S/PV.3200 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being DO objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sacirbey (Bosnia and Heraegov&.&. took a place at the Council table.

I have also received a request, dated 17 April 1993, from Ambassador Dragomir Djokih to address the Council. With the consent of the Council, I would propose to invite him to take a place at the Council table. There being no objection, it is so decided. A At the invitation of the President, Ambassador Diokic/ took a place at the Council table. T&e PRESIDENT: With the consent of the Council, I extend an invitation, under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Cyrus Vance, Co-Chairman of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. There being no objection, it is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting in response to the requests contained in letters dated 17 April 1993 from the Permanent Representatives of France and of Cape Verde, Djibouti, MOrOCCO, Pakistan and Venezuela to the United Nations address-ed to the President of the Security Council, documents S/25622 and S/25623, respectively. Members of the Council have before them document S/25558, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Cape Verde, Djibouti, France, Morocco, Pakistan, Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Venezuela. I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to the following changes to be made in the draft resolution contained in document S/25558 in its provisional form. In operative paragraphs 8 and 10, the word "fifteen" should be replaced by the word "nine". Members of the Council also have before them the report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia: the report of the Secretary-General on the New York round of the peace talks on Bosnia and Herzegovina: the reports of the Secretary-General on the activities of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia and on the activities of the working groups; and the reports of the Secretary-General pursuant to Security Council resolutions 802 (1993), 807 (1993) and 815 (1993), contained in documents S/25221, S/25248, S/25403, S/25479 and S/25490. I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the following documents: 5125546, letter dated 6 April 1993 from the Permanent Representatives of France, Spain and the United Kingdom of Ox-eat Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council: S/25322, letter dated 22 February 1993 from the representatives of Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council: S/25551, letter dated 6 April 1993 from the Char96 d'affaires a.i, of the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; S/25566, letter dated 8 April 1993 from the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council: (The President) S/25580, letter dated 12 April 1993 from the Permanent Representatives of France, Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/25604, letter dated 15 April 1993 from the representatives of Cape Verde, Djibouti, Morocco, Pakistan and Venezuela addressed to the.President of the Security Council; S/25605, letter dated 15 April 1993 from the Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; and S/25607, letter dated 15 April 1993 from the Charge d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. Members of the Council have also received photocopies of a letter dated 14 April 1993 from the Charge d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, which will be issued as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/25619; and of a letter dated 17 April 1993 from the Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, which will be issued as document S/25624. In accordance with the decision taken earlier at this meeting, and following the invitation to Mr. Cyrus Vance, Co-Chairman of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, I now call on Mr. Vance. Mr. VANCE: I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the Security Council in the grave circumstances prevailing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Co-Chairmen welcome the Council's swift action in adopting, last night, the resolution demanding that Srebrenica and its surroundings be treated as a safe area free from armed attack or other hostile acts. ,We share the Council's sense of urgency, and applaud its decision to meet tonight to act on further measures needed to bring about compliance with the Council’s decisions. As you are aware, Mr. President, Lord Owen made special arrangements to be here for the debate scheduled this coming Monday. Events, however, have moved faster than expected, and he therefore cannot be here for the meeting tonight, He would have wisned very much to be here with you at this moment, because he shares, deeply, the sense of anguish that we all feel about the shocking events in Bosnia and Herzegovina. With respect to the draft resolution now before the Council, let me say that Lord Owen and I commend it to you wholeheartedly. If the measures envisaged in it should fail to achieve the desired effect, they should be followed by additional measures of sterner persuasion. We hope the Council will adopt the resolution forthwith, and send this very clear message to the Bosnian Serb side and its supporters: time is running out: the clock is ,ticking; and the international community will no longer wait. In addition, everything possible must be done to bring humanitarian relief and assistance to the suffering communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There can be no excuse for obstructing humanitarian convoys. We trust that there will emerge from these deliberations a renewed commitment to help the innocent victims of the conflict.

