S/PV.3201 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, the Comoros, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided, At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sacirbev (Bosnia and Herzegovina) took a place at the Council table: Mr, Farhadi (Afahanistan), Mr. Shkurti (Albania), Mr. Hadid (Alaeria), Mr. Cardenas (Argentina), Mr, Hohenfellner (Austria). Mr. Abdul Ghaffar (Bahrain), Mr. Pashovski (Buloariar, Mrs. 2 Fr& he te Can a niak (Croatia), Mr. Haakonsen (Denmark), Mr. Avala Taasso (Ecuador), Mr, Hassan (Euvot), Mr Gr f z R n aau g n In 'a Mr. Kharrazi lami Renublic of Iran), Mr. Collins (Ireland), Mr, Scialoja (Italv), Mr. Abu Odeh (Jordan). Mr. Simutis (Lithuania q ( Malta Mr Al-Ni'mah atar Saudi Mr. Osvald (Sweden), Mr. Burcuoslu (Turkey), Mr, Batiouk (Ukraine) and Mr. Samhan (United Arab Emirates) took the olaces reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. The.PRESIDENT: I have also received a request dated 19 April 1993 from Ambassador Dragomir Djokic to address the Council. With the consent of the Council, I would propose to invite him to address the Council in the course of its discussion of the item before it. There being no objection, it is so decided. I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 16 April 1993 from the representative of Turkey, which reads as follows: "I have the honour to request that the Security Council extend an invitation to His Excellency Mr. Engin Ansay, Ambassador, Permanent Observer of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, to address the Council under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure in the course of the Council's consideration of the item currently on its agenda." This letter has been published as document S/25615. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 to Ambassador Ansay. 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 accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. The first name inscribed on the list of speakers is that of the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on whom I now call. Mr, SACIRBEY (Bosnia and Herzegovina): I should like to commend you, Mr. President, on the capable manner in which you have provided leadership to the Council. I should also like to express my appreciation to the non-aligned caucus for its determined efforts and my admiration to its current coordinator, His Excellency Ambassador Diego Arria, for his most capable statesmanship. Genocide and aggression are two powerful words in any language or tone, They convey images that shock and frighten civilised mankind. These are the images of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. They also underlie powerful legal considerations. There is an obligation on the part of the community of nations to take concrete steps to halt immediately the actions those words represent, Obviously, that is the reason why certain members of the Council avoid the use of these two words. It is ,' tragically comical how resolutions and statements are drafted that describe the acts but so faithfully and meticulously omit the damning words. These two words are the reality of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no matter what attempts are made to exclude them from any resolution or statement pertaining to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia was co-opted to deflect the legal implication of these words and to redefine the aggression and genocide against the per,ple of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It became a priority to recharacterize the problem to suit the solutions that were being offered instead of modifying the solutions to actually address the unavoidable problem. NOW that the Vance-Owen plan has seemingly lost its utility in masking the failure of the international community to fulfil its obligations, those who most promoted the plan, with authority, now find it so convenient to betray its vision, Ironically, we, who most vividly saw the plan's flaws, cling to it as a necessary vehicle to a brighter future. The following is unavoidable, and efforts to avoid it have exacerbated the problem: Serbia and Montenegro have undertaken aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, The International Court of Justice has defined it as genocide. The Security Council has failed to fulfil its responsibility to stop the aggression and genocide. The community of nations has come together in the United Nations and nations have individually subjected themselves to the rule of law to secure greater peace and security. Nations do not restrain their sovereignty to be subjected to the political whims of the powerful in interpreting international law selectively. A new world order cannot be defined on the basis of the economic and strategic interests of a few. The efforts of the non-aligned caucus and other members of the Security Council in promoting the swift adoption of resolutions 819 (1993) and 820 (19931, and in calling for a more legally and ethically responsible answer to genocide and aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina, are most consistent with the soul of this noble body, the principles of international law and the raison d'gtre for restrained sovereignty. The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina strongly endorses the terms of resolution 819 (1993) in its objective to create a safe area in and around the town of Srebrenica. We are also appreciative of the motivations of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in their efforts with respect to Srebrenica. Noqe the less, we caution that military and humanitarian personnel cannot be assigned the obligation of political decision-making. It may be a convenient means for some, members of the Security Council to avoid responsibility, but it perverts the very principles of the United Nations, Under its current mandate, in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina UNPROFOR can only accommodate the stronger aggressor at the expense of the weaker victim, The United Nations cannot be allowed to assist aggressors in accomplishing their goals and achieving political legitimacy. We call upon the Security Council and the Secretariat to ensure that its directives under ,resolution 819 (1993) are fully implemented and enforced. In fact, if there is deemed to be a surrender of the Bosnian forces in Srebrenica then this is also a surrender by the United Nations to the fOrCeS of aggression. It has become clear that the current mandate of United Nations operations in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not