A/49/PV.50 General Assembly

I should like to inform representatives that following consultations regarding this agenda item, and taking into account General Assembly decision 48/408 of 16 November 1993, it is proposed that the General Assembly should decide to postpone consideration of this item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fiftieth session. May I therefore take it that the Assembly, taking into account decision 48/408, wishes to defer consideration of this item and to include it in the provisional agenda of the fiftieth session?

The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 45.

I call on the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to introduce the draft resolution.

At the outset, allow me to congratulate Mr. Essy on his assumption of the presidency of the General Assembly. Even at this early stage of the forty-ninth session, the impact of his commitment and leadership is making its mark. On behalf of its sponsors, I would like to introduce draft resolution A/49/L.14/Rev.1 entitled “The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. The draft resolution follows the precedent established over the previous two sessions of the General Assembly. It combines promotion of the principles of international law and of the United Nations Charter with encouragement of the pragmatic measures that are necessary to uphold these principles. At the same time, in comparison with its predecessors, this draft resolution is indeed more critical for both peace in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the integrity of the principles that bind all of us here in the United Nations. While aggression, human rights abuses and suffering continue unabated in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, morality and legality are marginalized more and more each day. In the meantime, peace — even the measures necessary to deliver peace — is further away than ever before. In Srebrenica, which almost two years ago became synonymous with cold-blooded shelling and targeting of civilians, is now subjected to another form of less visible but more calculated brutalization and suffocation. The people of Srebrenica are now denied not only adequate food and medicine, but also essential hygiene and nutrients necessary for survival. With the Serbian forces preventing the outside world from knowing of this new technique of “ethnic cleansing” and slow-motion murder, the civilians are suffering from horrendous diseases not lately seen in civilization, which are brought on by the physical and psychological consequences of being denied salt, detergents, soaps and other essentials. It is as if the Leningrad of the Second World War had converged with a leper colony of Europe’s dark Middle Ages. In the meantime, the mechanisms that have been formally adopted by the Security Council to minimize human rights abuses, suffering and aggression are systematically marginalized and manipulated and conveniently forgotten. Security Council resolutions, such as resolution 770 (1992), which call for the “necessary measures” to deliver humanitarian relief, or even the “safe area” resolutions — Security Council resolutions 819 (1993), 824 (1993) and 836 (1993) — have become relics, as if they had been adopted by the League of Nations and not the United Nations. Similarly, Security Council resolutions meant to uphold international law and the United Nations Charter, which were only recently trumpeted as heralding a new resolve and commitment, are now lying in cold-file drawers, as if in an overflowing morgue of principles awaiting the final burial and eulogy of excuses. Now is the time not only to resurrect the practical and legal mechanisms that are Bosnia’s hope, but also to breathe new life into the principles that are taken for granted or too often ignored. The draft resolution is over 50 paragraphs long, but only two of the paragraphs address the issue of the arms embargo. This is not an arms-embargo draft resolution. It is a draft resolution that espouses key principles, promotes peace efforts, brings hope of success and urges practical Unfortunately, I will have to focus too much of my statement on the matter of the arms embargo, because it is the one element that is most challenged by the detractors of this draft resolution. However, I must remind those present who are prepared to support the legal and moral principles behind the draft resolution that these principles are not self-executing, and, in fact, they may present us with difficult choices. By the way, we should not be under the illusion that even these principles have universal support from all the Governments that are represented in the Assembly. Some wish to limit the applicability of these principles as a matter of expediency, thereby relegating many of our nations, including the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to third-class status within the family of nations under the United Nations Charter. Today it is the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yesterday it was Czechoslovakia and Ethiopia, which, through the application of double standards, became the undoing of the League of Nations. Tomorrow it could be almost any one of us. We would have hoped that the international community would unequivocally come to the defence of our country and put an end to aggression, human rights abuses and the suffering of our targeted civilians. Unfortunately, it has not. If the international community is not prepared to pursue peacemaking, then we must reassert our right and demand to undertake this task ourselves. We are truly appreciative of the assistance and commitment, particularly the humanitarian relief, provided through the efforts of numerous individuals, non- governmental organizations and countries, as well as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and UNPROFOR. In view of the suffering and needs of others, such as those in Rwanda, we do indeed feel fortunate. At the same time, it appears that some would use this response If asked, we are prepared to make difficult choices ourselves. But we are not being asked; instead, we are being told. Let us be clear. If given the option between the continuing role of UNPROFOR and, on the other hand, the effective lifting of the arms embargo imposed on our Government, we choose the option of directly addressing the continuing root causes and aggression by the lifting of the arms embargo. After all, it is our inferiority in quality and quantity of weapons that has allowed this aggression to be continued and that has necessitated the valuable assistance of UNPROFOR and others to mitigate the consequences of suffering. We cannot anticipate that the international community will feed us indefinitely, nor do we ask others to fight our battles; but we do expect our right to self-defence to be honoured and our desire to control our own fate to be respected, once and for all. Some have argued that if the arms embargo against our Republic is lifted we shall soon be subjected to an even greater military might and overrun. This argument overlooks the fact that we were put in the most disadvantageous position at the beginning of the aggression and that our army and civilian population are not now, and have not at any time in the past been, the beneficiaries of either mercy or a restrained Serbian onslaught. This is a risk that once again, regardless, we must decide upon ourselves. It is not something to be ruled upon by others — presumably acting in our interests. Some now argue that, in fact, the Bosnians are already too strong and that they do not need any more weapons of self-defence. As Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country which is still two-thirds occupied, whose cities, including its capital, are still besieged, whose population continues to be subjected to immeasurable crimes and suffering and whose enemy refuses to accept an internationally sponsored peace plan, it is indeed an escape from reality to argue that we are already too strong. More to the point, this claim is in contravention of our status as a Member State of the United Nations, of our sovereignty and of our territorial integrity. This cynical approach has been a total failure on all counts. Once again we must ask: what kind of United Nations Charter and legal principles is it that we are sustaining if military might is legitimized as a counterbalance to legality and morality in order to coerce people into any settlement? On 27 September 1994 our President, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, appeared before this Assembly and offered the compromise that the Security Council should, de jure, lift the arms embargo while deferring practical application — de facto application — for six months. In fact, this compromise offer is contained in the text of the draft resolution that is before the Assembly. Our purpose in making it is to maximize the pressure on the Karadzic Serbs to accept and implement the Contact Group peace plan, while allowing more time for the pressure to have its impact before the de facto lifting. We also see this as the most effective means of coordinating the efforts of us all — the Bosnians, the Contact Group, the Security Council, UNPROFOR troop contributors and the rest of the international community — in the search for peace and as a way to minimize the potential unfavourable impact on the humanitarian efforts of UNPROFOR and others. Unfortunately, our offer was misrepresented as a sign of fear and indecision. Not so. As we have said, given the option, we would be clear about what to do, even if immediate application were at issue. Our compromise offer is a sign that we are committed to exhausting all options for peace and to minimizing potential negative implications. As part of its plan to bring peace to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Contact Group itself has offered that the arms embargo should be lifted in response to rejection of the peace proposal by the Karadzic Serbs. We accepted the peace plan despite the fact that it demands of us the most difficult — even unjust — concessions. The Karadzic Serbs rejected the peace plan, Today we reiterate our offer that the actual lifting of the arms embargo be deferred for six months, but we can no longer be consoled by promises that never materialize and may, in fact, be as unreachable as the end of the rainbow. We would, indeed, agree to further deferment if there were concrete indications of progress towards peace, including acceptance of the Contact Group’s peace plan by the Karadzic Serbs. Once again we ask: when will all the members of the Contact Group, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, besides the United States, as permanent members of the Security Council, deliver on their commitment finally to lift the arms embargo? They say once again that the time is not yet quite right, that all other options have not been exhausted. But every time they have responded to this question in Security Council debates over the past two years they have said “Not just yet.” We certainly could read more sinister motives into this ever-continuing exercise, but we shall only seek to avoid the indefinite manipulation of our good will and our commitment to peace. In many of our cultures and nations the rainbow is a symbol of hope. For two and a half years now we have been told that we must follow the path to the end of the rainbow, towards peace. For two and a half years, as peace efforts have been rejected and aggression has continued, we have been told that not today, but maybe tomorrow, it will finally be time to lift the arms embargo on the victim so that we can defend ourselves. We are tired of chasing the end of the rainbow. In fact, there is not even a rainbow over the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is still in the midst of a shower of war, “ethnic cleansing”, sieges and suffering. Please do not promise us any more fortunes at the end of the rainbow. We just want to put an end to the storm that is overwhelming all of our Republic.