It is my understanding that the Council is ready to c proceed to vote on the draft resolution before it, as orally revised in its provisional form. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that that is -the case. There being no objection, it is so decided. Before putting the draft resolution to the vote, I shall call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting. Mr. MERIMEE (France) (interpretation from French): My Goverment took the initiative of todal requesting an immediate meeting of the Security Council on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has worsened dramatically during the lart few days. I therefore welcome the fact that our Council, gathered this,evening, is preparing to take a decision on the draft resolution produced by my delegation and a number of its partners in the Council - a text which is designed to strengthen the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). We hope that the draft resolution will be adopted in a few moments. For the international COmmUnity, this is the right response, at the right time, to take up the challenge from the Belgrade authorities and the Serbian elements in Bosnia that they are blatantly supporting. Some in the Council have asked why we want to act today and not wait for the last-minute promises to be carried out. The international community has shown extreme patience and good will. Our Council has seen promise after promise not kept. By agreeing, as a last concession, to postpone the adoption of the draft resolution on strengthening sanctions, we were hoping for some stabilization of the situation on the ground and for progress in negotiating the Vance-Owen plan. We see that none of this has happened; quite the contrary, the Serbian side has taken advantage of our postponement to take control of Srebrenica while at the same time rejecting the peace plan. We think that the Security Council must act by using the means now at its disposal, namely, that it should vote to strengthen the sanctions. In the opinion of my Government, the draft resolution is quite appropriate for the circumstances. After months and months of refusal by the Serbs to cooperate with the international community, their foot-dragging and their encroachments in the field, the draft resolution, by strengthening the provisions of resolution 757 (1992), marks the total economic and financial isolation of Serbia. My country, with its partners in the Twelve, is prepared to take immediate steps to make the implementation of the resolution effective. It is prepared to help establish the necessary controls and is working with its partners in the Western European Union on setting up assistance to the countries along the Danube to suspend all river traffic destined for Serbia. These are not sanctions for sanctions' sake; the draft resolution is part of a global political plan. Our Council's support for the Vance-Owen plan sends a clear signal to the Serbs that there is a path other than conflict open to them. In this respect, section C of the resolution is something new and reflects our desire to see the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and. Montenegro) rejoin the international community provided that it fully respects the relevant United Nations resolutions. In Conclusion, I should like to repeat what we were prompted to say on the adoption of resolution 816 (1993), which makes provision for the use of force to ensure respect for the no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Serbian authorities have a clear choice before them: confrontation with the international community or cooperation and the search for a negotiated solution. They now have nine days to choose the latter path and avoid our implementing the measures we have decided to take. We have heard threatening statements to the effect that the whole of the Balkans was likely to go up in flames in response to the Security Council's decisions. The Belgrade authorities must realise that the international community will not back down. Just as our determination went one step further with resolution 816 (1993), so today we are not ruling out going even further if it proves necessary so to do. (Mr. Merimee, France) Mr. VORONTSOV (Russian Federation) (interpretation from Russian): The delegation of the Russian Federation continues to assume - and we have quite clear instructions from Moscow on this score - that the adoption by the Security Council at this juncture of a resolution to strenghten sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is quite untimely. We of course support all the provisions of part A of the draft resolution before the Council, under which the Security Council would call upon all sides to reach a rapid, peaceful solution. We feel that it is important to give the parties to the conflict the possibility, through international mediation, of reaching agreement on the Vance-Owen plan and of completing the intensive negotiations in this regard that are going on at this moment. At the same time, I should like to remind everyone that on 9 March the President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin, warned that any party that did not reach agreement would bear responsibility for the bloodshed, with all the attendant consequences, including possible new decisions by the Security Council. For us, it is quite clear that the Security Council should provide one last chance - which should be used primarily by the Serbian side - for the achievement of a realistic agreement by, it goes without saying, observing a cease-fire and refraining from taking any actions that might be regarded as "ethnic cleansing". In the Russian delegation's view, the most reasonable approach to this issue would be the observance of the agreement achieved earlier in the Security Council to delay voting on this draft resolution on sanctions until 26 April. Since, however, the majority of the members of the Security Council insist upon an immediate vote, right now, today - although the reason for this was not really put foward in a convincing manner - we felt that it was possible not to hinder the adoption of this decision, in view of the fact that it will enter into force only nine days after its adoption, unless, of course, an agreement is signed on the Vance-Owen plan. But we still have serious misgivings about the possible negative consequences of the kind of haste we are showing today. In the light of what I have said, the Russian delegation will abstain in the voting on the draft resolution before the Council. Mr. SARDENBERG (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation is ready to vote in favour of the draft resolution now before the Security Council, which encompasses many complex issues - some of them of an unprecedented nature. It is important to underscore that this draft resolution presents three fundamental aspects. The first aspect is the support by the Security Council for the peace . plan carefully drafted by the co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, Secretary Vance and Lord Owen, to whom we pay our sincere tribute. We firmly believe that the Security Council should always favour the resort to and the exhaustion of the peaceful and negotiated means for the settlement of disputes. In its entirety, the Vance-Owen plan remains the only alternative and the best chance to reach a durable solution to the conflict raging in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That plan deserves the full backing of the Security Council. The second aspect refers to the strengthening of measures imposed by earlier resolutions. As a matter of principle, Brazil has always held that (Mr. Vorontsov, Russian Federation) action under Chapter VII of the Charter should be taken only in extreme circumstances. In this case, we are facing a grave deterioration of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including, and in particular, the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding in that Member State. It is this unbearable human drama that justifies such an exceptional course of action. We are aware that the measures we are about to approve entail in many cases complex considerations of a legal, economic, financial and administrative order. While some of those measures can be readily implemented, others may require the enactment of appropriate enabling national legislation. The Government of Brazil will take all the necessary steps to put such legislation in place as soon as possible. It is our understanding that the specific provisions of paragraph 29 of the draft resolution, as they refer to the territorial sea of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), are of an exceptional nature, related specifically to the situation under consideration by the Security Council, and cannot be considered as a precedent that in any way alters or derogates from the regime of coastal-State rights in this territorial sea, in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other relevant norms of international law. Finally, I wish to point out that my delegation attaches importance to the third aspect - namely, to the provisions of part C of the draft resolution, which make it clear that exceptional measures contained in part B are not irreversible. It is to be hoped that they may in fact soon lead to the creation of conditions that would permit resort to the review mechanisms