A/48/PV.84 General Assembly

Today the General Assembly continues addressing the item "The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina", which for the last 20 months has been the focus of attention within the international community. The Republic of Latvia would like to take this opportunity to stress its full and complete support for the adoption by the Assembly of the draft resolution concerning the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in particular the urgent request that the Security Council consider exempting Bosnia and Herzegovina from the arms embargo. For nearly two years the world community has been expressing its continuing horror and anguish at the genocide, "ethnic cleansing" and gross violations of international humanitarian law committed against the Bosnian people, especially the policy of Serbia and Montenegro and the Bosnian Serbs of deporting and massacring civilians, bombing urban communities and building concentration camps. Latvia commends the efforts that have resulted in the provision of limited humanitarian relief to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thousands of people have been This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Section, Room C-178, and incorporated in a copy of the record. When the result of a recorded and/or roll-call vote is followed by an asterisk, see the annex to the record. NEW YORK fed and have received medical care. Thousands of lives have been saved through the gallant efforts of the United Nations peace-keepers present in the former Yugoslavia. The necessity of finding appropriate solutions and taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace brought the United Nations together 48 years ago. Those principles are enshrined in the very first article of the Charter of our Organization. It is essential that the United Nations take effective collective measures for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace. I emphasize that these must be effective measures which would help put a halt to the present questioning of our Organization’s credibility - for the credibility of the United Nations is now at stake. The lack of political will on the part of those who had the power and the means, and who bore the special responsibility to carry out and ensure the implementation of the Security Council’s decisions, sends a very disturbing message. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, responsibilities under the Charter have not been fulfilled, and the United Nations has failed to implement effectively the Charter’s collective security provisions. That fact alone is bound to have a major negative impact on the outcome of both current and potential conflicts. Our Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. The feeling that some Members are more equal or less equal than others is therefore regrettable. The United Nations must pay attention to the problems of both large and small States. The security of all States should be a central concern of this Organization. Distr. GENERAL A/48/PV.84 21 January 1994 ENGLISH This Organization has imposed a punishing arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia that has effectively established moral equivalence between the victim and the victimizers. The arms embargo, imposed on the former Yugoslavia by Security Council resolution 713 (1991), has resulted in a situation in which one side of the conflict, more heavily armed than the other, has been able to abuse the negotiation process. While putting forth a well- orchestrated appearance that it seriously wishes to negotiate peace, this side has continued its armed aggression and atrocities against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Through its co-sponsorship of the draft resolution before the General Assembly, Latvia wishes to affirm its position, previously expressed by its co-sponsorship of General Assembly resolutions 47/121 and 46/242, that the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be exempted from the arms embargo imposed on the former Yugoslavia by Security Council resolution 713 (1991), for the sole purpose of enabling Bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise its inherent right of self-defence. If the international community cannot provide effective defence, it cannot morally deny the right of self-defence to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The right to self-defence is an inherent right of any sovereign State. It is one of the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in the Charter. No international body has the right to take it away or to curb it, especially if it cannot or will not provide an adequate defence for the victim. To continue to impose a stranglehold on a victim engaged in a life-or-death struggle is morally and legally unacceptable, as is the non-differentiation between aggressor and victim. Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of our family of nations and it deserves a defence of its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