adequate or appropriate, We commend and thank the brave men and women who are valiantly trying to provide assistance under the banner of the United Nations. Tourniquets and band-aids are an appropriate temporary response to some wounds to stop the bleeding, hut they become irrelevant when new and ever more vicious wounds are allowed to be (Mr, Sacirbev, Bosnia and Herzeaovina) inflicted. Indefinitely applied, temporary assistance can become gradually counter-productive if it is used to mask the necessity for longer-term remedies, We fully endorse the new draft resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina being introduced by the non-aligned caucus. Its .provisions are the only hope for peace or a negotiated settlement because it solely addresses the cause of the war against our nation and can thus bring about the necessary environment for an end to unilateral aggression. As importantly, the following measures will in fact save lives now and in the longer term: first, by all necessary means either take firm control of or neutralize heavy weapons; secondly, interdict supply lines from Serbia and Montenegro penetrating our nation: and, thirdly, clarify that the arms embargo does not apply to the defence forces of the Republicof Bosnia and Herzegovina. If these steps are deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to currently mandated United Nations personnel and their current mission, then the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina clearly requests that such missions be appropriately modified and that such United Nations personnel take precautionary measures, and if necessary, withdraw. It is indeed ironic that, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the betrayal of those doomed souls, another people threatened with genocide is still awaiting the necessary response. Genocide and aggression: efforts to evade these words are a continuing exercise in avoidance of responsibility. There can be no authority without responsibility.

I thank the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Turkey. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. BURCTJO&JJ (Turkey) (interpretation from French): It is a great pleasure for me to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of April. You are a seasoned expert in multilateral diplomacy with a record of achievements in that field. We are certain that under your guidance the Council will discharge its responsibilities successfully, I must also pay a tribute to Ambassador O'Brien of New ZPaland for the outstanding way in which he guided the work of the Council in March. My delegation is deeply touched by the statement you made, Mr. President, on behalf of the Council at its meeting on 17 April after the sudden death of Mr. Turgut bzal, President ,f the Republic of Turkey. We have experienced an enormous loss. Your expressions of sympathy have been brought to the attention of the Turkish Government and of the bereaved family of the late President. I should like to express to you our gratitude and our most sincere thanks for sharing the grief that has so painfully struck the Turkish Government and people. We owe this open debate first and foremost to you, Mr, President, to the non-aligned members of the Council and to the Contact Group on Bosnia and Herzegovina of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. In its letter addressed to the President of the Security Council of 15 April 1993, issued as document S/25607, the Contact Group requested an urgent formal meeting of the Security Council with an open debate so that all non-members could voice their concern and their indignation at what is going on in martyred Bosnia and Herzegovina. We pay a tribute to Mr. Vance and Lord Owen, Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, for the tireless efforts they have made, My delegation also wishes to commend the United Nations Protection Force, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the humanitarian organizations for their efforts, in extremely difficult conditions, to help millions of people. A State Member of the United Nations where all ethnic and religious communities have lived for centuries in exemplary tolerance and harmony has, for more than a year now, continued to be dismembered before the eyes of the international community. The Muslim population is in effect being threatened with extermination, and the Serbian aggression, the daily round of massacres and deliberate pillage of the civilian populations, the forced relocations and the massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law continue. The monstrous Serbian campaign of "ethnic cleansing" and genocide is in full swing. Despite the indescribable horrors his people have experience, on 25 March President Alija Izetbegovic, on behalf of the Bosnian Government, signed the documents of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina drawn up by the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. By accepting the plan in conditions of aggression and genocide, President Izetbegovic displayed remarkable courage and showed his sincere dedication to the search for a peaceful solution. My delegation subscribes to the following points so rightly put forward by the President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in signing the' plan. Firstly, the Serbian aggressor should sign the plan within a reasonable time; secondly, the international community should take effective steps to make sure it is implemented; and, thirdly, the aggression should cease immediately. ,I Almost four weeks have passed since the peace plan was signed by two of the three parties, and the Serbian side is thus the only one left that has not accepted it. During that ti.me, the Serbian aggressors have, on several occasions, shown that they have no intention of signing the plan and putting an end to their chauvinistic ambitions to create a Greater Serbia. Despite innumerable appeals by the Security Council 2nd the international community, they have continued their aggression, their revolting practice of "ethnic cleansing" and their policy of genocide. What is happening in Srebrenica is the most glaring example of this. Since the beginning of the Bosnian tragedy, Turkey has been asking the Security Council and the international community to demonstrate political will, to take decisive measures and to make it quite clear to Belgrade and its agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina that the Council and the international community will shoulder their responsibilities