbia and Montenegro must also recognize the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its present borders. Failing this, Serbian acceptance of the peace plan will be no more than a tactical ploy.

If the Council reconsiders the question of sanctions, it must do so in such a way as to obtain Serbia's agreement to cooperate with the International Tribunal on war crimes in bringing the accused before the Tribunal. We also believe that there is a crying need for action to put the safe areas in a better position to defend themselves effectively and to put an end to violations and acts of aggression against those areas, especially since the number of such acts of aggression has increased while UNPROFOR takes no action against the aggressors, thus only encouraging NATO forces not to take the necessary action.

The Council must also reconsider the lifting of the arms embargo imposed on Bosnia as a means of forcing the Serbs to accept the peace plan and of enabling Bosnia to face the situation of siege and occupation.

In asking the Council to take the measures we have just indicated, we would also remind the Council that, the Contact Group had committed itself, if the Serbs rejected the Peace Plan, to tighten sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, to strengthen the security of the safe areas and to lift the arms embargo imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the very least, since none of this has been done, and the exact opposite may well be done, the measures I have just indicated should be put in place before any relaxing of sanctions on the Serbian side, takes place.

The President

I thank the representative of Jordan for the kind words he addressed to me.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Afghanistan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Farhadi (Afghanistan)

Once again, since I am, I believe, the last speaker in this part of our debate, I should like to pay a tribute to you, Sir, and to the very wise and skilful way in which you have been conducting the work of the Council over the past month. Our appreciation goes also to your predecessor, Ambassador Vorontsov, for the noteworthy work he accomplished when he was the President of the Council during the month of August. His skills are indeed well known to all of us.

We believe that the Security Council must take account of, and attentively consider, in a trusting way, the statements that were made by the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What Ambassador Sacirbey said is important, not only with respect to the position to be taken by Council members when these draft resolutions are voted on, but also for the future. Likewise, the Ambassador of Croatia and the Ambassador of Albania have given us very important information - information that is very reliable because they are on the spot in this region. As to what the Ambassador of Albania told us about Kosovo and Sandjak, I must say that such problems have to be dealt with in a timely manner. Things should not be allowed to reach a stage where we say that yes, it is important, but it is too late.

Another speaker, Ambassador Djokic', also expressed his desire to see an acceleration of the peace process, but he accused the Security Council of taking actions on the basis of prejudice and on erroneous premises. In addition, he was also deliberately eclectic when he gave partial quotations from statements made by Heads of State and Government and prominent persons from countries that are members of the Security Council in a way that, clearly, is not particularly commendable.

The draft resolution contained in document S/1994/1083, regarding "ethnic cleansing", has come very late in the day, and indeed there is an element of paradox here in terms of priorities. This draft resolution was, undoubtedly, deserving of a certain priority. What is lacking in it is that it fails to recall the fact that the United Nations must take practical steps to ensure that an end is put to "ethnic cleansing". Otherwise, all the efforts that have been put forth by the Security Council so far would be virtually nullified.

The draft resolution contained in document S/1994/1085, which calls for the relaxation of the sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro, is clearly premature. It is a hasty initiative that was put together before there were adequate guarantees that earlier evils would not be repeated. This is something that did not deserve such high priority. We are not convinced of the veracity or the sincerity of the political statements we have heard from Belgrade.

Border closings - effectively implemented - are clearly necessary in places where Serbia has a common frontier with areas occupied by the Bosnian Serbs. Moreover, unauthorized helicopter and plane flights should be prevented: this is also very important. Controlling the situation on the ground remains a key practical problem. What is provided in this draft resolution does not seem to convince the Council that the territory is secure.

It is equally important for the Security Council, and for the United Nations, once again to concern itself with what is happening in Sarajevo. It is essential to help its citizens to be able to walk on its streets in safety, to fetch water and food without fear of snipers. Obviously, there is also the question of food, electricity and other such necessities, to which our colleague from Bosnia-Herzegovina referred.