provided for in paragraph 31 of the draft resolution. Mr. JESUS (Cape Verde): On behalf of my delegation, I should like to express our feelings of deep sorrow and our heartfelt condolences on the passing away today of President Ozal of Turkey. On many occasions, my country has had the opportunity in the Security Council of voicing its frustration at the devastating war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For too long the world has been witnessing one of the most tragic and cruel armed conflicts in modern times, The deep-sbated hatred that has fueled this conflict and the untamed greed for grabbing territory by force, using all means - from killing to "ethnic cleansing" - have shocked the international conscience and raised a wave of universal indignation. Appeals from all quarters to stop the war have so far gone unheeded. Scores of resolutions adopted by the Security Council with a view to bringing an end to this conflict and to the atrocities are still to be observed. Cease-fire after cease-fire has been broken, Faced with such a situation, we voted last year for resolution 724 (1992), the sanctions resolution, as a means of helping stop the war. The measures that we are considering today have the same objective - that is, to help stop the war. By adopting these measures, the Council is aiming at securing full compliance with those sanctions so as to play a positive role in bringing the cruel war to a negotiated end. It is high time that this war were brought to an end and a negotiated solution were reached. My country believes that the peace settlement worked out by the two co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia is the best chance for a lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is perhaps not the ideal plan, but under the circumstances it is the only realistic one that takes into account the interests of the three Bosnian parties. We commend the two Bosnian parties that have signed this peace plan and appeal to the Bosnian Serbs to do likewise, in the name of peace. ' (Mr. Jesus. Cape Verde) Mr. YA%XZ-BARNUEVQ (Spain) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation wholeheartedly shares the sentiments of condolence expressed by you, Sir, on behalf of us all, on the sudden death of the President of the Republic of Turkey, Mr. Ozal. The atrocious war that has been waged for over a year in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with devastating effect upon that Republic, is of deep concern to Spain. My country has been doing everything possible to relieve the suffering of the civilian population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main victim of this cruel Conflict, and has contributed an infantry battalion to the United Nations Protection Force for the protection of the humanitarian convoys organized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.' But it is no longer enough merely to attend to humanitarian needs. It is necessary for this war to end. To that end, the Spanish Government believes that the peace plan proposed by the two Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Peace Conference on the Former Yugoslavia represents the only fair and viable alternative for achieving stable and lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Here, I wish to pay a tribute to the presence of Secretary Vance, who has once again shown us the clarity of his thinking. That is why the Spanish Government has defended the the Vance-Owen plan. It will have to be supported firmly, unequivocally and without further delay by the Security Council. In a gesture whose bravery we hail, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina has finally lent its support to the peace plan, as has the Bosnian Croat party. Unfortunately, the Bosnian Serbs have not abandoned their obstinate rejection of fundamental aspects of the plan, and they continue to resort to force to achieve their military and political objectives. The European Community and its member States have clearly expressed on repeated occasions, most recently in its statement of 5 April 1993, that: "Non-acceptance of the peace plan would entail the gravest consequences and lead to the total isolation of Serbia and Montenegro at the international level." Convinced that the time has come to take concrete measures to that end, and as members of the European Community, we have helped to elaborate a series of measures to deal with the current ,situation within the framework of the responsibility incumbent upon the Security Council. Indeed, the draft resolution which the Council has before it, in addition to endorsing the Vance-Owen peace plan, strengthens the sanctions regime now in force. It incorporates essential elements for a package prepared by the European Community with a view to increasing the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and at the same time opens up other prospects if there is a radical change in the attitude of the Bosnian Serbs. My delegation participated actively in the writing of this draft resolution, which Spain is co-sponsoring, and wishes to draw attention to its great political importance. With its adoption, the Security Council will be sending a clear and forceful message to the Bosnian Serbs and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to abandon once and for all the language of force and accept the hand being extended to them by the international community, or be faced with the serious consequences of persisting in their current intransigent attitude. Indeed, if the Bosnian Serbs accept the peace plan and implement it fully and in good faith, it will make possible a gradual easing of the pressure brought to bear on them and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; it will pave the way for a review of the sanctions and their eventual lifting. If, on the contrary, the Bosnian Serbs do not desist from their current policy, they and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will remain isolated from the rest of the international community and will suffer the full effects of the Council's sanctions. The Council postponed the adoption of this draft resolution in order to give the Bosnian Serbs another opportunity to end their attacks and, at the same time, to allow extra time in which to redouble the efforts to convince the Serbian side of the need to endorse the Vance-Owen plan. Here, we wish to express our appreciation for the efforts made by the United States and the Russian Federation to attain that objective. Unfortunately, that did not. occur. On the contrary, the Bosnian Serbs have exploited the time since the postponement of the vote to continue and even step up their military pressure on Sarajevo and on eastern Bosnia, particularly on the people of Srebrenica, the hapless victims of cruel attacks. The Serbian party has not really made any progress towards the signing of the Vance-Owen peace plan either, and thus far we have seen nothing, unfortunately, to allow us to hope for any positive developments in that direction. The time allowed by the Council as a gesture of goodwill has in fact been used to create de facto situations in the field which are directly contrary to the objectives sought by the international community as embodied in the Vance-Owen plan. Given this situation, my Government has reached the conclusion that the draft resolution before us must be put to a vote without further delay. we trust that, through the adoption of this draft resolution, the Serb leaders will finally understand that the acceptance of the good will of the international community, represented by the Council, is the only way to put an end to the spiral of suffering and destruction afflicting Bosnia and Herzegovina and threatening the entire region. Mr. O'BRIEN (New Zealand): The Council is meeting now, basically, because all of its earlier calls upon the Bosnian Serbs to choose the way of peace have not been heeded. New Zealand sincerely regrets that. The manner in which the Bosnian Serbs have turned their backs upon the peace process of the Geneva Conference Chairmen is deeply regrettable and it does demand a response by this Council. In the weeks since the Bosnian Serb delegation quit the negotiating process in New York, a pattern of aggression and outrage has continued unabated. The continued hostility, punctuated as it has been with cease-fires of doubtful integrity, is deplorable by all standards of humanity. Too many promises have been broken, too many obligations ignored. The Council's determination to respond to the violation of its decisions and its resolutions has been underestimated by those implicated in this sad situation on the ground, and the decision here tonight that we should take should help to correct that misapprehension. The draft resolution that we are about to vote on represents an enhancement of the Council's support for the Vance-Owen plan. Like my Spanish colleague, I would like to pay a tribute to both the Co-Chairmen, especially Secretary Vance, who is to step down at the end of this month. His contribution will not be forgotten. The draft resolution that we are about to vote on must drive home the message that peaceful negotiation is and must be the way forward, and that message needs to be driven home again and again. New Zealand will vote for the draft resolution, and it will adopt the necessary measures to give it effect.