and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the victims of the aggression. Unfortunately, our appeals have not had the impact that we hoped for with the Security Council. In fact, the Council has taken only piecemeal, timid steps that lacked conviction. Not only that, the measures and the sanctions that have been imposed, instead of being applied thoroughly, have been systematically ignored or violated. The inadequate and ineffective response by the Security Council has beyond a doubt encouraged the Serbs to pursue their policy of aggression, "ethnic cleansing" and genocide. Since the Council has so far been unable to take up the challenge hurled at the international community, the number of victims is still growing and the towns of Bosnia are falling one after another. The failure of the United Nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is also apparent in the heart-wrenching appeals for help from the officials in the United Nations Protection Force, United Nations staff members and members of the humanitarian organixations working in the field. It is a paradox that this setback should be occurring just when methods of strengthening and developing preventive diplomacy, restoring peace and peace-keeping are being studied as part of the debate on "An Agenda for Peace". We should also like to emphasise our deep concern in view of a number of harmful initiatives that, under the cover of mediation or good offices, are playing into the hands of the Serbian aggressors, of Messrs. Milosevic and Xaradzic. We welcome the opinion of 8 April delivered by the International Court of Justice, which unanimously, on a provisional basis, indicates that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must immediately, in accordance with the undertaking it had given under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, take all measures in its power to prevent the perpetration of the crime of genocide. Organisation of the Islamic Conference that an international tribunal should be established to pass judgement on those held to be responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 have been issued as document 5125512. My delegation welcomes resolution 816 (1993) on strengthening the no-fly zone. Although it considers it a step in the right direction, it finds it to be too late and too little to deter the Serbian aggressors. Resolution 819 (1993), on Srebrenica, fits within the same context - that is, it has good intentions and is useful but does not have binding specific measures to ensure its application. We attach great importance to the report of the Mission of the Council that will be visiting Bosnia and Herzegovina under paragaraph 12 of that resolution. Resolution 820 (1993), concerning the strengthening of the sanctions against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), which the Council just adopted - on 17 April - is another important step. We regret the delay in its implementation. Despite its good points, it is very far from responding to the urgency of the situation since putting it into effect will necessarily require time and there will always be risks of violations. It is high time that the international community and the Security Council shouldered their obligation to implement the Vance-Owen plan and make of it a lasting solution. To put an end to Serbian aggression and to persuade the aggressor to sign the peace plan, more decisive action by the Security Council is required. What we expect from the Council is the adoption of a resolution containing the following elements: first, measures, including aerial attacks, aimed at the interdiction of the supply lines of the Bosnian Serb paramilitary units: secondly, measures designed to place the heavy weapons of all parties under the control of the United Nations; thirdly, if the preceding measures are not implemented, the lifting of the arms embaro imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Security Council has so far been unable to stop Serbian aggression. It is in this context that Turkey has backed the ,:onditional lifting of the arms embargo imposed by resolution 713 (1991). We firmly believe that, in the light of the continued horrors experienced by the Muslim population and the continued inability of the United Nations to remedy this situation, the Security Council must allow the Bosnian Government, which is in a position of total inferiority concerning arms, to exercise its inalienable right to self-defence against an aggressor threatening the very existence of its people. So long as the Serbian party continues to impose its will through the use of superior weapons, it will not be inclined to accept the peace plan. If the Bosnian Government had the means to defend itself, that would deter the aggressor from pursuing a policy based on the use of force and would make it opt for peace. For more than a year now, war has been raging in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the conflagration is still likely to extend to other parts of the region. At this critical moment the Security Council's credibility is being sorely tested. We all know that mere condemnations, half-measures and ineffective resolutions are useless. The Council's action must be commensurate with its task. It must explicitly say to Belgrade and to the Bosnian Serbs that the patience of the international community has run out. It must finally act forcefully, for its timidity will encourage other possible aggressors - indeed, examples of this are already emerging. The Council must authorize the use of force against the aggressor before it is too late. It must demonstrate the same determination that has been shown in other regions where the United Nations has intervened. We hope that the present debate will help the Council finally to take decisive measures. Turkey remains ready to support any concerted international action designed to put an end to the Bosnian tragedy. To follow up on this question, Turkey is considering, with the Contact Group of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, requesting the convening of an emergency session of the General Assembly. The use of brute force must not be rewarded, and crimes committed must not remain unpunished. Otherwise, the reputation of the Organisation and the credibility of the Security Council will suffer greatly, and this will in turn jeopardize the very foundations of the system of international peace and security. If the international community and the Security Council shirk their responsibilities at this critical moment, history will judge and condemn us all most severely.