There is a draft resolution that should have been before us but which is not, and that is one lifting the arms embargo - arms which the Bosnians need for their legitimate defence. This was referred to by Ambassador Djokic' as an absurdity, but, in fact, maintaining the embargo on arms supplies imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina is a way for the Security Council to persist in something illegal, and thereby to become responsible for everything that is happening, including "ethnic cleansing", in that country.

My delegation has on several occasions here expressed its view that the Security Council never intended that resolution 713 (1991) should, by extension, be applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina. No resolution emanating from the Security Council or from any other legal authority should in any way usurp or in any way restrict the rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Charter, and specifically the provisions on legitimate individual or collective self-defence set forth in Article 51.

No embargo remains valid under international law if there is clear proof that maintaining the embargo in question promotes genocide. Recent events in the north of Bosnia and Herzegovina testify to this fact.

The President

I thank the representative of Afghanistan for his kind words addressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Bangladesh. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Rahman (Bangladesh)

I join my voice with those of others in congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for this month. My delegation would also like to pay tribute to your predecessor, Ambassador Vorontsov of the Russian Federation, for the manner in which he conducted the work of the Council last month.

Speaking at this late stage in the debate, I will be brief. Bangladesh remains deeply concerned over the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The past history of armed aggression, genocide, the series of acts that have led to indiscriminate bombings, the use of poisonous gases, "ethnic cleansing", the continuing violation of international humanitarian law shows that in this region human suffering is still writ large.

We have all welcomed the cease-fire arrangements in Sarajevo and surrounding areas. Yet the violations of the cease-fires, the use of heavy artillery, the indiscriminate attacks on the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) personnel still continue. The common aim of enforcing a comprehensive cessation of hostilities and of extending safe havens all over Bosnia and Herzegovina is far from being realized. There is still a real need to take appropriate measures to strengthen UNPROFOR, to ensure prevention of further aggression and access to humanitarian assistance, and especially to ensure unimpeded access by the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, UNPROFOR, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to many of the beleaguered areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We have all repeatedly reaffirmed our support for the territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A vital corollary to this affirmation is that all actions and declarations made under duress with regard to land ownership be declared null and void, thus facilitating the return of displaced persons.

In light of the situation, and while we support the strengthening of measures to tighten sanctions and the draft resolution on "ethnic cleansing", Bangladesh believes that any resolution that would lead to the easing of sanctions would not only be premature but also counter-productive. From a practical point of view we do not believe that it would be possible to successfully monitor the borders unless the presence of UNPROFOR is strengthened.

The stated objective of the international community has been to assist the parties in achieving a negotiated settlement acceptable to all sides. In view of the past history of backtracking and duplicity, which has resulted in creeping dismemberment of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we believe that we must intensify rather than ease the pressure for a settlement. Any obstacles in the path of a negotiated settlement must be met with the threat of intensified sanctions, the expansion of exclusion zones and, ultimately, the lifting of the arms embargo, so that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina can exercise their inherent right to self-defence. We believe that anything less would be tantamount to appeasement and be a setback in efforts towards a negotiated settlement.

The President

I thank the representative of Bangladesh for his kind words addressed to me.

I should like to inform Members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Tunisia in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice and with the consent of the Council, I propose to invite that representative to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Tunisia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Abdellah (Tunisia)

On behalf of my delegation, allow me first to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of September and on the exemplary manner in which you are guiding its work.

Once again, the Security Council is discussing a question that continually tugs at the world's conscience. We would have liked for this lofty body, after all the resolutions it has adopted and after all the appeals it has made to the Serbian party to abide by international law - to have conducted a thorough review of its actions and the realities on the ground. It would have then come to the conclusion that its numerous demands on the aggressor had not produced the slightest result. What is worse, the aggression is still continuing.

The Serbian forces persist in their arrogance and continue to rage against the civilian populations of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The repugnant practice of "ethnic cleansing" continues with the same intensity as in the past.

Sarajevo remains a hostage, and the Serb war machine implacably advances towards other areas, Banja Luka and Bijeljina, with all its attendant terror and atrocities. Even the personnel of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the staff of humanitarian organizations have not been spared and continue to be exposed to provocations and danger. This tragic situation, which seems to have no end, has taken a heavy toll.