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document S/25558, as orally revised in its provisional form. A vote was taken by a show of hands. In favour: Brazil, Cape Verde, Djibouti, France, Hungary, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela Asainst: None Abstaining; China, Russian Federation

The result of the voting is as follows: 13 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions. The draft resolution, as orally revised in its provisional form, has been adopted as resolution 820 (1993). (Mr. O'Brien, New Zealand) I shall now call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements following the voting. Mr. OLHAYE (Djibouti): My delegation would like to add its firm support to the resolution just adopted by the Council seeking to severely tighten economic sanctions and trade embargoes specifically on Serbia and Montenegro. By its terms, breadth and tone, it represents a clear expression of the firm resolve, impatience and unity of the world community to bring this terrible chapter of recent history to a swift close. This can be brought about by the simple addition of two signatures to the Vance-Owen peace plan, which the world now in effect demands from the Serbs. The resolution perhaps signals a halt to the endless, protracted good-faith negotiations of the past, so often converted into a mechanism for attempting unilateral changes in the underlying situational factors. By setting a firm time period of nine days for the Serbs to respond, it leaves little doubt as to what that response should be. The resolution again recognises the source of the Bosnian Serbs' intransigence, namely, the leadership of Serbia and Montenegro. Without its provision of manpower, supplies, logistics and military equipment, we feel they would have long ago signed and implemented the Vance-Owen plan. Consequently, the teeth of the resolution are aimed at Serbia and Montenegro. The consequences for Yugoslavia under the resolution just adopted by the Council are so far the most severe and may effectively seal off that country from the world's economy, finance, commerce and the easy movement of people. In banning the transshipment of supplies through Yugoslavia and the movement of goods along the Danube and by impounding all Yugoslav aircraft, rolling stock and trucks, the resolution will certainly bring economic activity to a near-halt. Placing a freeze on Yugoslav international financial assets will make the leaders of that country realize, if nothing else, that the world is now indeed very serious, They can have few illusions about the Council's determination to bring peace to Bosnia. We hope that they do not continue to believe that events in other parts of the world will somehow conspire to protect them from the inevitable course of justice, and that such events do not lead them into serious miscalculations or to underestimate the Council's resolve. Should the Serbs refuse to sign the plan, they could then pursue their objectives only by a return to their inhuman policy of "ethnic cleansing" and by increasing their crimes against humanity: the detention camEs; the heavy bombardment of population centres, as we are now witnessing in Srebrenica; and the denial of humanitarian aid to the suffering. It is inconceivable that they could harbour any illusions regarding the world's almost-certain violent reaction to a return to such a heinous state of affairs. At the very least, in addition to the restrictions in the present resolution - which most certainly will wreak further havoc on the Yugoslav economy - as well as the recently approved no-fly-zone enforcement, there would have to be'a redressing of the arms imbalance between the adversaries andmeasures to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid by all necessary means. It would represent a serious misreading of the Council's intentions by the Serbs and could only further damage and retard their eventual acceptance into the world community, Naked aggression simply cannot be seen to succeed. The broad future political dimensions of posnia have in fact been already determined, as attested to by the signature of the Serbs themselves to the nine constitutional principles. This will be a single, independent State, and at this point, efforts designed to unilaterally alter this fact or the Country's boundaries by force of arms and acts against humanity will not be (Mr. Olhave, Diibouti) allowed. It is this aspect of the situation that makes the killing and suffering so tragic. The time is opportune, for the Serbs must know that events in other parts of the world are unlikely to conspire, as I have already said, to protect them from the inevitable course of justice. The high-profile defiance of the Serbs has caught the world's attention, particularly in the light of the reprehensible methods they have used to achieve their purposes. It has raised profound and significant moral issues that will have long and serious implications for the world as we enter a very nationalistic, post-cold-war era, and no amount of effort to impart a less moral spin to this issue can hide this fact, Historical enmity, however deep, cannot be accepted by the world as a justification for behaviour that contradicts international humanitarian standards. If we are to promote such a justification in Bosnia, then it has to be in a way that permits each side to defend its very survival.' Not to do so may have more lasting repercussions for us than our unwillingness to forcefully come to the aid of victims of aggression. For this and other reasons, my delegation, while supporting this resolution, has few il,lusions it will go far enough by itself to correct the fast-deteriorating situation in a timely and meaningful manner. Raising the cost of aggression by sealing Yugoslavia and the Bosnian Serbs off and allowing.the Bosnian Government the means to defend itself clearly offers the best hope for a way out of this moral dilemma, (Mr. Olhave, Djibouti) -David HANNAY (United Kingdom): The origin of this resolution lies in the Vance-Owen peace process, and I should like to begin my statement by paying tribute to the work done by the two Co-Chairmen over the last few months, and particularly to pay a special tribute to Secretary Vance, who is now laying down his task, but not before he has brought an enormous contribution to one of the most difficult tasks that has ever faced a diplomat in modern history. The 25th of March was a crucial date in the Vance-Owen peace process. It was the date on which the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina signed a complex series of agreements, as did the Bosnian Croat leaders. There was then, at last, in this horrendous and bloodstained saga, a chande for peace. My Government was determined that that chance should be seized, and from the morrow of the 25th of March we worked with others - most Closely With our fellow States members of the European Community on the Council, the United States and the non-aligned caucus - on this resolution, which has a triple purpose. The first purpose is to throw the weight of the Council firmly behind the peace process of the two Co-Chairmen and to get across to the Bosnian Serbs that signature of these documents represents the only way to assure their future as a distinct community within the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The second purpose is to bring home to