It bears recalling that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina which we are deliberating today is the third war to take place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. First came the short war between Serbia and Slovenia for the independence of Slovenia. Then came the war between Serbia and Croatia First, the war is destroying a country. No matter what some may feel today about how viable Bosnia and Herzegovina was in the first place, the fact is that this country was widely recognized internationally as an independent State and admitted as such to membership of the United Nations. Today this State is perilously close to dismemberment. There is talk of a loose confederation, of a union of Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are not here to give anyone advice on how to organize their own country, but in creating our own State we were guided by the experience that confederations are basically unstable. We therefore fear that such a union, if created, might rapidly disintegrate, perhaps into three mini-States, with two of them perhaps merging with their neighbours. Bosnia and Herzegovina as we know it will have ceased to exist. Secondly, the war has destroyed our illusions. The cold war is over, but local troubles have multiplied. Its end has brought nothing but torment to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the face of a determined aggressor, European and international diplomacy has proved impotent. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, the new world order has turned into an old Balkan chaos. For this country, bodies such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and others have done little for cooperation and even less for its security. Thirdly, there is what one might call the "regular" destruction wrought by war. The war has etched into our consciousness polysyllabic names with which few were familiar before, such as Sarajevo and Srebrenica. It has expanded the arsenal of present-day warmongers with new weapons systems and euphemisms, such as "ethnic cleansing". It has added to the array of military tactics an unbelievably brutal one, one available to even the poorest army: the use of systematic rape for subjugating the adversary. It has enriched the vocabulary of Orwellian newspeak by such terms as "safe areas", where people rejoice over foggy weather because the snipers cannot target them as carefully, or indeed, again, "ethnic cleansing" - which makes bullets sound like disinfectant, cutthroats like janitors or charwomen. All of this is the consequence of extremist nationalism and religious intolerance. The Czech people are astonished that, at the end of the twentieth century, extremists espousing such ideologies can still prevail. Nationalist hatreds pitting Serbs against Croats, religious hatreds pitting Orthodox Christians against Catholics, and both of them against Muslims, is something we felt Europe had outgrown. Ethnicity is seldom a satisfactory guide to drawing international borders. Different-coloured patches on the map seldom represent an ethnically uniform population. More usually, a State with blue people contains an area with red people; this red area contains a blue village; this blue village contains a block or two of red houses. Boundaries between ethnic groups are seldom sharp. Ethnic groups are usually intermingled, dividing lines between them are usually fuzzy, best described by the new mathematical field of fractal geometry. In fact, these boundaries pass right through us personally. Few of us are pure red or pure blue - we are mostly different hues of purple or violet, lilac or lavender. Therefore, the creation of enclaves built on ethnicity is probably not much of a permanent solution. It is even less a solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country which was quite exemplary in the tolerance its population used to exhibit. This country of 4 million people featured 300,000 mixed marriages, among all three groups. It demonstrated and exhibited in practice the virtues of a civic society based on the equality of citizens. Reducing Bosnia and Herzegovina to an ethnically "pure" Muslim Bosnian mini-State is hardly a solution to today’s tragedy, even if Bosnians themselves were to agree to it. It would more likely amount to another problem, one which would come back to haunt us in the future. The solution we all really need is not only one that will be agreed to by all parties concerned, but also one that will guarantee a stable and lasting way out of the crisis. The draft resolution we are to vote upon is one of wholehearted support for Bosnia and Herzegovina. My delegation views it with great sympathy, but we share certain misgivings that several other delegations have voiced here. We will not be able to vote in favour of it. Nevertheless, I am authorized to point out in this context that, with the passing months, the Czech Republic is less and less sure of the wisdom of maintaining the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We regret that, once again, we have to participate in a debate on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I say "regret" because, since the last occasion on which we discussed the question, the situation in that unfortunate region of the world has not improved at all. Indeed, it has worsened considerably, both in political terms and in terms of respect for humanitarian law. Aggression against a State recognized by the United Nations and the unlawful appropriation of a large portion of its territory are a regrettable fact with which we must live daily. Equally reprehensible are the horrendous violations of human rights, committed not impulsively, in the heat of passion, but as the result of carefully planned political action to weaken the morale of the victim. It is not necessary to go into the details, as we are all familiar with them. So we simply express the regret we feel at having to speak about the matter. What is surprising about all of this is that practically all States Members of the United Nations are familiar with the situation and earnestly hope for an end to the flagrant violations of the Organization’s Charter and of human rights. Why, then, has nothing been accomplished during this long period? Nobody has a clear remedy at hand. When people talk about this matter the response is almost always the same: we were taken by surprise, and now it is difficult to do anything effective - except for an active military intervention, which, for obvious reasons, no State wants to risk. This determination is intended to be realistic, but it has merely resulted in pessimism. My delegation believes that we must guard energetically against this attitude. We cannot - we must not - allow a State Member of this Organization to disappear gradually, before our very eyes, as the result of the totally unjustified The draft resolution which is before the Assembly, and of which my delegation is a sponsor, is indeed designed to ensure that everything possible is done to achieve that objective. As can be seen from a reading of the draft, it contains many varied ideas - all of them realistic and properly focused. It could be said that none of these ideas, on its own, is sufficient to reverse the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Together, however, they could bring some relief. Above all, this draft resolution has the merit that it would ensure that the tragedy in Bosnia and Herzegovina does not fall into oblivion. That is precisely what the forces of aggression would like to happen. But it must not happen. We cannot accept the ominous thought that whenever there is less talk of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there appears to be less interest in the subject. We must continue to talk about Bosnia until something is done. The delegation of Costa Rica believes that words which are sincere and well-intentioned cannot be idle words. For this reason, we are confident of the value of this debate and of the need to ensure that the draft resolution before the Assembly is approved overwhelmingly. Before concluding, I should like to refer once again to the arms embargo against Bosnia - something that has always been difficult to defend. We have on other occasions expressed our opposition to this embargo, contending that it limited the right of self-defence of a State that has been the victim of aggression. We agree that the situation that has been created as a result of the relevant Security Council resolution is not easy to resolve. The embargo was imposed on all the parties involved in the struggle in the former Yugoslavia, and we understand why there are those who believe that it would now be difficult to lift it in respect of just one party without undermining the basic reason for the embargo in the first place. However, any solution must make it possible for the defenseless victim of aggression to exercise the indispensable right of self-defence - a right that no one else can give it. I should like to remind the Assembly that, 50 years ago - during the Second World War - before the United States had declared war on the Axis countries, there was a strong feeling in the United States in favour of the Allies and against the Axis countries. Before the United States declared war, however, it had to maintain neutrality and to We wonder what has happened to the rope that was used at that time. Could not someone today find a similar means of coming to the assistance of Bosnia? We hope that such a person will appear.