The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is still the most serious international crisis to have confronted the global community since the end of the cold war. Almost three years have passed, and the carnage and savagery of aggression and “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and Herzegovina remain unresolved. Between 200,000 and 300,000 people have died since June 1991, and 2.7 million people have been reduced to being refugees. An Our debate here today cannot merely express our anguish. Our message to the Serbs, the major Powers and the Security Council should be cogent and clear: that we reject the acquisition of land by force, that perpetrators of genocide and violators of human rights will be brought to justice and that the international community is collectively determined to uphold the rule of law. We must also remind the Council of its obligation, under the Charter, to restore peace and security and of the need for it to reaffirm the inherent right of Bosnia and Herzegovina to self-defence in accordance with Article 51. The Security Council has adopted more than 63 resolutions on this subject, and the General Assembly has adopted 17 resolutions. But all these resolutions have been like paper admonitions: they have had scant effect on the ground. We have repeatedly stated that the Security Council can and must act to end this conflict. The Council’s inaction on Bosnia and Herzegovina compares miserably with its relatively successful decisions and actions in respect of other parts of the world. Is it lack of capability or resources or is it lack of leadership and political will that has resulted in the failure to use all the necessary means of securing success in addressing the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina? On the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is an open secret that the Council suffers from serious divisions between certain major Powers with their competing special interests. These Powers, while occupying the high moral ground on human rights and democracy, seem to be unfazed by the massive human-rights violations and the acts of aggression and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, has pointed out that relentless military action by Bosnian Serb forces has turned the areas designated as United Nations safe areas under Security Council resolution 836 (1993) into areas under siege. Indeed, United Nations safe areas, especially It is no wonder, then, that the Serbs continue to openly flout Security Council resolutions. There is absolutely no fear on the part of the aggressors that they will be punished for their violations of international law and human rights. The Serbs have reportedly disarmed and humiliated United Nations troops, taken potshots at them, and stolen heavy weapons held under their guard. In April they even placed some 40 United Nations military observers under virtual house arrest for several days, posting sentries outside their doors. Again and again, they have violated the United Nations proclaimed “no-fly-zone” in Bosnia, as well as the heavy weapons exclusion zones around Sarajevo and Gorazde. They have dragged their feet in meeting supposedly strict United Nations deadlines, have breached cease-fires and have treated promises as tools of deception, not words of honour. Finally, they have with impunity rejected the peace plan proposed by the Western Contact Group. On 23 September, in a combination of desperate action and political enticement, the Council adopted resolution 943 (1994), which partially lifted sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro. We regard the hasty adoption of resolution 943 (1994) as a major setback to international efforts to secure peace with justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It has come at a time when there has been a sharp escalation in Serb-sponsored violence against the Bosnian people, renewed strangulation of Sarajevo and intensification of “ethnic cleansing” campaigns in Banja Luka, Bijeljina and Prijedor. The Malaysian delegation would like to remind the Council that the forces opposed to the legitimate Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to benefit from Serbia and Montenegro’s past and present role in the war, especially the inheritance of Yugoslav National Army weaponry. We cannot ignore the fact that the pursuit of a Greater Serbia was engineered and espoused by the Belgrade regime. While we welcome Security Council resolution 947 (1994) on the extension of the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) for another six months, we are deeply concerned over the implications arising from the threats made by certain countries to withdraw their troops from UNPROFOR should the arms embargo be lifted. These threats have merely served to embolden the Serbs, who will then remain even more intransigent. The Serbs, with their superior war machine, At the same time, the Assembly must emphasize that the withdrawal of some troop contingents from UNPROFOR would not end the role of the United Nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, the United Nations should not be contemplating such a withdrawal, considering that there are over 63 resolutions pertaining to Bosnia and Herzegovina that have to be defended and enforced by the Security Council. In this regard too, we are disturbed by the report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council in which he appears to be making early preparations for the withdrawal of UNPROFOR. We must not leave the Bosnians at the mercy of the Serbs and abandoned by the United Nations. The international community has the moral obligation to remain in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On our part, Malaysia stands ready and committed to remain and continue to participate in UNPROFOR. We must also express our concern over the so-called impartiality of UNPROFOR in maintaining the status quo, which in the final analysis favours the Bosnian Serbs. UNPROFOR seems to have accepted the Bosnian Serb view that the siege of Sarajevo and the status of its civilian population as hostages are legitimate military counter-measures. It has also given rise to the perception that UNPROFOR fears offending the Bosnian Serbs. Some within the UNPROFOR Command have also chosen to characterize any Bosnian military action as detrimental, rather than as legitimate measures to defend civilian and sovereign interests. Surely, the victims and the aggressors cannot be treated alike by UNPROFOR. A call to maintain the status quo only benefits the Serbs, who occupy through arms and force 70 per cent of the territory. The cause of justice is not served by the argument that preserving the neutrality of UNPROFOR is synonymous with maintaining the status quo. My delegation also cannot understand the new concept of proportional retaliation. What proportional retaliation has the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the United Nations taken over the loss of 200,00 to 300,000 lives and the rape of 50,000 Bosnian women? We commend the 39,795 peace-keepers and the Governments of the 36 countries which have made contributions. The international community must remain vigilant and reject all insidious efforts to raise questions about certain sections of peace-keepers on the basis of religion. The point should not be missed that the peace- The Malaysian delegation would like once again to underline the courageous decisions taken by the leadership of Bosnia and Herzegovina to find a just and lasting solution. Notwithstanding its difficulties with the Western Contact Group’s peace plan, it has accepted the plan for the sake of peace and the end of human suffering. On 27 September 1994, in this very Assembly, President Alija Izetbegovic´ made the brave decision of proposing a deferment of six months before the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina would be lifted, going the last mile for peace. The Security Council has begun informal consideration of specific action, well overdue, to ensure that the arms embargo is no longer applicable to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The United States has initiated this welcome move. We applaud the United States for taking the lead in this initiative. We wish to take this occasion to call on the Assembly to give overwhelming support to the Security Council’s draft resolution on this move, so as to facilitate positive consideration in the Council. This is the time for the General Assembly to make its voice heard to support the right of self-defence of a beleaguered nation. It is our hope that, unlike the June 1993 meeting, the forthcoming Council meeting will endorse the draft resolution seeking the lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time, we want to make an open appeal to all the members of the Council, both permanent and non-permanent, to support the draft resolution. My Government in particular appeals to China and non-permanent members, such as New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, and the Czech Republic, and other non-aligned members, to ensure that Bosnia and Herzegovina is no longer unjustly deprived of its inherent right to self-defence, as enshrined in Article 51. Malaysia fully supports the efforts of the Special Coordinator for Sarajevo under Security Council resolution 900 (1994). The Government of Malaysia has to date contributed $1,050,000 to the United Nations Trust Fund for the Restoration of Essential Public Services in Sarajevo and Malaysia also participated in the first conference of donors to the action plan, held in Vienna on In conclusion, my delegation would like to appeal for the widest possible support for the General Assembly draft resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the name of humanity and the rule of law. The General Assembly, representing the will of the international community, cannot ignore the pleas and plight of the Bosnian people. The General Assembly must, following our debate, send a clear and categorical message to the Security Council, the major Powers and the aggressors. If the Council fails to fulfil its Charter responsibility, then the general membership may have no choice but to request the convening of a special session of the General Assembly on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I should like to propose that, if there is no objection, the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed at 11 a.m. today.