It is not a situation that would seem to justify easing the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, which is solely responsible for this gangrene spreading through Europe and threatening international peace and security. Only yesterday we all heard that Bosnian air space had been violated by military aircraft dispatched by Belgrade - not for the purpose of distributing assistance, not for the purpose of uncovering abuses, but simply to sow terror among the inhabitants and to defy international public opinion.

Is it logical to reward the aggressor, the prime author of "ethnic cleansing", who continues to defy the international community? We do not think that is the message the Council should be sending to Serbia at this grave time, when its own credibility is at stake and when peoples have pinned their hope upon its fairness and objectivity and expect a reaction commensurate with the double-dealing and bad faith of the aggressor. The United Nations would lose much of its authority if, in the guise of imposing new sanctions against the aggressor, it were to lift sanctions designed to make it change its policy and abandon its annexationist aims and inhumane practices. Any measure that runs counter to international law as established by the Security Council can only gravely compromise a just and lasting settlement of the Bosnian question, jeopardize the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and substantially delay any chance for peace and stability in the region.

The President

I thank the representative of Tunisia for the kind words he addressed to me.

It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the three draft resolutions before it. Unless I hear any objection, I shall put the draft resolutions to the vote.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

I shall first call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting.

Mr. Olhaye (Djibouti)

At the outset, Sir, I wish to congratulate you most warmly on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. We are confident that your sound diplomatic skills will continue effectively to guide us. Equally, we would like to express our deep gratitude to your predecessor, Ambassador Yuliy Vorontsov of the Russian Federation, for the exemplary manner in which he conducted the work of the Council last month.

With over three years of hostilities in Bosnia behind us, it is still impossible to discern patterns of action by the major players and to anticipate what, if anything, to expect next. The Contact Group has fashioned a land settlement plan which, although flying in the face of nearly every Council resolution condemning aggression and the acquisition of territory by force as unlawful and totally unacceptable, nevertheless awards the Bosnia Serbs 49 per cent of the land of Bosnia.

In the expectation, no doubt, that the difficult party would be the Bosnian Government, the message was sent that terrible consequences would befall the side that refused this final proposal. Almost unexpectedly, the Bosnian Government accepted the proposal, while the Bosnian Serbs rejected it outright. We are now witnessing the familiar repetition of history and events in Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs have begun with a predictable display of wild, outrageous confrontation, turning off all services to Sarajevo - where there is now no water, gas or electricity - and resuming sniper attacks and the shelling of civilians and of the airport, thus continuously disrupting and obstructing humanitarian-aid flights and visits by notables such as the Pope and the Defense Secretary of the United States.

We might add to this long list the closing of the "blue route", the only access road for United Nations convoys. We might also mention the defiant movement of heavy weapons into weapons-exclusion zones, and the open violation of the ban on flights in the no-fly zones. But, worst of all, the resumption of "ethnic cleansing" in several areas, driving out thousands of Muslims through rape, terror, brutality, detention and forced labour, is a cause for deep consternation. Even the Red Cross has labelled the situation as intolerable, abominable and a negation of the roots of humanitarian law.

With history as their guide, the Bosnian Serbs obviously seek to panic the international community. They intend first to draw attention away from their rejection of the settlement plan and then to make us attempt to appease them with yet another offer. After all, with over 50 resolutions adopted but seldom enforced, the official acceptance of the territorial settlement proposed by the Contact Group naturally faces a similar fate. Hence the stunning proposal to reward Milosevic and the rump Yugoslavia in advance for their promise to strictly enforce the sanctions against fellow Serbs in Bosnia. Certainly, with his credentials, Milosevic should be required to perform prior to payment. And, remarkably, he initially expected us to take his word on the enforcement, rejecting outside monitors or observers. Although he finally agreed to an initial 135 "viewers" as we may call them - since he finds the terms "monitor" or "observer" politically incorrect - this is a far cry from the 4,000 military monitors that the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) feels are necessary, or even the minimum 800 it says could perhaps do the barest minimum job if they had complete freedom of action, which the 135, working through the police of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, do not.