The Guyana delegation wishes to express its profound sorrow at the tragic situation existing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are gravely concerned at the agony and extreme suffering of the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is regrettable that after almost five decades since the end of the Second World War there should be a situation in Europe which again causes pain and distress throughout the world. There have been serious violations of human rights that have horrified the international community. The Charter under which the United Nations operates makes clear that one of the main purposes of the Organization’s existence is the maintenance of international peace and security. In this context it calls for the taking of effective collective measures for the prevention of war and the removal of all threats to peace, as well as for the suppression of all acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace. The raison d’être of the United Nations is to use its offices to bring about by peaceful measures and in conformity with the principles of the Charter and international law the settlement of disputes which lead to conflict. The question one may ask is: has the United Nations fulfilled its duties and commitments as regards the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina? We know that the Security Council has been seized of this issue and has in fact adopted several resolutions thereon. However, despite that, the suffering, loss of life and physical destruction continue unabated. Firm action needs to be taken at the level of the Security Council to fulfil the commitment of the United Nations to restoring normalcy to the people of that country. The right to live is the most basic right of all human beings. The world community has watched with horror what The practice of "ethnic cleansing" and the wanton destruction of the cultural heritage of the peoples of the area, which have featured so prominently in many reports, must not be condoned. As a country with its own interesting and diverse mix of ethnic groups and social and cultural traditions, Guyana knows only too well some of the difficulties that can accompany this phenomenon. We are especially conscious of the need to preserve the rich heritage that is the result of the blending of different cultures and the coexistence of many ethnic groups. We therefore urge all the parties to the conflict to seek to preserve that precious heritage. The international community bears an important responsibility in ensuring the discontinuance of unacceptable practices and the preservation of the societies in question. Each State Member of this body must exercise its responsibility to achieve that end. The statement by the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina expressed his country’s commitment to reaching a negotiated peace despite numerous failures to find a principled solution. We firmly support that position. The draft resolution before us deserves our careful consideration, since its implications are many and important. In our quest for peace we must be careful about establishing precedents which in themselves may create problems. Above all, we must urge and maintain our main objective: to bring peace and an end to the suffering of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The sponsors of the draft resolution before us have requested a 10-minute suspension of the meeting to allow for consultations, in the hope that this will facilitate action on the draft resolution. Since, obviously, those consultations have already started, I now propose to suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.

I now call upon the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who will make an oral revision to the draft resolution before us (A/48/L.50). "Encourages the Commission of Experts, subject to the provisions of Security Council resolution 827 (1993), and in cooperation with the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, to facilitate the work of the International Tribunal, including the establishment of a record of violations such as ethnic cleansing and systematic rape".

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/48/L.50, as orally revised. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote before the voting. May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The Russian Federation has consistently supported the international efforts to find a peaceful settlement to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia and the initiatives taken in that regard. It is our profound conviction that it is vitally important to ensure that all United Nations actions be designed to assist in so far as possible the peace efforts and negotiations in Geneva which have a chance of putting an end to the ongoing bloodshed and of bringing about a political settlement of this terrible conflict. The Geneva process has been given additional impetus by the European initiative. This is in keeping with our belief that it is indispensable, first and foremost, to reach a peaceful settlement and a peace agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only a political solution can open the road to peace. In those circumstances it is Russia’s deep conviction that the world community, as represented in the United Nations, must send a clear signal to encourage the parties to reach a peaceful settlement and avoid any steps that might tend to exacerbate the conflict and further complicate the negotiating process. On that basis we believe that the draft resolution now before the Assembly on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina must be balanced and that it must reflect the obvious fact that the key to any settlement lies in the hands of all three parties to the conflict. Accordingly, we proposed that we also delete the paragraph in which the Assembly would urge all States to cooperate with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the exercise of its inherent right of individual and collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. However, neither those nor a number of other amendments suggested by the Russian delegation were taken into account. In view of the foregoing, the Russian delegation cannot vote in favour of the draft resolution in document A/48/L.50 and will therefore abstain in the voting. If paragraphs 17 and 19 of the draft resolution were put to a separate vote, the Russian delegation would vote against them, because their provisions contradict Security Council resolutions and are not at all valid.