The unprovoked armed attacks and continued Serbian aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with the continuation of the plight of the Muslim people of that country, have made it imperative for the General Assembly to discuss the situation in Bosnia once more. Since last year we have witnessed quite a number of positive and, unfortunately, negative developments. While the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has shown the utmost flexibility and a spirit of conciliation and accommodation, no serious measure has been taken against the continued stubbornness of the Serbs. The clear act of aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a sovereign and independent State and a Member of the United Nations, is in its third year. Since the outbreak of the conflict many resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council, but unfortunately they have not stopped the aggressors from continuing their insanity. Instead, a nation was deprived of its inherent right to individual or collective self-defence, recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, as a result of the Security Full implementation of the Security Council decisions concerning safe areas and exclusion zones is of vital importance and an element essential to an overall solution. However, the siege of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities and safe areas has recently been intensified and the safety of the inhabitants of those areas has been seriously endangered by Serb forces. Regrettably, the Security Council has not demonstrated the appropriate resolve to uphold its decisions and to face up to Serbian violence and intransigence. Safe areas must be protected and the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) should be directed to take the necessary measures in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions in this regard. Furthermore, the Security Council should without further delay implement fully its resolution 770 (1992) to ensure the unhindered flow of humanitarian assistance, including the provision of water, electricity and fuel, particularly to safe areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina courageously accepted the peace plan. The Government of Bosnia has proved, beyond any doubt, its sincere desire to achieve peace. The Serbian side, on the other hand, rejected the peace plan in practice and defied the will of the international community with impunity. In effect, the Security Council’s failure to adopt serious measures to encourage the Serbs to abandon their policy of intransigence and comply with the peace plan sent the wrong signal to the aggressors and their patrons in Serbia and Montenegro. There is ample evidence of the links between Serbia and Montenegro and the Bosnian Serbs responsible for the aggression against, and the massive and gross violations of human rights in, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fact that the Security Council has rewarded Serbia and Montenegro by easing sanctions despite its support for the Bosnian Serb forces should indeed cause us anguish. The Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in their meeting last September in New York, noted with consternation the adoption of Security Council resolution 943 (1994) concerning the easing of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. Their conclusion “...that the adoption of resolution 943 (1994) was premature, untimely and not conducive to efforts for promoting a just peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina” Not long ago, when President Izetbegovic addressed the Assembly and introduced his proposal concerning the question of an arms embargo against Bosnia, he again demonstrated the spirit of conciliation and accommodation which has come to be a symbol of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My delegation reiterates its call for the lifting of the arms embargo unjustly imposed on the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and at the same time welcomes the statement made by President Izetbegovic and supports his compromise proposal. In this context, the Security Council should declare that resolution 713 (1991) is inapplicable to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and should lift the unjust arms embargo against Bosnia in the manner reflected in the proposal of President Izetbegovic. Any decision on the part of the Security Council short of this just demand would definitely embolden the aggressors to commit further crimes against humanity. The Bosnian people should not be threatened with the withdrawal of certain forces of UNPROFOR from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Islamic countries have expressed on numerous occasions their readiness to offer more troops to UNPROFOR. The Security Council and the Secretary-General should avail themselves of this offer and make the necessary arrangements. My delegation supported the establishment of the International Tribunal for the prosecution of war crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Now that all delays in the work of the Tribunal have been removed, the judiciary process can proceed. We hope that the Tribunal can, without further delay, conduct its function of trying and bringing to justice those responsible for the perpetration of crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia. In concluding my statement, I should like to reiterate once again my Government’s support for the Bosnian Government in its struggle against aggression, genocide and “ethnic cleansing”. Upholding and restoring the sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a shared responsibility of the international community. It is in this context that my delegation is co-sponsoring and strongly supports the draft resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina proposed for consideration in the General Assembly. The draft resolution encompasses necessary elements and principles, the adoption of which would

Sadly, we are obliged once again to convene here to consider the tragic situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That its people are facing a fourth winter with little hope of seeing peace restored throughout their country is a profoundly distressing thought. Even with the deployment of United Nations peace-keepers, during the past three years countless innocent lives have been lost and millions of people have been forced to leave their homes. We continue to witness many horrible acts of violence; the massacre in Sarajevo’s central market this past February remains particularly vivid in our memory. There are, indeed, ample grounds for despair. It would be a terrible mistake, however, for the international community to conclude that the situation was hopeless and to give up in resignation, for as we assess developments over the past year we cannot fail to discern that, in fact, some very real progress has been made in Bosnia and Herzegovina. How much worse would the situation be today without the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) providing its various humanitarian and peace-keeping services? Its efforts have clearly been effective in reducing the level of violence and containing the conflict. Moreover, thanks in no small part to the mediation efforts of the United States, the dispute between the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian Croats has ended, and the two neighbouring communities have formed a federation. Nor should we ignore the joint efforts of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in protecting the safe areas, enforcing the exclusion zone, and, as a result, quelling the fierce fighting in Sarajevo, Gorazde, and other cities. Perhaps an even more significant development this year was the formation of the Contact Group, whose territorial proposal was accepted by all the parties except, unfortunately, the Bosnian Serbs. And finally, I cannot fail to note the decision of President Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to respond to the appeals of the international community to close its border with Bosnia and Herzegovina. On behalf of the Government of Japan, I should like to take this opportunity to pay high tribute to the Security Council, the contact group, the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY), and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for their dedicated efforts to restore peace to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to provide humanitarian assistance to its Of course, the situation is exceedingly fragile, and a great deal more remains to be done. But I feel it is important to recognize the accomplishments that have been achieved through the consistent and unified efforts of the international community so that we may be inspired to build on this progress and persevere in the months to come. In September 1994 the Security Council adopted resolutions 942 (1994) and 943 (1994), which tightened the economic sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs and partially lifted the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If Yugoslavia fulfils its obligations during the initial 100-day period, the possibility could be considered of easing the sanctions even further. These resolutions should serve the purpose of sending a strong signal that those who reject peace will be isolated, while those who cooperate in the peace process will receive international recognition. On the basis of this approach, which has Japan’s wholehearted support, the Bosnian Serbs should be made aware that they may find themselves utterly alone in the international arena, without expectations of aid or comfort from any quarter. We strongly urge the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to continue to cooperate with the international community, and to use its influence in persuading the Bosnian Serbs to do likewise. Moreover, Japan regards the mutual recognition of international borders to be the most urgent prerequisite to further progress towards peace. The Security Council recently extended the mandate of UNPROFOR for another six months. Because the future of UNPROFOR beyond that point is shrouded in uncertainty, a lack of significant progress at this time could have very grave consequences. Indeed, this may be the best and the last chance for us to achieve a just and enduring settlement. But the months are slipping by very quickly; the international community, united in its approach, must redouble its efforts to facilitate a peaceful solution. In that context, Japan believes that the question of lifting the arms embargo poses a serious problem in this situation. The utmost care will have to be exercised on this matter in the face of a very real danger that this step could escalate the fighting beyond our control, as well as jeopardize the safety of UNPROFOR personnel. The reconstruction and restoration of Sarajevo is another major concern. We in Japan are doing our utmost to ensure that the urgent needs of its people are met before the hardships of winter set in. I have stressed in my remarks the importance of strong and consistent international efforts. However, in the final analysis, it is the people and the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina who alone can determine the fate of their country. It is essential that all parties in that troubled region direct their efforts towards the achievement of a comprehensive negotiated settlement. I hope that they will be strengthened in that endeavour by the knowledge that they can depend on the international community for encouragement, guidance, and moral as well as material support.

At a time when the end of the cold war raised hopes that international relations would be conducted in a climate based on peace, security, coexistence, development and the resolution of disputes between States by dialogue and peaceful means, we find that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to deteriorate and become ever more complex, particularly with regard to the flagrant violations of human rights perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Those violations include all forms of savage extermination, “ethnic cleansing”, indiscriminate bombing, destruction of property, the starving of the population, the dispersal of populations, laying siege to towns and refugee camps, in contemptuous defiance and in disregard of every international resolution, with total impunity from any serious consequences. Notwithstanding the many international resolutions and presidential statements in the Security Council on this issue, we find that the international community continues to be unable to shoulder its responsibilities and to put an end to this flagrant aggression against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an aggression that threatens not only the The delegation of the United Arab Emirates finds that the international measure taken recently by the Security Council in relaxing sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has ignored the position of that party in support of the Serb aggressors in return for purported promises to close borders to the Bosnian Serb side. All international reports and every piece of evidence show that such promises were not serious, since weapons continue to reach the aggressor on whose side mercenary elements from Serbia and Montenegro continue to fight. My delegation believes that if the international community must take this new attitude vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), such an attitude should be accompanied by stringent measures designed to avoid rewarding the aggressor at the expense of the victim. Such measures should include strict monitoring arrangements by an effective international observer force to stem the flow of arms to the Bosnian Serb aggressors across the common border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). In addition, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must officially recognize the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its existing internationally recognized borders and comply with relevant international resolutions to deliver criminals to the International Tribunal. Pressure must be brought to bear also on the Bosnian Serb party to accept the peace plan of the Contact Group, which has been supported by the United Nations and accepted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government and people of my country have continuously voiced deep concern over the deteriorating situation of the population of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and particularly of that country’s Muslim population. We have expressed our anguish at the continuing acts of aggression by the Bosnian Serbs against that population, acts that have targeted also elements of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and humanitarian aid convoys. We express to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina our full support and reiterate our strong condemnation of the In light of the failure so far of every international diplomatic effort to reach a lasting political solution to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, my country renews its call to the General Assembly, and in particular to the permanent members of the Security Council, to seek a just solution to this crisis through the following measures: First, the setting up of clear-cut and definitive mechanisms to force the Bosnian Serb forces to withdraw from all the territories they have occupied, in accordance with the international peace plan; Second, allowing the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise its legitimate right to self- defence, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter, which requires the lifting of the arms embargo imposed on that Government; Third, strengthening the prompt use without prior warning of air strikes by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to deter violations by Serbian forces; Fourth, amending the mandate of UNPROFOR and providing it with greater competence so that it may perform a more effective role in providing international protection to civilians and securing the movement of humanitarian assistance convoys. In this connection, all pertinent Security Council resolutions must be implemented, especially those concerning the cease-fire, and forcing the Bosnian Serbs to accept the international peace plan; In conclusion, we reaffirm once again that a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina can be reached only through the aforementioned measures, which would lead to a just and lasting political settlement and enable the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to regain their sovereignty over all their land within secure and internationally recognized borders. Proceeding from this, the United Arab Emirates has co-sponsored draft resolution A/49/L.14/Rev.1 which is now before the Assembly.