I thank the representative of Turkey for the kind words he addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next speaker is the representative of Austria. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. HOHENFELLNER (Austria): The unspeakable human tragedy which has unfolded over the past few days in East Bosnia and the continuing flouting of and utter disregard for previous decisions of the Security Council by the Serbian side compels us to participate in this debate. Givea the gravity of the situation we are grateful to the.initiators of this debate. i On 25 March President Izetbegovic signed the remaining parts of the peace package as prepared in extensive consultations by the co-Chairmen of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. Since then, several weeks have elapsed without acceptance by the Bosnian Serbs of the negotiated settlement of the conflict. On the contrary, despite intensive diplomatic efforts the Bosnian Serbs have continued their military aggression, in particular in eastern Bosnia, openly flouting the authority of the international community and the Security Council. Despite numerous demands for an effective cease-fire in Security Council resolutions and assurances given by their leaders, the Bosnian Serb forces have again and again resumed the fighting. The manifold condemnations of "ethnic cleansing" and other violations of international humanitarian law have only resulted in further cruel acts of the same kind. In direct contravention of the relevant Security Council resolutions and of all human decency, the delivery of humanitarian assistance has been and is being hindered and thwarted whenever it fits into the political intentions of the Bosnian Serb leaders. Since the ban on military flights in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina more than 500 violations have been reported by the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). When the enforcement of the no-fly zone finally began, the reaction of the Bosnian Serb side was the heavy shelling of defenceless civilians in Srebrenica and Sarajevo. Thereby, it presumably intended to demonstrate to the world and the Security Council once more its attitude of defiance of the Council's decisions and international law. Blatant disregard for Security Council resolutions, UNPROFOR and the Office Of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has become their pattern of behaviour, Regrettably, it is therefore by now obvious that a peaceful solution in the former Yugoslavia cannot be achieved by diplomatic means alone. The time has come for the international community to take more decisive steps, including further measures foreseen in Chapter VII of Charter of the United Nations. (Mr. Hohenfellner, Austria) Austria certainly welcomes the adoption of a stricter sanctions regime in Security Council resolution 820. However, given the pressing needs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Security Council should urgently take effective and vigorous actions to bring about implementation of existing Security Council resolutions as well as of the decisions of the London Conference. Daily the media overwhelm us with reports on unspeakable human suffering in Srebrenica, Constantly we are confronted with pictures showing the cruel consequences of systematic harassment, deprivation and torture. We commend the activities of UNPROFOR and UNHCR as well as the air-drops to help these desperate people. But, to assuage our conscience, does it suffice to achieve the minimizing of the number of casualties in the further progress of "ethnic cleansing". (Mr. Hohenfellner, Austria) As early as last summer, the Foreign Minister of Austria proposed the establishment of safe areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, The case of Srebrenica has once again shown the urgent need to create such areas. It should be our first priority to protect innocent civilians against murder, fighting, starvation and cold, and to attempt to prevent further "ethnic cleansing" in those protected areas, Austria therefore considers Security Council resolution 819 (1993) an important first step. Now a sufficient number of the United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR) troops in the Srebrenica area and an active and effective protection of the civilian population in and around Srebrenica are a matter of the utmost priority. Additional safe areas should be created in and around Sarajevo, Gorazde and other densely populated areas which are controlled by the Government and are under pressure from the Bosnian Serb army. The international community cannot accept the continuous hindrance of humanitarian relief efforts by the Bosnian Serbs. Another step urgently required, therefore, is the full implementation of resolution 770 (1992), which authorizes all necessary measures to be taken to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. In particular, corridors under the protection of UNPROFOR should be established for the unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, the Security Council should take concrete steps to resolve the problem of the unabated use of heavy weapons, as foreseen at the London Conference. The incessant and senseless shelling of Bosnian towns, such as Sarajevo, makes this a priority issue. Security Council resolution 819 (1993) "Demands that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) immediately cease the supply of military (Mr. Hahenfellner, Austria) arms, equipment and services" (para. 3) to the Bosnian Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. An important measure to bring about implementation of this crucial demand would be the deployment of United Nations observers on the border between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), as already mentioned in Security Council resolution 787 (1992) last December. The international community cannot risk failure in its efforts to achieve peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the Bosnian Serb side is not ready to sign and honour the peace plan, to fulfil the relevant Security Council resolutions and to abide by international humanitarian law, it must be induced to do so by applying all necessary means foreseen in the United Nations Charter, including Chapter VII. To do otherwise would mean failing to uphold international law and all other basic principles to which we have agreed. Furthermore, it would be a fallacy to believe that this is a conflict which can be left to burn out. On the contrary - if aggression and violence were allowed to stand in Bosnia and Herzegovina, they could become a firebrand spilling over into other parts of the former Yugoslavia and indeed into other areas of the region as a whole, continuously refuelling itself. The time has come to take a decisive stand. What is needed now, above all, is to put the decisions and resolutions already adopted by the international community into effect and not to add new decisions which would remain dead letters. Only thus will the United Nations be in a position to fulfil its task of restoring peace and international security; otherwise its credibility might suffer further.