My delegation has already expressed its views on agenda item 42, entitled "The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina", including the draft resolution contained in document A/48/L.50. India fully supports the efforts being made by the international community, and particularly the two Co- Chairmen of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, to arrive at a fair, reasonable and irreversible political agreement acceptable to all three parties to end the tragic conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. India fully supports the basic thrust of the draft resolution, especially the responsibility of the international community in upholding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a Member State, the need to create an appropriate negotiating environment to reach an equitable and durable solution, and the need to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. In this context, we have repeatedly stressed the principle of United Nations command and control of actions authorized by the Security Council. Similarly, the call for resort to the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter should be seen in the light of the existing United Nations arms embargo and the steps taken by the Security Council in order to maintain international peace and security in the areas comprising the former Yugoslavia. The question of suspension or expulsion of Members is equally complex. India abstained on resolution 47/1 of 22 September 1992. The contents of operative paragraph 19 of the draft resolution must be seen in the light of the provisions of Articles 12 and 18 of the Charter. My delegation is constrained to abstain on the draft resolution on account of these difficulties. This does not, however, detract from our support to appropriate international action to end the suffering of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina through a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the crisis.

I wish to explain Kenya’s vote on draft resolution A/48/L.50 and the request for separate votes on operative paragraphs 17 and 19. For the second year running, the international community is faced with the serious and tragic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the Assembly considered this agenda item last year it adopted resolution 47/121 in the hope that the efforts of the international community, with the cooperation of all the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, would have positive results. Unfortunately, however, the situation has remained very depressing. Acts of aggression and gross violations of human rights are still the order of the day in Bosnia and Herzegovina. My Government strongly condemns the acquisition of territory by force of arms, acts of genocide, "ethnic cleansing", the torture of innocent civilians and the denial of humanitarian assistance. It is therefore paramount that humanitarian assistance continue to flow unhindered and be provided to all civilian populations, especially those under siege, without hindrance from any of the warring parties. First, the strategy of territorial gains by force cannot lead to a solution. Instead, it will further compound the already complex situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Secondly, history has proved that the lifting of an arms embargo leads to the creation of alliances, with the danger of escalating the war. Hence, we do not believe that arming Bosnia and Herzegovina would necessarily enhance the negotiating position of the Bosnian people to win a peace settlement with the parties involved, in view of the internal complexity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is the responsibility of the Security Council and the entire membership of the United Nations to end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to ensure that the Bosnian people live under secure and peaceful conditions. Thirdly, the exclusion of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) from participation in the proceedings of the Assembly has deprived us of the possibility of listening to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which has the primary responsibility to explain to the Assembly why it cannot utilize all the possibilities open to it to facilitate the cessation of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kenya is convinced that the opportunities for a peaceful negotiated settlement have not been entirely lost. The positive role being played by the international community, through both the presence of the United Nations Protection Force in the area and the tireless efforts of international peace mediators, must be accompanied by the necessary political will, on account of the three ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This must happen now. It is for this reason that my delegation will once again abstain on the draft resolution regarding the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/48/L.50, as orally revised by the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I wish to announce the following additional sponsors of the draft resolution: Mali and the Marshall Islands. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraphs 17 and 19. Is there any objection to this request? The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has fully and sincerely participated in all attempts to bring about a negotiated settlement and has given its full support to the latest European Union initiative. Unfortunately, the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia have failed to negotiate in good faith and have ignored the political and diplomatic efforts of the international community to deliver fruitful talks. We must envisage all further options for Bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise its full right of self-defence and to bring about a more appropriate environment for talks and the necessary political will to become part of the Serbian mind-set.

As the Assembly has heard, the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina has raised an objection to the request for division. In accordance with rule 89 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, "If objection is made to the request for division, the motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to speak on the motion for division shall be given only to two speakers in favour and two speakers against." Do any members wish to speak on the request for division? I call on the representative of the Comoros.

My delegation, having heard the statements of our colleagues from Kenya and Bosnia and Herzegovina, is fully behind the statement made by the latter. We believe that in voting separately on the two paragraphs mentioned we would be destroying the draft resolution as it has been composed. We therefore believe that the draft resolution has to be voted on as a whole; there should not be separate votes on some of its paragraphs.

I now call on the representative of Costa Rica.