Ever since the eruption of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina we have witnessed the violent and forcible subjugation of a Member State of our Organization. This horror has continued in all its intensity during the past year, with wide-ranging ramifications not only for the future of that Republic, but also for the Balkan region and beyond. This escalation and the resulting deterioration of the situation fully reflect utter defiance of the international community and its decisions, as well as a blatant violation of international humanitarian law. In this context, Indonesia, together with other non-aligned countries and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has consistently endeavoured to seek a speedy, negotiated settlement on the basis of the Charter and of the resolutions adopted by this Assembly and the Security Council. We are gravely concerned that a continuation of this unequal war may lead us to a new threshold with potentially disastrous consequences, as Bosnia faces the bleak prospect of the forcible dismantling of its multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society, the brutal decimation of its people and the gradual diminution of its independence and sovereignty. We need recall only that earlier peace plans collapsed, and that the latest, by the five-nation Contact Group, represents the third attempt to seek a negotiated settlement of the conflict, which has already taken a horrendous toll in human lives and material devastation. That plan calls upon the Bosnian Serbs to relinquish only parts of the Bosnian territory they overran. It apportions Rather than responding positively to Bosnia’s principled and conciliatory position, the Bosnian Serbs rejected the peace proposals, initiating a new phase in the Bosnian war and even raising the dangerous spectre of renewed carnage. Indeed, we have witnessed a steadily escalating reign of terror, a new phase of “ethnic cleansing” and the opening of major assaults against isolated Muslim enclaves. The siege and strangulation of Sarajevo have continued. “Safe areas” and exclusionary zones are being violated with impunity. Meanwhile, the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of refugees and a disturbing increase in displaced persons have further aggravated the already deteriorating situation. In the midst of a period of profoundly dismal prospects for an end to hostilities, we are dismayed and disappointed at the recent decision by the Security Council to ease the sanctions against Serbia, an easing which we regard as hasty and premature. Although Serbia has assured the international community that it no longer supports the war efforts of its surrogates in Bosnia and Herzegovina, doubts remain concerning its seriousness about abandoning the Bosnian Serbs to their fate. Given Belgrade’s record of duplicity, strict monitoring of the Serbian-Bosnian border is imperative. The continued refusal to allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to defend itself and to protect its people from being slaughtered cannot but be regarded as a denial of the Charter right to individual or collective self-defence. It has been self-evident that aggression has been sustained in Bosnia by the infringement of this right. Notwithstanding this, the Bosnian pleas for effective international intervention, or at least the lifting of the ill-conceived arms embargo, have gone unheeded. The consequences of a Furthermore, the Security Council should be convened with the aim of addressing as a matter of urgency the current situation in Bosnia and of taking effective measures to implement all relevant resolutions leading to a comprehensive cessation of all armed conflict and the strengthening of the political process. This would include such measures as ensuring the effective lifting of the siege of Sarajevo and other besieged towns, and especially of “safe areas” in order to forestall further unmitigated attacks. In the face of continued intransigence by the Bosnian Serbs, the Council’s determined action will make a decisive contribution to ensuring the realization of the latest peace plan. The Bosnian Serbs’ persistent refusal, in my delegation’s view, would call for the initiation of punitive measures as committed to by the Contact Group. And, taking into account recent developments, the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) should be further strengthened so that it can more fully perform its task. While there is still a clear need to remain vigilant, my delegation is greatly encouraged by the agreement reached last week between the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the actions contemplated therein, which include protection for UNPROFOR activities and exclusion zones and the promise of retaliatory action against further aggression. In view of the deadlock in the peace process, with its potentially destabilizing consequences, we believe that the i/nternational community should consider devising a mechanism for negotiations, including the convening of an appropriately structured international conference to deal with the wider aspects of the conflict in and around As envisaged by the ministerial meeting of non-aligned countries held in Cairo last June, such a conference will be convened under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of the parties to the conflict; countries contributing troops to UNPROFOR; representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement; the Contact Group of the Organization of the Islamic Conference; the European Union; permanent members of the Security Council; and the Secretary-General. The objectives of the proposed conference are, inter alia, the enforcement of an immediate cease-fire and the cessation of all military activities, the expansion of safe areas to include all of the territory of Bosnia, full respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, a just settlement of the claims by the parties concerned and a mechanism for implementing the agreement. In conclusion, Indonesia and other non-aligned countries are firmly committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes. We believe that a renewal of dialogue in good faith is essential to resolving this conflict and that a negotiated solution within the framework of an appropriate international mechanism is still within reach. The draft resolution before us is in full conformity with the previous resolutions adopted by the Assembly as well as with principles of international law and takes into account relevant developments. In my delegation’s view, it calls for unanimous adoption.

Allow me to begin by paying tribute to the people and Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina for their heroic stand against the genocidal aggression by the Serbs against them and against the culture and heritage of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For over two years now, the international community, as represented by the General Assembly and the Security Council has continued to stand and watch the tragedy of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the cool aloofness of a doctor dissecting a frog, as though Western civilization forgets all its slogans when it comes to what happens to the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have seen how the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina gave up even the principles declared by the Security Council by accepting the partition plan that was proposed by the Western Contact Group. We have seen also Bosnia and Herzegovina had lived for many years in a multi-national, multi-religious and multi-cultural society before the appearance on the scene of a gang of “ethnic cleansing” practitioners whose actions call to mind the atrocities of the Second World War. Here I should like to refer to a conversation with the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who reminded that long before people in the twentieth century started talking of plurality, the city of Sarajevo had lived in plurality, with the Muslim mosque, the Christian church and the Jewish temple standing side by side and coexisting in peace. Although enough resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council to enable the international community to force the aggressors to bow to the international will, the only resolution that the international community insists on implementing is an illegal one that defies the most basic principles of international legality and denies the right of States to self-defence, namely the Security Council resolution that imposed an arms embargo on the States of the former Yugoslavia. The policy of appeasement that Chamberlain pursued in Munich is very much alive now in dealing with the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia where we find the intellectual heirs of Chamberlain busily pursuing the same foolish policy whose awful results we all know. It is high time the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina was lifted. As for the threats by certain European States to withdraw their contingents in the United Nations Protection Force, such threats are tantamount to abandonment by those parties of their international and historical responsibilities, since their presence in the Security Council is not to serve their own interests but to serve the interests of international peace and security. There are many other countries that are quite capable of sending peace-keeping forces to take the place of those who would feel too terrified to stand up to the aggressors in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are harangued daily by reports, interviews, press analyses and news stories that try very hard to portray what is happening to Bosnia and Herzegovina as a mere civil war between two communities that are fighting over a piece of land. The ultimate aim is to persuade international public opinion that these two parties are not very different one from the other. Therefore, we have to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” and affirm yet once again to anyone who may have managed to remain dubious that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a case of flagrant and clear aggression by a hate group that feeds its hate with anachronistic and primitive ethno-religious philosophies. It must have become clear that the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the victim of aggression by a foreign State that is trying to overwhelm a nation that has been made defenceless through the lack of arms and that is begging the international community to enable it to exercise its very natural right to self-defence. It is pointless to go on speaking of incarcerations, imprisonment, rape, forced migration, the starving of a population or of any of those revolting acts perpetrated by the Serb factions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We declare loudly and clearly that the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina have the same right as any nation in the world to live and to govern in their own homeland. The Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina will not apologize for their beliefs, because Islam is a religion of love, peace and coexistence. The beliefs of one group or another became an issue only when the neo-Nazis began propagating their ideas that advocate “ethnic cleansing” and racial purity, ideas we had hoped were trampled under foot by history with the emergence of the United Nations and later, by the eclipse of the racist regime in South Africa. While we commend the efforts of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law It is encouraging indeed to see the international community standing firm when it comes to the settlement of conflicts in different parts of the world. However, we must question the silence surrounding the non- implementation of the pertinent and clearly-worded Security Council resolutions on Bosnia and Herzegovina while the news media show us daily many aspects of the tragedy of the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Serbs blockading roads and confiscating humanitarian assistance intended for the sick and the wounded. And on the following day, the media show us the representatives of the United Nations on their knees before the murderers in Pale, appeasing and begging. The seventh Special Ministerial Conference of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, held in September in Islamabad, Pakistan, issued a declaration that reflects the true feelings of international public opinion regarding the agony of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Conference affirmed that the arms embargo imposed against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is illegal, unjust and an impediment to the country’s exercise of its right to self-defence. The resolution of the Conference underscores the need for the Member States to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in its exercise of the right of self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for such exercise individually or in cooperation with other friendly States. Security Council resolution 713 (1991) on the arms embargo imposed against the former Yugoslavia applies only to Serbia and Montenegro as it cannot be implemented against a State that did not exist when the resolution was adopted. In this context, we call upon the Security Council once again immediately to uphold and reaffirm the right of self-defence and to discharge its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. By the same token, we reaffirm the We have waited very patiently. The farce being perpetrated by the Serbs has become all too repetitious, like monotonous episodes in a sinister soap opera, with the Security Council warning the Serbs, the Serbs prevaricating, the representatives of the United Nations declaring it difficult to take any action out of fear for the safety of United Nations personnel in the Protection Force, as if this Force was sent to ensure that the only victims should be the Muslims. We hope that the Organization, which millions of people trust to uphold what is right and stand up to what is evil, will realize that the time has come to take decisive action to reaffirm its credibility.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the President on his election. I am confident that he will guide us well. The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a challenge to the international community. Various efforts at the international and regional levels have not resulted in any enduring peace and stability in that country. The Bosnian people continues to suffer great hardships. Brunei Darussalam applauds the efforts of the Bosnian Government to act in good faith by showing its readiness to negotiate and compromise. I refer to the draft resolution before us, in which the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina is willing to defer for up to six months its intention of seeking the de jure lifting of the arms embargo. Brunei Darussalam hopes that the Bosnian Serbs will be able to reciprocate by being more accommodating in seeking a peaceful negotiation. At the same time, Brunei Darussalam appreciates the humanitarian work done by the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). We see no other alternative to UNPROFOR’s continuing to carry out its mission. On the continuation of sanctions, Brunei Darussalam would like to add its voice to that of the international community in calling for Serbia and Montenegro to recognize the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia before the sanctions can be lifted. In conclusion, to Brunei Darussalam the objective is to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its internationally recognized borders. We trust that this is the same basic objective of every Member of the United Nations.