the Bosnian Serbs and their backers in Belgrade the consequences of. rejection, in the form of tightened sanctions and complete isolation. And the third is to show that acceptance and implementation of the peace process and the plan, and the cessation of all military attacks, will bring real benefits to all Serbs - to those in Bosnia as to those in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - in the form of a gradual lifting of sanctions and a reintegration into the international and European families. Those are the messages that this resolution is designed to send. We hope they will be received, and that in the nine days to come decisive steps will be taken, both in the peace process and on the ground. The last three weeks have been a tragic and deeply disturbing time, The Bosnian Serbs have continued their policy Of talk and grab. The talk has haen vague and evasive, an attempt to do anything but accept the Vance-Owen peace process. The grab has been all too Clear in the Speezing of the pocket around Srebrenica, culminating this week in the criminal bombardment of civilians, resulting in the death of many women and children. This process simply has to stop. It cannot be justified by any amount of casuistical presentation. I should like, however, to end on a note of hope. There is in this resolution the basis for a better future for all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.. But that requires a definitive end to the military attacks by the Bosnian Serbs, and it requires clear and unambiguous acceptance of the Vance-Owen peace plan. If the Bosnian Serbs and the authorities in Belgrade turn their backs on this opportunity, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Ms. ALBRIGHT (United States of America): The United States joins the other members of the Council in condemning in the strongest possible terms the actions of the Bosnian Serbs during this past week and, more generally, throughout their unprovoked aggression, This omnibus sanctions package was a means of again bringing home to the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs and their allies, Serbia and Montenegro, the price they and their people will have to pay for their brutal policies and "ethnic cleansing". We will continue to work with all Governments in reinforcing economic sanctions to reaffirm our outrage at these atrocities* This resolution, which will come into effect on 26 April, as originally planned, gives the Bosnian Serbs time to sign the agreement, This conflict has been filled with tragedy from the start, but we are particularly appalled at the death and destruction the Bosnian Serb forces have visited upon the people in the enclave of Srebrenica in recent weeks. We have repeatedly warned the Bosnian Serbs - most recently by Council action yesterday - that these violations of basic. human rights are intolerable. We shall continue to seek ways to underscore to the Bosnian Serbs the long-term consequences of their actions. Mr. ARRIA (Venezuela) (interpretation from Spanish): ,My delegation associates itself with the statement by the President of the Council on the occasion of the death of President Turgut Ozal of Turkey. We wish to express our condolences to his family and the people of that friendly country. The world has been watching with horror as the policy of "ethnic cleansing" promoted by'serbian leaders has been outdone by a policy of ethnic extermination, or what the Nazis called "Endl8sung": final solution. The international community, however, seemed not to have fully grasped the future consequences of the barbaric acts committed in the middle of the Europe of Maastricht, consequences which are not limited to the military sphere, but also extend into moral and ethical dimensions. The'truth of the matter is that a very dangerous precedent has been set, one that, because of the slight toll taken by international sanctions, could be imitated in Europe and other regions. The world is not forgetful of the fact that a year and a half ago, when Serbian leaders began the destruction of the historic city of Dubrovnik, it was the time to take a firm stand. But the timid reaction of the international community was taken advantage of; from Dubrovnik they carried on (Ms. Albright. United States) to Vukovar, and to date they have not stopped, continuing with the devastation and effective subjugation of Srebrenica. Experience convinces the Serbian leaders that no matter what they do, nobody will lay a finger on them. The confusion of legend with history imbues them with an invincibility that is unreal but that, incredibly, is enough to hold at bay the most powerful armies in the world. Destroying cities, massacring civilians, terrorizing children, women and old men - these are not exactly feats of military prowess. It is not bravery, but the extraordinary advantage of having planes, artillery and tanks to use against defenceless populations that do not have such resources that has allowed them to draw a map of blood and fire, a different map from that of distinguished Co-Chairmen Cyrus Vance and David Owen. A new world order cannot be founded on "ethnic cleansingU and genocide, and it is unacceptable that such effronteries might somehow be allowed. Throughout the conflict the support of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has been clearly evident, as it has inflicted grave human and material damage on the people and patrimony of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My country considers that today only the acceptance of the proposed Peace Agreements offers the international community a chance to improve the situation, as the Secretary-General stated in his report (S/25479). The resolution we have just adopted is'still aimed at applying pressure for peace. However, as long as the Security Council does not act to put under real and effective international control the heavy arms that are solely in the hands of the Serbs, little will be achieved through economic sanctions, whose effects take time; and time is of the essence for the besieged victims of Srebrenica and Sarajevo. By the same token, we believe it is essential to (Mr. Arria, Venezuela) discourage the illusion that war and genocide, carried out with impunity, are legitimate means of manifesting the right to self-determination; and to curtail any claim that ethnic, cultural or religious ties give States the right to interfere in the internal crises of any other State. My country's concern for the strengthening of our Organization and the defence of the principles upon which it is founded takes precedence over any other consideration and is the only motive underlying the pronouncements we have been making in the Security Council since the beginning of this conflict. The judgment of the International Court of Justice on 8 April suggests, implicitly, that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is possibly responsible for committing crimes of genocide. This is a serious responsibility. If there is negligence - or, worse, omission - the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would be responsible for genocide. Genocide is the worst crime against humanity, and everyone must understand it as such. If the international community, represented by the Security Council, is not capable of meeting the concern expressed unambiguously by the International Court of Justice, the credibility and the