A few moments ago, when I spoke in the debate as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution, I pointed out that, taken separately, each one of its paragraphs would not have sufficient force to reverse the situation in Bosnia. I insisted If the situation in Bosnia is to be dealt with, we cannot and must not deal only with its humanitarian aspects, which are so closely linked to the political and military aspects that it is impossible to separate them. In this regard I wish to say that when I mentioned the horrendous violations of human rights, I said that the worst thing about them was that those acts were not committed impulsively or in the heat of passion, but, rather, were the consequence of a deliberate, cold and calculated attitude with political ends. That shows the linkage between the three aspects. Hence, we cannot separate the humanitarian aspect from the political and military aspects, because in so doing we would fall into a grave error. I wish to quote, in this regard, an outside opinion, expressed by Mr. José María Mendilucci, the former Special Envoy to Yugoslavia of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In a major presentation on Yugoslavia, Mr. Mendilucci said, "The fact that the international community has based its strategy mainly on humanitarian-assistance aspects instead of taking a political decision forced the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to try to prevent the worst, well- known and predictable humanitarian consequences. That is to say, it had an incomplete strategy for preventing this war." He added: "We had the impression that ..." -

I apologize for interrupting the representative of Costa Rica, but we are crossing the line between speaking on the request for division and making a statement. May I ask him kindly to wind up his statement.

Yes, Mr. President, I shall conclude my statement at this point.

We have now heard the two speakers, the representatives of Costa Rica and the Comoros, against the request for division. Are there any speakers in favour of the request for division?

I now put to the vote draft resolution A/48/L.50, as orally revised by the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A recorded vote has been requested.

I shall now call on those representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The delegation of Ukraine would like to explain its abstention in the voting on the draft resolution (A/48/L.50) submitted under the agenda item entitled "The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina". Of particular importance to us is operative paragraph 16, under which the Assembly expresses deep alarm at the continuing systematic abuses committed against minorities - and there are Ukrainians among these minorities - who are suffering enormously as a result of the heightened hatred in the former Yugoslavia. Despite that, however, we cannot support certain formulations in the resolution - particularly those concerning the exemption of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the arms embargo as imposed on the former Yugoslavia by Security Council resolution 713 (1991). Ukraine’s position on this matter was stated in the Security Council at its meeting on 29 June 1993. We believe that lifting the arms embargo could only lead to further escalation of the conflict, resulting in even more unbearable suffering for the civilian population and in a dead end so far as solution of the problem is concerned. More arms in the area would inevitably create additional threats to the security of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), which, notwithstanding considerable losses, is doing its utmost to protect the civilian population and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to the needy. As a contributor of troops to Sector Sarajevo - one of the hottest spots in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Ukraine is deeply concerned that the eventual lifting of the arms embargo would place the Ukrainian contingent, as well as the contingents of other countries, which have already suffered heavy losses, in an extremely dangerous situation. While expressing its concern about the possible intensification of hostilities, Ukraine stands for strict compliance with all Security Council resolutions on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In our view, additional arms cannot bring peace to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We strongly believe that placing the heavy armaments of Bosnian Serbs under effective United Nations control would help to lower the level of armed confrontation and, thereby, make it unnecessary to consider lifting the arms embargo. We should like to reiterate that, for all practical reasons, Ukraine considers promotion of the negotiation process to be the only possible means of resolving the conflict peacefully. A settlement should be based on the following principles: immediate cessation of hostilities; withdrawal from the territories occupied by force or through "ethnic cleansing"; elimination of the consequences of the condemnable policy

A year ago, we met here to consider a draft resolution on this same subject. At that time - as now - the international community expressed its deep concern at the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I regret to say that, since then, there has been no improvement in the situation of that State Member of the United Nations. For the Government of Mexico, the continuing violations of human rights, the policies of "ethnic cleansing" and the acts of aggression aimed at the acquisition of territory by the use of force are a matter of great concern. Mexico rejects any action designed to limit or obliterate the political independence, territorial integrity, self-determination and, finally, the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mexico joins in the international community’s call for an end to violence, aggression and oppression and for viewing the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina as similar to those experienced by the human race in the darkest of times. We join also in the emphatic appeal to all the parties that are responsible, directly or indirectly, for aggression to cease immediately their siege and their attacks on the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to seek, in good faith, a solution to the conflict. We believe that there is an urgent need to resume the Geneva International Conference. It is imperative that resolutions adopted by the Security Council with a view to putting an end to this tragic situation be implemented. Failure to comply with Security Council resolutions undermines the effectiveness of the means available to the international community for finding solutions to the serious problems confronting the community of nations. The resolution that the General Assembly has just adopted contains numerous elements which we support and with which we agree fully. However, my delegation abstained in the voting because, from our point of view, the text also contains certain provisions that depart from the letter and the spirit of the United Nations Charter. Mexico’s abstention is, in effect, a vote in favour of a solution in keeping with the principles of the United Nations Charter and therefore permanent and lasting.