Since the adoption by the General Assembly of its resolution 48/88, no real progress has been achieved in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Quite to the contrary, the situation has worsened. Civilians continue to suffer, and the historical capital of Sarajevo is under siege time and again. The territories designated by the United Nations as safe areas are no longer safe or protected. International mediation efforts are hamstrung and, as we have noticed, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina has accepted all peace plans, including the latest which was proposed by the international Contact Group, whilst Serbia rejected such plans. It is high time the international community distinguished between those who reject and are intransigent, and those who accept. This should be reflected in punishing one side and rewarding the other. The current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina makes it necessary for the United Nations to take a firm, resolute and prompt stand. It is obvious that the approach pursued so far in dealing with the problem is not serious. It is a blot of shame on the brow of the United Nations and of the international community as a whole. As the representative of Saudi Arabia has just put it, we are witnessing a sinister and monotonous soap opera that depicts nothing but the total denial of the rights of the Bosnian people. The Security Council and the General Assembly have adopted more than 60 resolutions so far, and none of them has been implemented. What we need to do now is to search for the effective means of enforcing the measures stipulated by the Charter for the implementation of United Nations resolutions, so that we may rectify the situation. It is now essential to supply the army of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the defensive weapons that would enable it to exercise its legitimate right to self-defence, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter. That article makes it abundantly The norms of our contemporary society totally reject the principle of collective punishment. Punishment should be the lot of the perpetrator of the crime. The fact of the matter is the arms embargo was applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of the embargo imposed on the components of the former Yugoslavia. Thereafter certain developments took place and led to the application of the embargo to Bosnia and Herzegovina alone. The upshot has been that Bosnia and Herzegovina, the victims of aggression, has become the party that is deprived of the right of self-defence as it cannot obtain the necessary military means to exercise that legitimate right. It is therefore high time the Security Council rectified this unfair situation with courage and logic by declaring the non-applicability of resolution 713 (1991) to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Egypt’s delegation wish to commend the diplomatic efforts deployed by the international Contact Group. We have always welcomed consultation and cooperation between the Group and the Contact Group of the Organization of the Islamic Conference concerning the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Having said this, we must call on the Contact Group to honour the undertakings it took upon itself in the proposed peace plan, with its complementary measures which the Contact Group affirmed would be enforced against the party that rejects the plan. Those measures included the lifting of the arms embargo. Therefore, in the light of Serbia’s rejection of the new peace plan that was accepted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in view of the fact that President Izetbegovic´ of Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrated the required flexibility which the international community should appreciate, by declaring before this General Assembly acceptance of the extension of the embargo for a further six months, the Security Council cannot be complacent and refuse to take this long-awaited step, namely the lifting of the arms embargo in order to enable Member States to provide the necessary assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina so that it may exercise its legitimate right to self-defence. The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in which Egypt participates exerts concrete efforts that we appreciate. We should like to affirm once again the importance of amending the mandate of UNPROFOR so that it may be able to provide genuine protection both to the territory and to the inhabitants of Bosnia and The delegation of Egypt supports the efforts of the civilian Coordinator in Sarajevo. In this context, Egypt has decided to contribute to the rehabilitation of Sarajevo with a team of experts and technicians, to the tune of 1 million United States dollars. Contacts regarding this contribution have been initiated, both with the United Nations and the authorities of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In conclusion, Egypt, as one of the sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.14/Rev.1, calls upon the General Assembly to adopt the resolution unanimously, as an expression of international support for the people and Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in their present plight.