legitimacy of the whole international political and judicial system would be profoundly and seriously compromised. A new world order cannot be based on a Security Council that is not capable of stopping genocide. Mr. CHEN Jian (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation has followed with great concern the development of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, and especially the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have, all along, supported the tireless efforts of the Co-Chairmen for the political settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina within the framework of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. Therefore, we urge the parties concerned to reach agreement promptly on the Co-Chairmen's peace plan through consultations and negotiations so as to pave the way for the achievement of national reconciliation and reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The resolution just adopted commends the unremitting efforts of the Co-Chairmen in the peace negotiations, reiterates the necessity of achieving a lasting peace acceptable to all the parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and emphasizes the importance of ensuring the sovereignty and territorial (wr. Arria. Venezuela) integrity of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These elements are basically in conformity with our-principled position. We therefore welcome and support these elements in the resolution. At the same time, we wish to point out that, proceeding from our consistent position, we find it difficult to support such elements in the resolution as the invocation of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, adoption of enforcement measures and the authorization of measures to strengthen and expand the existing sanctions, regime against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. History has shown that it is impossible to find lasting solutions to conflicts and disputes by exerting pressure externally and adopting such enforcement measures as sanctions. In addition, the actions authorized by the resolution will not only bring suffering to the people in the country targeted by the sanctions regime but also be gravely detrimental to the economies of the third countries implementing such sanctions provisions. From the long-term point of view, such a practice will create adverse political and economic consequences for the regions concerned. This is not something the international Community would wish to see. In our view, the international community should continue to explore all possibilities so as actively to promote peace negotiations and should avoid taking any action that might further complicate the issue. We have noted that there are also some elements in this resolution that run counter to the principle of respect for sovereignty contained in the United Nations Charter. Since this resolution contains both elements we can support and elements we cannot, the Chinese delegation therefore abstained in the vote on the resolution jus't adopted. Mr, HATANO (Japan): It was with a heavy heart that I voted in favour of the resolution. My Government does not treat economic sanctions lightly; many innocent parties in and outside the former Yugoslavia will suffer as a result of this resolution, but this is a necessary price we have to pay for peace and justice in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the view of my Government, durable peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be achieved unless it is based on an agreement reached through negotiations between the parties concerned. The best hope - or the only hope - lies in the peace plan being promoted by the Co-Chairmen of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, and I wish to express my highest respect and admiration to the Co-Chairman, especially to Mr. Vance, who is to leave this responsibility in the near future, I deeply regret that the Bosnian Serb party has not agreed to interim arrangements and the provincial map which constitutes a central part of the peace plan. The Bosnian Serb party must stop all hostilities, especially military attacks against Sarajevo and Srebrenica, and also sign the two documents of the peace plan. My Government calls upon the Bosnian Serbs to do so without delay, before many more people have to die in vain. Mr. ERDOS (Hungary) (interpretation from French): Hungary found itself in a rather difficult position when the draft resolution the Security Council has just adopted today as resolution 820 (1993) was put to the vote. Let there be no misunderstanding: for my country, there was no question of an attitude of reluctance or of appeasement in the face of the aggression that has been sweeping the former Yugoslavia for almost two years now, nor is there any question of wanting to stand idly by while we watch the constant and cynical violations of the Security Council's resolutions, or in any way of preventing the internatiOnal community from being able, in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, to give a firm and unambiguous response to the challenges that have been hurled against it. We believe that the attitude Hungary has shown and the positions it has taken on the matter since.the crisis in the former Yugoslavia erupted speak for themselves. It is regrettable that in the blood-stained period just past we were obliged to observe, time after time, that the world Organisation, regional institutions and individual countries were not capable of judging properly and in time the scale, the possible outcomes, the consequences and the broader repercussions of the processes.that had been embarked upon in the former Yugoslavia. The history of this conflict proves that the international community has missed several unique and precious opportunities to mobilize right from the outset, even before the carnage degenerated into a diabolical escalation, and make it understood, by the positions it took and beyond possibility of doubt, that the world is not prepared to tolerate having the United Nations Charter, the binding resolutions of the Security Council and the agreements and documents of high-level international conferences constantly and systematically ignored and flouted. (Mr. Erdijs. Hunaarv) Long before the siege of Sarajevo started, Hungary had drawn the Security Council's attention to the explosive nature of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina - a situation it had then described as a source of potential danger not only to the region but also to international peace and security. That is why Hungary had advocated at the appropriate time the introduction of adequate preventive measures with a view to containing the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, in particular through the deployment of United Nations observers in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In so doing, Hungary was acting as one of the countries most affected - because of its geographical proximity - by the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. In the absence of an appropriate international response to the crisis, Hungary was not really surprised to see the repetition, mutatis mutandis, in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of open aggression aiming it the conquest of territory. Much has been said recently in the press, and even within these walls, about