The Australian Government remains deeply concerned at the appalling situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We condemn the continued attacks on Sarajevo and the fighting in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are still causing death and injury and The Australian Government continues to call on all parties to the fighting to abide by the various cease-fire arrangements and to end the bloodshed. We therefore strongly support the resolution’s aims of affirming the rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Charter of the United Nations, bringing the violence there to an end, ending the grave violations of human rights which have been and are taking place, and restoring peace and stability to that country and to the region. It is for these reasons - these central and compelling reasons - that we voted in favour of the resolution, even though we continue to have reservations that the lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina would in itself facilitate a peaceful resolution of the fighting. Above all, the Australian Government wants to see a peaceful solution to this tragedy and an end to the fighting. We believe that our search for those outcomes requires the maintenance of international pressure upon the parties concerned. Furthermore, we believe that every effort should continue to be made to prevent the fighting from spreading to other areas and involving other countries. Finally, we strongly support the actions taken to date by the Security Council to limit and end the fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we urge the Council to continue its efforts.

New Zealand has sought two outcomes to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina: first, a just settlement of the differences which underlie the conflict by negotiation rather than the use of military force; and, secondly, humanitarian assistance for the alleviation of suffering. The resolution on which the Assembly has just taken action addresses itself to both these questions. The resolution calls upon all concerned to facilitate the unhindered flow of humanitarian assistance. This is of critical importance. It reaffirms the rights of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes, and it rejects the practice of "ethnic cleansing". It urges that practical steps, such as the reopening of Tuzla airport, be taken. New Zealand strongly supports all these provisions. We also support the efforts that have been made by the Secretary-General, through his Special Representative, by the United Nations Protection Force and by the European Union The resolution also deals with the principles on which a settlement must be based, and we support those principles. New Zealand has always strongly believed that a durable peace can be reached only as a result of a negotiated settlement. That is why we supported the Geneva negotiations and, before that, the Vance-Owen peace plan, and it is why we have supported efforts in the Security Council to ensure that the Bosnian Government is not put in a position in which its ability to negotiate freely is in any way limited. With respect to the current phase of negotiations, we are pleased that, under European Union auspices, the parties have agreed to continue negotiating. We abstained in the voting on the resolution because, in our view, there are some elements that will not facilitate a negotiated settlement. In particular, we have difficulty with the request to the Security Council to give urgent consideration, as far as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is concerned, to the lifting of the arms embargo imposed on the former Yugoslavia by Security Council resolution 713 (1991). We acknowledge the important efforts made by the sponsors to accommodate our concerns, but we remain of the view that increasing the flow of arms to the region will do nothing to promote a negotiated settlement. More weapons will not help the parties to reach a peaceful settlement. In fact, if there is a lesson to be learned from United Nations experiences in other regions, it is that a reduction in the number of weapons through disarming and demilitarization provides the only necessary basis for long-term security and stability. That security and stability is what the territory of the former Yugoslavia desperately needs.

The Argentine Republic reiterates its full recognition of and respect for the political independence, territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, it insists on the need to put an immediate end to the serious and systematic violations of the human rights of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and unequivocally and most strongly condemns the perverted practice of "ethnic cleansing", which is a disgrace to humanity and will be a true stigma on those who promote, practise or tolerate it. It also condemns the aggression of which Bosnia and Herzegovina is a victim, because it endangers international peace and security. We stress the need for free access to and free distribution of humanitarian assistance, which the United Nations has striven to provide to a civilian population that is the innocent victim of the hatred, resentment and folly of those who have fed the flames of destruction. In this respect, we condemn all those who, on any pretext, interrupt, delay or divert the flow of assistance. They deserve our vigorous condemnation for their blatant scorn for the value of the human person. We recognize the courage and sacrifice of all those who, whether in military uniforms or civilian clothes risk their lives daily in foreign lands for international peace and security, doing so with a nobility and generosity which can never be forgotten or ignored. We urge respect for the civilian populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who should be allowed unimpeded access to water, electricity and fuel and should have their basic needs attended to. We demand the elimination and dismantling of detention or concentration camps or centres throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia and the renunciation of all forms of torture. The Argentine Republic supports the speedy passing of judgement with regard to all crimes against the norms of humanitarian law committed in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It hopes for the vigorous condemnation of all those who are individually responsible for these crimes. We urge the resumption of negotiations to resolve all aspects of the conflict by peaceful means and to find a just and lasting solution. We thank all those who are involved in this effort. Despite all that I have said, because of the wording of some operative paragraphs my delegation decided to abstain in the voting on the resolution.