We meet today at a time when the plight of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina has reached a new high as a result of the war of liquidation and abhorrence to “ethnic cleansing” waged by the Bosnian Serb forces with the support of Serbia and Montenegro. Since the Second World War, the world has witnessed many cases of brutal aggression, one of which was the aggression by the Iraqi regime against my country, Kuwait. We have seen many instances of the violation of human rights, many of which have been savage indeed. However, never before have we seen a more atrocious combination of aggression and genocide as that which continues unabated in Bosnia and Herzegovina under the eyes of the international community. It is ironic indeed that such a tragedy should take place in a continent that prides itself on its commitment to human rights, international legality and human justice. The fair-minded international community that realizes the gravity of this human tragedy and its consequences must have noted the bias that is quite apparent in the handling of this question. We are extremely concerned over the situation regarding the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) stationed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We share the concern of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that the mandate and activities of that international Force could aggravate the threat of perpetration by the Bosnian Serbs of acts which cannot be deterred, and which, at times, are marginalized or even ignored. Fortunately, the implementation of Security Council resolutions 824 (1993) and 836 (1993), on the establishment of safe areas through the concept of the exclusion zone imposed by forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), has changed the situation somewhat. The exclusion zone is a practical embodiment of the concepts of military deterrence and military response that go into the proper definition of a safe area. However, this has been redefined by UNPROFOR through its own interpretation of its mandate. UNPROFOR has begun to define any Bosnian Government military action in defence of the interests of the civilian population and of its own legitimate sovereign interests as a harmful act while the Bosnian Serbs’ use of heavy weapons inside the exclusion zone is passed over in silence as a “necessary” act for the Bosnian Serbs in maintaining their military edge and maintaining the status quo. In our view, this artificial self-defined mandate of UNPROFOR’s ignores the facts on the ground and does not differentiate between the perpetrator and the victim. Indeed, the roles have now been reversed, so that the victim has been cast in the role of the perpetrator. We hope the Security Council will consider the request by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that UNPROFOR should halt any mandate or activity that runs counter to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that contravenes the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. We have perused the first annual report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the The United Nations now has an impressive corpus of international norms making it incumbent upon States and individuals to act in a humane fashion. The establishment of the Tribunal is a test of those norms and of whether they can truly be enforced and translated into a living reality. The Tribunal is unique in modern history. It is the first criminal court to be created by the United Nations; the only analogous bodies were the two international military courts that sat in Nuremberg and in Tokyo. The establishment of the Tribunal was a juridical response to the crimes against humanity and the war crimes perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia, in violation of the most basic tenets of humanitarian law. In 1948, the International Court of Justice stated that basic humanitarian considerations are more relevant in time of peace than in time of war. It is hoped that the Tribunal will promote the protection of those basic humanitarian considerations. Humanitarian organizations and the international media confirm that areas under Bosnian Serb control continue to be subjected to the most violent waves of “ethnic cleansing”. On 21 September 1994, more than 3,000 Muslims and Croats, including elderly and disabled persons, were brutally driven out of their homes and forced to flee to territory controlled by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In mid-July 1994, more than 10,000 Muslims and hundreds of Croats, including elderly and disabled people, were forced to flee. The International Committee of the Red Cross has officially confirmed that “ethnic cleansing” is now entering its final phase in many areas, including Bijeljina and Banja Luka. The report (S/1994/674) of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780 (1992) of 6 October 1992 reviews a whole gamut of grave violations of the Geneva Convention and the First and Second Protocols. The report states that as a result of the attacks on towns and villages such as Prijedor, unarmed civilians — not Serbs, of course — have been killed by the hundred, if not by the thousand, in their homes. The report also confirms the emergence of certain patterns in the camps established by Bosnian Serbs, including the creation of special camps for “ethnic The Bosnian Serbs continue to reject the peace plan proposed by the Contact Group. This can only prolong the plight of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnian Serb forces continue to refuse to lift their siege against Sarajevo and many other cities and towns in the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Those forces also continue to defy United Nations peace-keeping forces. They continue to defy the resolutions of the United Nations. In all this, they have been encouraged by what they have perceived as impotence on the part of the international community, and particularly the European countries, which bear a direct responsibility for the enforcement of the sanctions and other measures necessary to end Serb aggression. The tragedy in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a historic challenge to us all. The international community, which has stood by as a mere spectator of the war of extermination waged against Bosnia and Herzegovina, must shoulder the responsibility of providing the Bosnian Government with all necessary means to maintain a viable State with a democratic, multicultural society. Any potential peace agreement must also provide the means for effective implementation of the provisions of such agreement. Consequently, any final settlement must include international guarantees for the security of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the future. In the light of the Serbian aggressors’ continuing trampling of international resolutions, the United Nations must begin to implement the concept of collective security called for by the founding fathers of this international Organization. It is a concept that should have been implemented in Bosnia from the very beginning of the crisis. The international community, and particularly the Security Council, must provide the necessary guarantees to make it possible to remedy the continuance of the tragic situation in Bosnia. This must be done by declaring the entire Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a “safe area” and by deploying international observers with a broad clear- cut mandate and credible force along Bosnia’s borders. Serbia and Montenegro’s recognition of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina is an essential prerequisite for consideration of the lifting of the sanctions against them. Serbia and Montenegro must make a full commitment to a complete implementation of all relevant The Bosnian Serbs’ continuing rejection of the peace plan proposed by the Contact Group makes it necessary to lift the arms embargo against the Muslim Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order for it to be able to exercise its legitimate right to self-defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The continuing imposition of an embargo on the victim while the aggressor’s power continues to be strengthened runs counter to the provisions of the Charter and to the most basic rules of justice. The human tragedy of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina has no precedent in contemporary history. The people and the Government of Kuwait, in sympathy for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in their suffering, has provided and continues to provide them with humanitarian and material assistance. We hope that such assistance will mitigate their suffering. However, mitigating the suffering of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not all that is needed and is not the solution. The international community must rise to its responsibility by protecting the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and enabling that people to defend itself. While the people and the Government of Kuwait salute the steadfastness of the Muslim heroes, we pray that God will raise their banner in victory and restore their rights and may peace prevail as in the Holy Koran: “If God helps you, none can overcome you.” (Suza III, verse 160)

I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union. It is the common objective of the States members of the European Union to achieve the strongest possible pressure to end the war and tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina through a political settlement. Our debate today on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina offers the opportunity to focus on those elements which may strengthen the peace process in the coming months. In the process we should be guided by a realistic perspective that could help the international community to bring an end to the war and to the massive, gross and systematic violations of human rights in Bosnia. We call for strict respect for human rights and demand, in In particular, we condemn the “ethnic cleansing” which the Bosnian Serbs have systematically carried out in the areas under their control. Those responsible must be held personally accountable. We stress again the importance of the work of the International Tribunal set up for the punishment of all war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The peace plan of the Contact Group presented to the parties has been supported by the whole international community and accepted by all sides except one. It remains on the table without any modification. We welcome the courageous decision of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to accept the peace plan. We again condemn the rejection of the peace plan by the Bosnian Serbs. That decision has resulted in their complete political isolation. There can be no political talks or negotiations with them until they accept the peace proposal. Contrary to the rumours and disinformation they try to spread, even to their own people, they can have no hope that the peace plan will be changed by the international community. Only their acceptance can lead them out of this impasse. The Bosnian Serb leadership must realize that a continued policy of refusal and further “ethnic cleansing” will only bring them closer to the abyss. After acceptance by all parties, mutually agreed changes remain, of course, possible. We welcome Belgrade’s important decision to support the peace proposal of the Contact Group and to close the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and Bosnia. We also warmly welcome and support the establishment of the mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia under Colonel Pellnäs. That mission needs the full support of the international community. We expect that the authorities in Belgrade will continue to effectively close the border and support the mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. Continued reports of that mission in Belgrade on the effectiveness of the border closure will provide the basis for future action. That is why any information on the situation on the border should be directly communicated to the mission in Belgrade for further verification. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has a major responsibility for the present situation in the former Yugoslavia and must therefore contribute constructively to further progress towards a political solution. Further easing of United Nations sanctions, in the absence of Bosnian Serb acceptance of the peace plan, will be possible only if Belgrade takes significant further steps, proving by deeds that it has really changed its policy in the former Yugoslavia. Such a course of peace would, in our view, require the Belgrade authorities to take the following steps: recognition of Bosnia and Croatia within their internationally accepted borders; continued endorsement of the Contact Group plan for Bosnia, which would ensure, in the context of Bosnian Serb acceptance of the plan, balanced treatment for the Bosniac Croat and Bosnian Serb entities, including the establishment of parallel special relationships with neighbouring countries, provided that this would not be inconsistent with the integrity of the Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina; endorsement of the plan of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, once finalized, as the basis of the solution for the areas of Croatia under United Nations protection; and the maintenance of an effective and verified régime whereby exports from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to the Bosnian Serbs are restricted to humanitarian assistance until the Contact Group plan is accepted by Pale, and verified maintenance of the policy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) that exports to the Krajina Serbs are equally restricted until the International Conference’s plan for the areas of Croatia under United Nations protection, once finalized, is accepted by Knin. Only these bold steps by Belgrade would make possible a bold reaction by the international community. UNPROFOR remains an indispensable instrument for overcoming the tragic and unsatisfactory situation in that plagued country and for ensuring strict implementation of the Security Council’s decisions. The agreed close coordination of UNPROFOR and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will facilitate fast and efficient implementation of the decisions taken by the Security Council — in particular, those concerning safe areas — and of the related agreements with the parties. We express our deep concern about the recent increase in military activities, which threaten the peace effort at this critical juncture. We are particularly concerned about the situation in Sarajevo and the danger of its strangulation. We therefore strongly support the full demilitarization of Sarajevo and call on UNPROFOR to urgently finalize work on a concept for demilitarization. The creation of the Bosniac-Croat Federation constitutes a very significant step towards achieving an overall settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is of the utmost importance that the international community actively support the development of the Bosniac-Croat Federation at all levels. The European Union administration in Mostar is a concrete and tangible contribution to achieving reconciliation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only a short while after its establishment, Mr. Koschnik and his highly motivated European team are proving that it is possible to overcome, step by step, the mutual hatred and mistrust and to lay the foundation to enable the peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina to live peacefully together. In the same spirit, the European Union monitoring mission is playing an active role in the effort to reconcile the different communities — in particular, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From the beginning of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the European Union has been at the forefront in promoting peace and alleviating the suffering of the civilian population. We have taken the lead in the delivery The progress made thus far and the prospects for a negotiated settlement could be jeopardized by decisions with unpredictable consequences. The risk of spreading the conflict, of increased hostilities, has not diminished. The European Union is seriously concerned about the consequences of lifting the arms embargo. We consider that a political settlement should be pursued until all avenues are exhausted. That stage has not yet been reached. The lifting of the arms embargo must remain a last resort. All concerned should carefully analyse the impact of such a course on the situation and the risks that it would create for the civilian population, for the security and continued presence of UNPROFOR and for the peace process and the positive developments already achieved. For these reasons we cannot accept a lifting of the arms embargo and, therefore, we shall abstain in the voting on the draft resolution. What is needed in the coming months, on the basis of the results already achieved, is a decisive political effort to create the necessary conditions for a peaceful solution to the conflict, as foreseen in the Contact Group plan. The European Union remains committed to working with our partners to maintain the momentum of this process. At the same time, these political efforts will need the unanimous backing of the international community. We therefore strongly appeal to all those who want to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia to fully support, at this crucial juncture, efforts leading to bold steps towards the implementation of the peace proposal.