these events. We would simply note that, over and above the untiring, praiseworthy international efforts which have been exerted in various bodies and which we duly appreciate, the way in which our world, at the end of the twentieth century, has reacted to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the steps that it has taken in this context, will not, in our opinion, become brilliant pages of contemporary history. Rather, they will leave a heavy heritage of lessons for future generations. These pages of history will be pages of grief, destruction, complacency and impotence. And it seems to us that it is still much too early to reply to the question whether we are entitled to hope that the international community will manage to draw the conclusions required by this lesson of history. For us, the resolution that the Security Council has just adopted today has been and remains a dilemma for another reason as well, For, as experience (Mr. Erdijs, Hunsary) has shown in several other crises, sanctions are not necessarily and exclusively the salutary solution which can meet the challenge. From all the successive events in the crisis in the former Yugolsavia, i&has become increasingly clear that the general arms embargo decreed in the autumn of 1991, as well as the economic-sanctions regime instituted in the spring of 1992 and then extended last autumn, are not producing the results that the international community had legitimately expected. ,The reasons for this are, inter alia, the specific conditions in the former Yugoslavia, the particular features resulting from the geographic situation of the country, the establishment of domestic mitigating arrangements, and the nature of any sanctions regime, which, a priori, is porous. a Because of what I have just said, the Hungarian party has had occasion several times in the past to mention the problems and reservations it has had with regard to the strengthening of sanctions. In this opinion it has also quite naturally been motivated by the fact that Hungary is a State bordering on the former Yugoslavia and that our country and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) are linked by the Danube, which is one of the most important communication routes in Europe, and, last but not least, by the fact that there is in Vojvodina - a territory that is part of Serbia - an ethnic Hungarian community of almost half a million persons who are still suffering the tragic consequences of the conflict launched by greater-Serbian nationalism. We can hardly underestimate the economic losses the crisis has already caused the States neighbouring the former Yugoslavia, including Hungary. Because of the sanctions regime instituted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Hungarian economy has suffered losses (Mr. Erdijs, Hunsarv) amounting to almost half a billion United States dollars. The implementation of the resolution adopted today by the Security Council, the strengthening of the sanctions, are going to engender further economic difficulties for our country, as well as for the other neighbouring countries. The stricter conditions that have just been established for transit on the Danube will cause Hungarian industries even more serious problems than those they are facing at present. The interdiction from now on of practically all transit through the land borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) will, in turn, have similar effects on other sectors of our economy. Because of the tightening of the sanction measures, we expect that the transport by land of products and commodities between the Middle East and Western Europe, which is known to be very intense, will move to the border between Hungary and Romania - a border whose limited capacity of absorption is not our fault - where lamentable conditions already exist and where we can foresee new complex situations, whose scope it is still difficult to predict. These problems raise once again, and with the force of timeliness, the question of the international consequences of the sanctions regimes which have recently been proliferating, as well as the question of the equitable and appropriate treatment of these consequences, It is because of the absence of such solutions that we must at present face the challenge of the new situation resulting from the strengthening of sanctions against the former Yugoslavia. It is tragic to note that the nationalist forces aspiring to ethnic exclusivity and homogeneity are endangering and destroying material goods not only of the peoples living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that they are inflicting suffering and privation not only on civilians in Serbia and Montenegro, but that, at the same time, they are causing incalculable damage and, through the (Mr. Erdiis, Hunoary) presence of hundreds of thousands of refugees forced to move to the territory of the neighbouring States, are imposing an additional burden on third countries that are not parties to the conflict. All this lends even greater and more depressing dimensions to the revolting violations of the most elementary norms of international law, international humanitarian law and human rights being committed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite all that, Hungary, as in the past, will continue to carry out all the obligations stemming from the relevant Council resolutions. Our delegation's affirmative vote on resolution 820 (1993) has been motivated above all by the fundamental importance we attach to sending a sufficiently firm message to the representatives of greater-Serbian nationalism, in Serbia and outside it, who bear a basic responsibility for the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Such action has become even more necessary as'a result of the decisions taken by the so-called Bosnian Serbian parliament to reject the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as a result of the most recent tragic developments on the ground. We must do everything to ensure that in the territories controlled by the Serbs the heavy weapons fall silent, the snipers have no more ammunition with which to kill, and the military transport vehicles are unable to move because they have no gasoline. In a word, we must do everything to ensure that an end is put to the activity between the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and dontenegro) and the zones controlled by the Serbs in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, activity carried out in violation of the relevant Council resolutions, and that, thereby, the military machine of the Serbs in Bosnia is immabilized. Hungary's vote in favour of today's resolution is further explained by the fact that the sanctions measures, despite their comprehensive nature, will not lead in the final analysis to building a new Berlin wall between the civilian populations living on the two sides of the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and its neighbours, Telecommunications, postal services and humanitarian services will not become more difficult. It will be unnecessary to reduce the number of border crossings serving passenger traffic, and funds belonging to individuals will not be affected by the new measures either. Another element to be welcomed in the resolution is that, by virtue of an earlier Council resolution, the United Nations Protection Force will finally have