Although my delegation voted in favour of the resolution, we are deeply troubled by certain aspects of it. That is particularly the case with regard to operative paragraph 19, which in effect calls for the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the United Nations. The Tanzanian delegation is also troubled by what we see as the effect of the action proposed in paragraph 18. While its intent is clear and has our general sympathy, the effect, we fear, could be an escalation of the conflict, resulting in more suffering for all communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There have been far too many deaths and too much suffering and anguish. Our objective should be to stop the fighting and end the killing, not to aggravate the situation by creating conditions for an escalation of the conflict. Miss THOMAS (Jamaica): The delegation of Jamaica voted in favour of draft resolution A/48/L.50 as an expression of our support for the suffering people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and our grave concern about the deepening crisis in that republic. However, we have serious reservations about paragraph 17, as it is our belief that the lifting of the arms embargo will not contribute to the achievement of peace, and about paragraph 19, concerning the ending of the de facto working status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), as it is our belief that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should remain within the United Nations, where, under the Charter, it can be held directly accountable for its actions. It will be recalled that Jamaica abstained in the vote on resolution 47/1 at the time of its adoption.

On 24 September 1991, when the Security Council adopted its first resolution on the crisis in Yugoslavia, Ecuador, then a member of the Council, expressed its support for efforts to bring about a comprehensive, negotiated, peaceful settlement of the conflict based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and on international law. We condemned the use or threat of the use of force as a means of settling disputes. We referred to the need to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, not to recognize any change of borders imposed by force, and to Since that time, regrettably, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has continuously deteriorated. Humanitarian assistance has declined to intolerable levels. International action has proved both complicated and inadequate. Ecuador considers that the resolution just adopted has the full moral and political authority needed to make the parties stop and think, and cooperate with the United Nations in the search for a solution to the conflict, a solution that meets the legitimate rights and interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We need compliance with Security Council resolutions; even more, we need the implementation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Only then will it be possible to establish peace, stability and justice in that long-suffering part of the world. There must be respect both for the rights of States and, above all, for the rights of every member of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose suffering and martyrdom are an affront to mankind. Ecuador considers that the resolution just adopted constitutes a vigorous appeal along those lines, and for that reason we voted in favour.

The delegation of Brazil fully shares the widespread sense of frustration at the inability to put an end to the murderous conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a State Member of the United Nations, and we respect the initiative of the sponsors of draft resolution A/48/L.50. Many of its elements have our unreserved support. We agree that no acquisition of territory through the use of force can be condoned by the international community, and we share the utmost revulsion at the very notion of the heinous crime that has become known as "ethnic cleansing". A humanitarian tragedy of unbearable proportions is being inflicted upon the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite the untiring efforts of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), United Nations agencies and private organizations to provide emergency relief assistance to those in need. The unhindered flow of such humanitarian assistance must be ensured. My delegation welcomes the diplomatic efforts currently under way on the initiative of the European Union, as it firmly believes that only a solution arrived at through peaceful means acceptable to the three communities can As we see it, some elements of the resolution just adopted did not adequately reflect that perception. My delegation was therefore not in a position to support the draft resolution.

The Assembly has concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 42.