The feeling of hope which has been in the air since the efforts of the Contact Group towards a negotiated settlement received a new impetus, is vanishing. Events in Bosnia and Herzegovina in recent months — and even these days — have demonstrated the fragility of peace on the ground. The senseless fratricidal war seems to have entered a new dangerous phase. Regrettably, the parties to the conflict continue to see In our view, the unwillingness of the parties to the conflict to take into account the vital interests of the other ethnic communities living in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, political manoeuvring and reliance on force will only lead to aggravation of the situation and indefinite prolongation of the senseless bloodshed. Ukraine calls on the leadership of the Bosnian Serbs to show flexibility and join the efforts of the international community aimed at the peaceful settlement of the Bosnian crisis. We would also like to reiterate our condemnation of the disgraceful and illegal practices of so-called ethnic cleansing by whomsoever committed. Ethnic and religious intolerance and animosity will only result in long-lasting negative consequences for the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cessation of the brutal and shameful practices of violation of basic human rights and the rights of the national minorities is in the interests of all ethnic communities in this war-torn country. In this regard our delegation would like to see the draft resolution before us contain general provisions regarding the unacceptability of these policies and their incompatibility with the norms of international law. The delegation of Ukraine would like to voice its concerns regarding the recently expressed opinion — supported in some political circles — that the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was misconceived from the start. UNPROFOR’s mandate is being questioned. It is blamed for the continuing hostilities in the country and inaction. We would like to recall that the deployment of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia prevented an escalation of bloodshed and its transformation into a full-fledged war in the Balkans. The delegation of Ukraine is in full agreement with the Secretary-General’s understanding that: The decisive actions of UNPROFOR personnel have saved the lives of thousands of Bosnians, Croats and Serbs. They have brought relief to the people and tried to minimize the suffering of the most vulnerable strata of the population - children, women and the elderly. During my stay in Sarajevo I was personally convinced that these actions are extremely important at this time. One of Ukraine’s battalions is deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the vicinity of Sarajevo as part of an UNPROFOR contingent. Nine of our soldiers have lost their lives in the service of the United Nations — and I have just received word that 10 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in so-called “hot zones” yesterday. Of course, we cannot but strongly object to the very idea of lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina. We understand that the main reason for wanting to do so is that it would enable all sides to fight equally, but while this move may appeal to our sense of justice it is entirely the wrong logic if we really want to end the war. Ukraine believes that the lifting of the embargo would result in a heavy build-up of armaments and in stepping up the war; it could, in a short time, provoke the involvement of neighbouring countries. The lifting of the arms embargo would not deter the Bosnian Serbs and would only inspire the other parties to pursue the offensive to regain lost territory, thus making UNPROFOR personnel hostages as well as the object of attacks by any of the parties to the conflict. The delegation of Ukraine, therefore, is not ready at this stage to support some of the provisions of the draft resolution concerning the lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina. In my delegation’s view the decision to lift the arms embargo can only be taken by the Security Council, which is directly empowered by the United Nations Charter to take responsible and adequate decisions concerning the maintenance of international peace and security. By introducing the arms embargo the Security Council had already expressed its understanding of the Any other action may have a serious negative impact on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In our view, it would undermine the sanctions regime introduced by the Security Council, and thus compromise the very essence of coercive action undertaken on behalf of the international community in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter and also run counter to the provisions of Security Council resolutions 941 (1994) 942 (1994) and 943 (1994). Such action would also undermine cooperation on the part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia regarding the cut-off of all but humanitarian assistance to the Bosnian Serbs which has proved to be effective. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia continues to win international trust by faithfully pursuing the course on which it has recently embarked. We think it timely to approach the issue of further steps in the direction of the lifting or suspension of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The explicit recognition by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of its neighbours would greatly facilitate and speed up such a decision. In conclusion, I would like to assure the Assembly that Ukraine will continue to participate in the joint efforts of the international community in its search for an effective political settlement of the conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

There is no doubt that the terrible tragedy that continues to beset the peoples and nations of the former Yugoslavia represents one of the most serious challenges ever faced by the United Nations since it came into existence, and one of the most heart-rending dilemmas that the international community has had to face in decades. On the occasion of this debate on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina we believe it is timely to recall that all of us have repeatedly allowed exceptional opportunities to go by which would have enabled us to give an appropriate response to the aggression and the massive and systematic violations of human rights. We must observe that the community of nations and its international organizations, despite commendable efforts to diminish the humanitarian dimensions of the tragedy, have in the end looked on powerlessly at the tide of nationalistic folly and the unleashing of blind ethnocentrism in former Yugoslavia. In Today the word “Bosnia” has taken on a special meaning. It has become much more than the simple name of a small picturesque country on the map of Europe. Originally that word, despite the twists and turns of local history, was a symbol of multi-ethnicity and cultural and religious diversity, an example of the viability of the concept of tolerance and harmonious existence between different communities. But since April 1992, the beginning of the merciless siege of Sarajevo, this word “Bosnia” has become a synonym for destruction and death for those who live there, and for powerlessness and failure for those throughout the world who thought they were able to combat irrational hatred and sought to come to the aid of an unfortunate country fighting for its survival. From this lofty rostrum we must recognize without complacency the share of responsibility borne by all for this grave failure of the collective security system of the United Nations. The least that we can do in the tragic circumstances of today is to draw the proper conclusions in order to avoid a repetition in the future of this kind of bloodletting. In this context Hungary has given its support to the creation of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and we look forward with great interest to the results of its work. Important developments have taken place since last December when the General Assembly last addressed the question of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The decisions of the North Atlantic Council, the Washington Agreements between Bosnians and Croats and the confederal arrangements between Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were all significant steps along the way to a political settlement of the crisis. We are convinced that there is no true solution other than an overall settlement accepted by all the parties. The peace proposal prepared by the Contact Group continues to be the only valid alternative to war and human suffering. We condemn the Bosnian Serb party for its refusal to accept the proposed plan. There are no, because there cannot be any, rational arguments that are the slightest bit acceptable to justify pursuing the conflict, We must recognize that the chasm that has been created at the price of so much blood and tears will be difficult to bridge, not to speak of the effect that this destructive example could have eventually in other lands throughout the world that are ethnically mixed. There, precisely, resides the ultimate crime of this end of the century. The attempt to heal the deep wounds promises to be all the more difficult in that it is not certain that an overall settlement, for which we all yearn, will contain all the necessary elements to promote the principles of the United Nations Charter and those of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. It is indispensable in the interests of all that this settlement include the fewest possible ingredients that might trigger new crises and new conflicts. If there is a lesson to be learned from the events in the former Yugoslavia, it is that these accursed phenomena, which we long thought had been relegated to the dust bin of history, can, even at the end of this bloodstained century, regain all their virulence. That is why the principles that our world Organization has proudly proclaimed cannot be ignored; they must be at the heart of any just and lasting settlement for the former Yugoslavia. Hungary welcomes the decision of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to close its international borders with Bosnia and Herzegovina. We believe that this measure goes in the right direction, even though it should have been adopted much earlier in conformity with previous Security Council resolutions. So much for the myth of a federal republic which — as was so long insisted upon — had nothing to do with the conflict in Bosnia. The logical follow-up to this recent decision would be mutual recognition between Sarajevo and Belgrade. On the strict application of that decision will depend the continuation of the partial suspension of certain sanctions in conformity with Security Council resolution 943 (1994). Still, once all the necessary conditions have been fulfilled in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Croatia, Hungary has every interest in seeing the lightening and gradual phasing out of the economic sanctions imposed on Belgrade. In this regard we would also like to call the attention of the Yugoslav authorities, as is emphasized in the draft resolution before us, to the disturbing problems arising in their own territory with regard to the human rights of national minorities, the solution of which in our view would greatly contribute to returning the Federal Republic of It is well known that due to its immediate proximity and traditional links with its southern neighbours, Hungary is especially affected by the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Hungary in this case is much more than one other State Member of the United Nations, or a simple observer of the events, because the implications of this tragedy affect us very closely — the breaking of thriving economic relations, the closing of navigation on the Danube, the presence on our territory of refugees fleeing from the former Yugoslavia, the uncertainty felt among a large Hungarian minority beyond our southern borders, the psychological effects of the crisis in a region bearing a heavy burden of history. That is what determines Hungary’s position on this very complex question, and that is what gives us a unique vision and very special perspective with regard to these events. Some paragraphs of the draft resolution before us do not seem to us to have been drafted in a fully satisfactory manner or to provide the most effective and desirable way of bringing us closer to the end of the tragic conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the prompt settlement, on the basis of a political agreement among all the parties to the conflict, of the crisis in that country. However, we support the general tenor of the broad direction taken, by the draft. In the present political circumstances, we attach primary importance to issuing a powerful and unequivocal message on this subject, and we feel that, that is achieved on the whole, by this draft resolution. Consequently, we are prepared to support it.