to exercise effectively the tasks assigned to it of controlling immigration and customs along the international borders of the United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia, which are supposed be controlled by United Nations forces but are currently under Serb dominion. In one of those Protected Areas, for example, along the Hungarian border, there has been an arbitrary closing on the Serbian side of a vitally important border post intended to guarantee movement to the civilian populations of the region. On the basis of this Security Council resolution, we also expect that effective monitoring of navigation will be established throughout the Yugoslav section of the Danube, which can promote the assistance o'f the international community to such activities of the riparian States, In conclusion, Hungary believes Security Council resolution 820 (1993) ta be an important step towards a settlement of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. We voted in its favour, convinced that with the strengthening of the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the losses suffered by the legitimate trade of neighbouring (Mr. Erdijs, Huncrarv) countries, including my own, can and must be minimized. We also voted in favour because of the resolution's stipulations reaffirming the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the illegality and positively unacceptable nature of any acquisition of territory by force and of any practice of "ethnic cleansing", as well as the international community's readiness to take all necessary measures to help implement the peace.plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina. This also means that the Security Council, over and above the implementation of sanctions, will have to continue to remain vigilant and continue indefinitely to follow developments in the situation. It will also A have to take appropriate decisions on the use of whatever other means may be deemed the most effective in bringing the conflict to a close, establishing peace, and achieving a fair and lasting settlement. Allow me to close my statement by citing the words of a twentieth-century Hungarian writer, SAndor Marai, who, in considering our era, asked this crucial question: "Will the force of reason and solidarity prove more powerful than the terror of instincts?" We wholeheartedly hope that the international community will be able Promptly, through acts of commitment, to give an appropriate response to this disturbing question. Mr. SNOUSSI (Morocco) (interpretation from French): Today, the Council has adopted a new resolution in which it imposes a certain number of sanctions to convince and, if need be, to compel the Serbs finally to agree to the plan drawn up by Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen after very strenuous negotiations and efforts that deserve the admiration of us all. Bosnia, martyred and torn assunder, for its part did not hesitate to sign that agreement, which neither solves its problems nor provides justice for the suffering it has endured. Time and again, within these walls, we have condemned the violence, crimes and horrors perpetrated by the Serbs on their Bosnian brothers. We have repeatedly appealed for and urged an end to the fighting, to the horrible "ethnic cleansing", the expulsion of the Muslims and all the crimes committed. In reply to our appeals and resolutions, the Serbs and the Government supporting them have stepped up their activities and, most recently, to crown their shamelessness and defiance, attacked the city of Srebrenica, adding its dead to those fallen in Sarajevo and its displaced population to those wandering throughout eastern Europe. International opinion and the International Court of Justice have finally recognized that this is a case of genocide, which our Council has been saying for almost two years now. Today, the international community felt it necessary to enter a new stage and perhaps finally to impose sanctions which no country anywhere could ignore. It is to be feared, however, that we may soon need to go even further, given the contempt in which the Serbs hold our rules and values. The new reflections to which our Council has for some time lent itself allow us nevertheless to say that sooner or later we will overcome the arrogance and cynicism with which all our recommendations and resolutions have been met so far. We ask no more than that the Serbs at last awake and display wisdom and a realistic attitude. We hope they will realise that, whatever the blind and criminal pressures by which they have profited, they cannot go on indefinitely challenging the international community. In saying this, I express the hope that the international community will remain vigilant and no longer tolerate the intolerable. Thus will Serbia at last understand that it must abandon its dreams of grandeur and dominion.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Pakistan. My delegation has voted in favour of resolution 820 (1993), just adopted by the Council.. We believe that this is an appropriate occasion to pay a tribute to the exceptional efforts of Secretary Vance and Lord Owen, the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, As he le&es office, Secretary Vance takes with him the gratitude and good wishes of all people who value and honour peace and those who live it and work for it. Although my delegation feels that today's action by the Council represents an insufficient response by the international community to the unfolding tragedy of devastating proportions in the eastern parts of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is our hope that the passage of this resolution will send a firm message to'the Bosnian Serbs to cease their deliberate armed attacks and the shelling of the innocent civilian population and to withdraw their forces from the occupied areas, We condemn the violations of international humanitarian law, in particular the practice of "ethnic cleansing" by the Bosnian Serb party, and reaffirm that those who commit or order the commission of such acts of genocide shall be held individually responsible for such acts. My delegation has consistently declared that the time has come for the international community to demonstrate its firm resolve in compelling the Bosnian Serb party to accept in full the Vance-Owen peace package.' In this (Mr. Snoussi. Morocco) context, we believe that this Council should take immediate measures for the immobilization of heavy weapons in Bosnia and Herzegovina and place them under effective international control; that the Council should adopt appropriate measures to ensure the interdiction of arms supplies to the Bosnian Serb party; and that further measures, including stringent financial sanctions, be imposed against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). My delegation is also of the view that immediate measures should be taken for the partial lifting of the arms embargo in order to enable the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise their inherent right of self-defence, the denial of which has already cost them so many valuable and innocent lives. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. There are no further speakers inscribed on my list. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council will remain seized of the matter. The meetino rose at 12.40 a.m., Sundav, 18 April 1993.