The situation in Bosnia and Herzegozina Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (S/2000/529)
|(The Presidency changes each month to the next member in alphabetical order)|
|Mr. Wang Yingfan
|Mr. van Walsum
|Mr. Ben Mustapha
|Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Adoption of the agenda
The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (S/2000/529)
I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Germany and Italy, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In accordance 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 procedures.
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 the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, document S/2000/529.
Members of the Council also have before them document S/2000/591, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to document S/2000/586, letter dated 14 June 2000 from Portugal, transmitting the text of the declaration of the Ministerial meeting of the Peace Implementation Conference, held in Brussels on 23 and 24 May 2000.
It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it.
Unless I hear any objection, I shall put the draft resolution to the vote.
I will first give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting.
The Russian Federation is one of the main participants in the Bosnian settlement. It deems it important that the peace process in Bosnia and Herzegovina be further developed on the basis of the scrupulous implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement. This should be the thrust of the activities of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), whose mandate we are convinced should be extended for another year.
It is precisely in the interest of continuing the peace process that we will not object to the draft resolution before us now, the general thrust of which we agree with. However, Russia cannot support this draft resolution, and, for the first time in the last two years, it has refused to join the sponsors of the draft resolution in the Security Council on this subject, since the Russian amendments on questions of principle were not taken on board.
Operative paragraph 5, which expresses support for the declaration of the meeting of the Peace Implementation Conference, which took place on 23 and 24 May 2000 in Brussels, is not acceptable to us.
As the Council is aware, Russia was compelled to refuse to participate in that meeting, since its organizers adopted a discriminatory approach to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It did not allow one of the direct participants — a signatory to the Dayton Agreement — to work in that forum.
Russia refused to participate in the meeting of the Peace Implementation Council in Brussels. We believe that the Brussels Declaration has no force since the meeting of the Council was conducted virtually in violation of Dayton.
We are categorically opposed to attempts to oust the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from all multilateral mechanisms on a settlement in the former Yugoslavia. We have repeatedly warned that the policy of further isolating and enforcing a blockade against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia reflects the desire of certain individual States unilaterally to undo the decisions endorsed by the Security Council in the area of a settlement. That policy is counterproductive and could have very serious consequences for the entire Balkan region and for international efforts to stabilize the situation in that part of Europe.
Moreover, we have serious problems also with the provision of the draft that extends the reporting period of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina from three to six months. We warned ahead of time that Russia would object to possible proposals to move the reports of the High Representative to a six-month cycle. We deem this to be an attempt to weaken oversight by the Security Council over the Bosnian settlement process.
Russia, as a participant in the Dayton Agreement, will continue consistently to see that it is fully and unswervingly implemented. We will act against any revision or undermining of it and against any reduction of the role of the Security Council in ensuring the strict implementation of the agreements that it has endorsed.
It is my understanding that the Security Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution (S/2000/591) before it. If I hear no objection, I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.
There being no objection, it is so decided.
favour=14 against=0 abstain=1 absent=0
Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, China, France, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mali, Namibia, Netherlands, Russia, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States
The result of the voting is as follows: 14 votes in favour, none against, and 1 abstention. The draft resolution has been adopted as resolution 1305 (2000).
I shall now call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements following the voting.
China has always supported the peace process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is in this spirit that we voted in favour of the draft resolution before us.
We note that the text of the resolution still contains elements in support of the Declaration of the Ministerial meeting of the Peace Implementation Council, held in Brussels in May of this year. In our view, as a signatory to the Dayton Agreement, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should have been invited to the meeting. Isolating and excluding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will not help to resolve the problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the other problems of the Balkan region.
I want to make one simple point: that the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina has extremely important work to do. It needs the support of the Security Council, and I regard the adoption of this resolution as indicating that support.
The lack of unanimity on parts of the resolution should not be seen as detracting from that unanimous support for what the United Nations Mission is doing. Special Representative Klein and his full team have our confidence in their task to build stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is so vital to the stability of the region as a whole. We want to look to the future work of the Mission as something which the Security Council values, will follow with great interest and will support with unanimity.
Canada would like to express its strong support for the exceptional work being done by the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) under the leadership of Special Representative Jacques Paul Klein. He and his staff can count on the continued support of the international community as they carry out their responsibilities as mandated by the Security Council.
The United Nations has an important role to play in implementing the Dayton/Paris Peace Accord. To this end, the work of the Peace Implementation Council has an impact on the execution of UNMIBH’s mandate. It is therefore right that the Security Council recognize this linkage accordingly in the resolution we have adopted today by supporting the Brussels Declaration.
Canada fully supported the decision not to invite the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Peace Implementation Council Ministerial meeting in Brussels. As we argued at the time, along with the majority of our Steering Board partners, the Belgrade regime, under the leadership of indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic, has consistently sought to actively undermine the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement.
As my Government made clear at that meeting, we look forward to the day when a democratic Yugoslavia begins to participate constructively in the peace implementation process throughout the region. Unfortunately, this will not be possible under the current regime in Belgrade.
We regret that the Russian Federation decided not to attend the Brussels Ministerial meeting. We have worked closely with Russia in helping to bring peace to the region, and we look forward to its cooperation, as a responsible Steering Board member and an important contributor to the Stabilization Force (SFOR), in bringing about the full implementation of the Brussels Declaration.
We also regret that the resolution did not receive consensus support, but I am pleased to note, as did Ambassador Greenstock, that the role of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and its very important effort does have the unanimous support of the Council, as well it should. We also fully support the Peace Implementation Council and its role in the implementation of Dayton. Indeed, its role is vital and merits Council support, as contained in this resolution.
My Government feels strongly that the Council should not weaken its support of the High Representative or the Peace Implementation Conference process. We fully supported the decision by the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board not to invite the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to its recent Ministerial meeting in Brussels. In our view, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has done nothing since it walked out of the December 1998 Madrid Peace Implementation Council Ministerial to support implementation of the Dayton Accords or to merit its participation in the Peace Implementation Council process.
There are no other speakers on my list.
The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.