The events that have unfolded since the presentation by the Western Contact Group on 30 July last of its peace plan have certainly finally eliminated the doubts, if any remained, as to the true intentions of those who for more than three years now have been conducting continuous aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian Serb party, by rejecting the Western peace proposals, has taken its compulsion of blind defiance of the rules and principles governing the community of nations one step further. That party has thus embarked upon a policy of raising the stakes and of evading reality, a step which constitutes a threat to international peace and security that is all the more serious because it has in recent months taken the form of a resurgence of military actions aimed at blocking United The response to this new challenge was the adoption by the Security Council on 23 September last, in its resolutions 942 (1994) and 943 (1994), of a package of measures which, by making an artificial distinction, increase the isolation of the Bosnian Serbs and prematurely offer their allies in Serbia and Montenegro an easing of the sanctions on the basis of mere declarations of intent. These measures have unfortunately not prevented the Bosnian Serb forces, in cooperation with the Serb paramilitary units in the occupied territories of Croatia, from pursuing their campaign of systematic terror in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is why the delegation of Senegal reaffirms its conviction that, when it comes to defending the sovereignty, the independence, the territorial integrity and the unity of a Member State of the United Nations — in this case the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina — the international community’s goal, and especially the Security Council’s goal, in the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 24 of the Charter, should be the restoration, by all necessary means, of international peace and security. It should not be the search for a balance between the aggressor and the victim, which would only contribute to perpetuating the conflict and its attendant destruction and suffering. On the basis of those factors, Senegal joins all the sponsors in fully supporting the draft resolution submitted to the General Assembly in document A/49/L.14/Rev.9, under whose essential provisions the General Assembly would call on the Security Council to take a stand on the inapplicability of resolution 713 (1991) to the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, the recognition and the proclamation of the legality and legitimacy of the cause of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be enough by themselves to put an end to the aggression and the genocide of which the martyred people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are today the victims. The members of the international community must help that country and its people exercise the inherent right to individual and collective self-defence conferred upon them by Article 51 of the Charter. Demonstrating his constant will for peace, His Excellency Mr. Alija Izetbegovic´, the President of the Today’s debate offers the Senegalese delegation the opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of the Bosnian and Croatian parties to implement the Washington Agreements rapidly and to launch a fresh appeal to the Serbian leaders to join this federal process, which is the only way of safeguarding the multi-ethnic and multi- religious nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose territorial unity and integrity are not negotiable. The leaders of the Bosnian Serb party should understand that the international community cannot recognize or admit any policy which is based on the acquisition of territories through genocide and “ethnic cleansing” and whose disastrous consequences are described in the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, and in the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination contained in document A/48/18. We must pay tribute here to the efforts of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and all those people of good will who day after day are trying, sometimes at the risk of their lives, to lessen the suffering of the innocent victims of this aggression. I wish to conclude by voicing an appeal that the International Tribunal, whose establishment has finally been completed, should be given the necessary resources to set to work without further delay on implementing the procedures required in order to bring to judgement all those who are responsible for the flagrant, systematic and large-scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed against the people of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian and Hungarian ethnic minorities in Kosovo, Sandzak and Vojvodina.

As individuals, we experience a sense of profound anger at the continued suffering being inflicted on fellow human beings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As Governments, we share a deep concern at the direct challenge to international legality and The implosion that has taken place in the former Yugoslavia is perhaps the most dramatic reflection of the effect that internal upheaval within a single nation could have, not only on its immediate neighbours, but also on its whole region and indeed beyond. Interdependence and its relationship to security has clearly developed a new and complicated dimension. Many have reflected on the fact that one unfortunate result of the end of the cold war appears to have been the unleashing of ethnic, political and territorial disputes that had been suppressed over the last half century. The thwarted hatreds today wreaking havoc in the former Yugoslavia may indeed have roots buried in history, yet those roots on their own would have been incapable of generating so much human misery had they not been nurtured and exploited by those who cherish their own personal power regardless of the cost. Several attempts have been made to end the bloodshed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each genuine attempt to achieve a just peace and restore stability and sanity to this tragedy-engulfed region deserves support. Regrettably, the efforts of the international community to restore peace have yet to prevail. That so much effort has not yet achieved its principal objective may justify dismay and frustration. Developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina may prove to have been a test case for the role of our Organization. There are already those who assert that our Organization has failed in its new role. In their assessment, however, these critics fail to address some important questions, namely: Would the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been better off today without the presence of the 38,000-strong international contingent forming the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)? Would the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been better off today without the valiant efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and her staff? Would the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been better off today without the tireless efforts of the Co-Chairmen of the International Conference to broker peace? Indeed, would the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been better off today had the United Nations decided not to accept the challenge, face its responsibilities and stand up to coercion? The answer to all those questions is an emphatic “No.” While not suggesting that the United Nations should intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a State, we do believe that there exist specific and extraordinary circumstances in which such intervention is warranted and in accordance with the Charter. In this connection we share the view expressed by the Secretary-General in his recent contribution to The New York Times, in which he wrote: “the United Nations needs to build a greater understanding of the limited circumstances under which such action is undertaken.” (The New York Times, 30 October 1994, Section 4, p. 15) The Malta Government, as my Deputy Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions, is firm and unequivocal in its condemnation of the atrocities which have been committed and continue to be committed in the former Yugoslavia. We denounce the abhorrent policy of “ethnic cleansing” and the senseless acts of aggression against defenceless civilians. We are convinced that the international community will not let the gross and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law go unpunished. The perpetrators of such crimes, acting individually or in groups, are accountable for their actions. My Government welcomes the International Tribunal which has been established and which, through the Office of the Prosecutor, is carrying out its investigations and preparing indictments to be submitted for confirmation by year’s end. Malta’s adherence to and strict observance of the decisions of the Security Council has been consistent and unequivocal throughout. We believe that the full implementation of measures taken by the Security Council can be instrumental in restoring peace and bringing to an In contrast, an increase in the flow of arms to the region might lead to a greater balance in the destructive force of the parties to the conflict, but would almost certainly lead to a wider war. In this respect, lifting the arms embargo could further escalate an already vicious cycle of death and destruction. In referring to the situation in the former Yugoslavia in his report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General emphasized: “Any settlement imposed on one side or the other by military means might, at best, result in a temporary halt of hostilities and would eventually draw the international community into even more troubled waters.” (A/49/1, para. 706) Aware that the temptation to compel should not easily replace the instinct to persuade, the international community has shown great restraint in the use of force in seeking to resolve the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since wars start in the hearts and minds of men, it is in the hearts and minds of men that they must first be dealt with, as the preamble to the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) reminds us. A lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina is ultimately dependent on a nurtured political will. An end to the present agony and anguish requires, rather than the force of arms, the force of tolerance, mutual respect and freedom.

Once again we are considering the ongoing grave situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Regrettably, the tragedy there has continued to top the international agenda for the past 12 months. Despite numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, all the commitments and promises made to the Government and people of Bosnia and Herzegovina remain unfulfilled. The latest peace plan proposed by the five-nation Contact Group on 1 July this year is yet to be implemented. In the spirit of peace, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina made important concessions and sacrifices. However, its constructive approach and goodwill remain unanswered. The peace plan it accepted with great sacrifice stated clearly that the side that rejected the plan would be We have arrived at a critical juncture. First, the Serbs have to be forced to accept the peace plan. Secondly, pressure must be exerted on Serbia and Montenegro to make them recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Macedonia within their internationally recognized borders. Thirdly, a true and effective border-monitoring regime should be established between the Serbian-controlled parts of Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro. Fourthly, responsive and effective measures to end the strangulation of Sarajevo and other “safe areas” should be taken without further delay. Nothing is more important than letting the Bosnian people acquire the means to exercise their right to self- defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, we welcome and strongly support the draft resolution submitted to the Security Council by the United States. This draft resolution reflects the constructive stand of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and states that its implementation will be deferred for six months. The draft is also in line with the commitments of the five- nation Contact Group. They have underlined that in the event of continuing rejection of the Contact Group’s peace plan by the Bosnian Serb party, a decision by the Security Council to lift the arms embargo could become unavoidable. We call upon the members of the five-nation Contact Group to stand by their commitments. The wrong messages continue to be sent to the Serbs. While waiting for an adequate and determined response to the Serbian rejection of the peace plan, we have observed, yet again, conflicting signals from some members of the five-nation Contact Group indicating that new demands from the Serbian side would be favourably considered. The international community cannot and should not accept any attempt to change the peace plan that could lead to the dismemberment of Bosnia. Draft We hope that the aggressors will heed the message of determination coming from the community of nations. We call upon the Serbian side to stop its defiance of international law. We will continue actively to support the brave people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in their just struggle for survival, freedom and democracy.