I call on the Rapporteur of the Third Committee to introduce the reports of the Third Committee in a single intervention. Mrs. RECINOS de MALDONADO (Guatemala), Rapporteur of the Third Committee (interpretation from Spanish): I have the honour to introduce the following On agenda item 107, "Elimination of racism and racial discrimination", the Third Committee, in paragraph 12 of document A/48/625, recommends the adoption of two draft resolutions. In paragraph 8 of document A/48/625/Add.1, it recommends the adoption of one draft resolution and in paragraph 9, the adoption of a draft decision. Agenda item 108 is entitled "Right of peoples to self-determination". On sub-item (a), "Right of peoples to self-determination", the Third Committee, in paragraph 18 of document A/48/626, recommends the adoption of three draft resolutions. On sub-item (b), "Effective realization of the right of self-determination through autonomy", the Committee, in paragraph 11 of document A/48/626/Add.1, recommends the adoption of one draft decision. On agenda item 109, "Social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family", the Third Committee, in paragraph 28 of document A/48/627, recommends the adoption of six draft resolutions; in paragraph 29, the Committee recommends the adoption of one draft decision. On agenda item 110, "Crime prevention and criminal justice", the Third Committee, in paragraph 18 of document A/48/628, recommends the adoption of three draft resolutions. On agenda item 111, "Advancement of women", the Third Committee, in paragraph 23 of document A/48/629, recommends the adoption of eight draft resolutions. On agenda item 112, "International drug control", the Third Committee, in paragraph 7 of document A/48/630, recommends the adoption of one draft resolution. On agenda item 113, "Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions", the Third Committee, in paragraph 31 of document A/48/631, recommends the adoption of six draft resolutions. I turn now to agenda item 114, "Human rights questions". Under sub-item (a), "Implementation of human rights instruments", the Third Committee recommends the adoption of the two draft resolutions contained in paragraph 11 of document A/48/632/Add.1. I should like to inform the Assembly that Ireland has asked to be included in the list of sponsors of draft resolution I. In addition, the text that appears in document A/48/632/Add.3 as draft Under sub-item (b), "Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms", the Third Committee, in paragraph 88 of document A/48/632/Add.2, recommends the adoption of 21 draft resolutions. In document A/48/632/Add.4, the Third Committee, in paragraph 14, recommends the adoption of one draft resolution and, in paragraph 15, of one draft decision. Under sub-item (c), "Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives", the Third Committee, in paragraph 67 of document A/48/632/Add.3, recommends the adoption of 13 draft resolutions. On agenda item 115, "Situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia", the Third Committee, in paragraph 14 of document A/48/633, recommends the adoption of one draft resolution. On agenda item 172, "Necessity of adopting effective measures for the promotion and protection of the rights of children throughout the world who are victims of especially difficult circumstances, including armed conflicts", the Third Committee, in paragraph 15 of document A/48/634, recommends the adoption of two draft resolutions. On agenda item 12, "Report of the Economic and Social Council", the Third Committee, in paragraph 11 of document A/48/624, recommends the adoption of four draft decisions. Draft decision I, "Organization of work of the Third Committee and draft biennial programme of work of the Committee for 1994-1995", should contain the following additions, which led to the Third Committee’s adoption of the draft resolution that in the Committee appeared in document A/C.3/48/L.85 and was entitled "High Commissioner for the promotion and protection of all human rights". First, in section E of annex I, under sub-item (b) of item 114, the subject "High Commissioner for the promotion and protection of all human rights" should be listed for annual consideration. Secondly, in annex II, under sub-item (b) of item 114, two documents should be included: the report of the High Commissioner, which is submitted to the General Assembly through the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council; and the report of the Before concluding, I take this opportunity to express thanks to all the members of the Third Committee for their contribution to the Committee’s work. I wish also to pay a tribute to the Chairman, Ambassador Eduard Kukan of S l o v a k i a , a n d t h e t w o V i c e - C h a i r m e n , Mr. Berend van der Heijden of the Netherlands and Mrs. Noria Abdullah Ali Al-Hamami of Yemen, for the efforts they made to ensure the successful completion of the Committee’s work on schedule. My thanks go also to Ambassador Gilberto Saboya of Brazil and Ambassador Chew Tai Soo of Singapore, and very particularly to Ambassador José Ayala Lasso of Ecuador, for his valuable and effective efforts as Chairman of the Working Group, which led to the adoption of the draft resolution on the High Commissioner for the protection and promotion of all human rights. In addition, I express my thanks to the members of the Secretariat for their valuable cooperation and punctual performance of their duties.

I should like to inform members that the representative of Bolivia has expressed a desire to make a statement in connection with the report of the Third Committee on sub-item (b) of agenda item 114 - "Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms". That report is contained in document A/48/632/Add.2. Bearing in mind rule 66 of the rules of procedure, may I take it that the Assembly agrees to discuss that report?

If there is no other proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the Assembly decides not to discuss the other reports of the Third Committee that are before the Assembly today.

Other statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Third Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401 the General Assembly agreed that May I remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Third Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Third Committee, unless notified otherwise in advance. This means that where recorded or separate votes were taken, we shall do the same in the Assembly. I would also hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Third Committee. The Assembly will now consider parts I and II of the report (A/48/625 and Add.1) of the Third Committee on agenda item 107, entitled "Elimination of racism and racial discrimination". We shall first consider part I of the report of the Third Committee, contained in document A/48/625. The Assembly will now take a decision on the two draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 12 of part I of its report. Draft resolution I is entitled "Status of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid". A recorded vote has been requested.

Draft resolution II is entitled "Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination". The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

We shall now consider part II of the report of the Third Committee, contained in document A/48/625/Add.1. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 8 of part II of its report and the draft decision recommended by the Committee in paragraph 9. We turn first to the draft resolution, entitled "Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination", which was adopted by the Third Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 107? Subsequent to the voting, the delegation of Korea advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour; the delegation of France had intended to abstain.