One of the draft resolutions before us calls for the partial lifting of sanctions against the former Republic of Yugoslavia as a reward for its promise to enforce new sanctions against Bosnian Serbs. We hope that becomes a certainty. But what will the Bosnian Government receive in return for its prompt acceptance? Will steps be taken to remedy the onerous military and humanitarian imbalance? Will the former Republic of Yugoslavia recognize Bosnia within its current borders? Will the former Republic of Yugoslavia agree to cooperate with the international war crimes Tribunal and surrender identified suspects for trial? Will Bosnia's safe areas and exclusion zones be more effectively protected, particularly in the light of the heightened aggression? Will the siege of Sarajevo and other safe areas be broken?

These are some of the crucial issues that ought to have been substantially addressed before embarking on this fortuitous exercise of easing sanctions, an exercise which we find very troubling, untimely and unjust.

In view of the unabated belligerence and total defiance of the Bosnian Serbs and their persistent pursuit of the abhorrent practice of "ethnic cleansing", sanctions against them are clearly imperative, and my delegation therefore will support the relevant draft resolutions before us. However, we have many grave problems and doubts with respect to the draft resolution calling for partial lifting of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro in advance of actual performance and demonstration of good faith. We have found little consolation in the reports of new violations, particularly the hundreds of military flights at night. The consummate arrogance of their timing to coincide with the Council's consideration of this draft resolution is a measure of the contempt in which these people hold the international community. To reward such behaviour would violate the remaining honour the United Nations retains in this whole episode.

My delegation will therefore find it very difficult to lend its support to any draft resolution calling for the partial lifting of sanctions at the present moment.

The President

I thank the representative of Djibouti for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. He Yafei (China)

First of all, I wish to join my colleagues in the Council in congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. I am confident that you will provide excellent guidance for the successful completion of the work of the Council for the month. At the same time, I would request the delegation of the Russian Federation to convey our appreciation to His Excellency Ambassador Vorontsov for his remarkable contribution to the work of the Council last month.

The Chinese delegation is deeply concerned with, and wishes to express its strong condemnation of, the grave violations of international humanitarian law occurring in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We strongly urge the party concerned to stop such practices forthwith. We have also noted that the flames of war have recently been rekindled in Sarajevo and that the humanitarian situation there is once again deteriorating. We call upon the parties to the conflict to stop immediately all their military actions so as to avoid further deterioration of the situation.

Years have passed since the outbreak of the Bosnia conflict, which has not only brought untold suffering to the various ethnic communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but has also gravely endangered regional peace and stability. The international community should continue to urge the conflicting parties to resolve their dispute through peaceful negotiations. In this connection, the conflicting parties should show the greatest possible political will in their cooperation with the endeavours of the international community.

Since the very beginning of the Bosnian conflict, we have consistently emphasized that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be respected by the international community and that the solution to this conflict can be found only if there is national reconciliation achieved through peaceful negotiations. We have taken note of the declaration made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in early August this year that it had suspended its links with the Bosnian Serbs and closed its border with them so as to urge the latter to accept the peace plan. We are of the view that the international community should encourage all the efforts for peace made by all those concerned, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The two draft resolutions before us, on condemnation of the violations of international humanitarian law and on suspension of sanctions, reflect in principle China's basic position in this regard. We will therefore vote in favour of both drafts.

The Chinese delegation would like to avail itself of this opportunity to reiterate that, in principle, we are not in favour of using sanctions or mandatory measures to resolve the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, because experience has proved that this will not help solve the problem. From the long-term point of view, and bearing in mind the fundamental interest of the various ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we should persevere in our efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully, no matter how complicated the matter is or how difficult the solution appears. Instead of bringing the war to an end, the use of sanctions or mandatory measures in that region has brought enormous suffering to the countries and peoples of the region and inflicted tremendous losses on the