The next speaker is the representative of Malaysia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement, Mr. RAZALI (Malaysia): Allow me to join others in extending my delegation's congratulations to you, Sir, on your being President of the Council for this month. May I also congratulate Ambassador Terence O'Brien of New Zealand for the sterling work he performed last month with great skill and great effort. Today's meeting may have mixed motives, since there have been weeks of opposition from certain members for a formal. debate. My delegation hopes that our meeting today is related to the terrible plight of Srebrenica and the implication of its possible fall in terms of the Council's reputation and effectiveness and of the many thousands who will suffer. While Malaysia welcomes the recent adoption of resolution 820 (1993) by the Council on the tightening of economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), we regret that the sanctions measures are not comprehensive enough given that the Serbian aggression against Bosnia has been going on for more than a year. Our main concern is that the tightening of sanctions under resolution 820 (1993) will not have the immediate effect of protecting the Bosnian Muslims from continuing Serbian heavy bombardments on civilian centres, particularly Sarajevo and Bihac, and will still leave Bosnian Muslims vulnerable to Serbian attacks and interruptions of United Nations relief supplies to other areas. The desperate situation on the ground in Bosnia calls for effective and concrete action to be taken by the Council as a matter of urgency. In this regard, Malaysia would like to urge the Council to take the following measures: placing heavy weaponry under United Nations control.; the creation of safe havens which, among other things, would require steps to stop Serbian bombardments and ensure the free and uninterrupted flow of relief supplies; interdiction of the supply lines of the Serbian forces in Bosnia: and the (Mr. Razali, Malaysia) lifting of the arms embargo with respect to the Government of Bosnia and Werzegovina, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter. These are not new proposals. They are contained in General Assembly resolutions 46/242 of 25 August 1992 and 47/121 of 18 December 1992. In addition, the caucus of non-aligned members has been asking the Council to consider such measures for the last several weeks, and the Malaysian delegation would like to express its deep appreciation to the non-aligned caucus for its efforts. The Malaysian del.egation would like to take this opportunity to express its serious concern over the actions of certain Council members in obstructing repeated desperate requests for emergency meetings of the Council to address the growing deterioration of the situation in Bosnia. Those actions are tantamount to applying a surreptitious veto. We are also disheartened that the Council succumbed to positions taken by certain of its permanent members that delayed the adoption by the Security Council of both resolutions 816 (1993), on the enforcement of no-fly zones, and 820 (1993), on economic sanctions, As regards the peace plan, while reluctantly recognizing its significant shortcomings, Malaysia accepts the view of the Secretary-General, stated in his report in document S/25479, that: "The Co-Chairmen's peace package provides the only mechanism available for the re-establishment of peace, with justice and respect for human rights, in Bosnia and Herzegovina". (S/25479, uara 30) However, we question the status of the plan now with two parties signing and the continued rejection by the Bosnian Serbs and the continuing rampage of the Serbs.' The Council must clearly manifest its resolute will to ensure by all necessary means acceptance of the plan by the Serbian side. Half-hearted measures would amount to acquiescence to the Serbian onslaught. At the same time, the question Looms ever larger over the continued unwillingness on the part of the Council to take more resolute measures and to respect General Assembly resolutions 461242 and 47/121. As long as the Council remains in such a state, the Serbs will roll on in ruthless pursuit of a perverse grand design for a Greater Serbia. My delegation understands how unready the United Nations is for the necessary tasks in Bosnia. In upholding the rule of law within the framework of collective security, the United Nations, in concert and with universally accepted premises, would readily raise united armies to enforce its decisions and punish perpetrators such as those that are now committing atrocities in Bosnia. The United Nations may yet take some years to develop such an approach to collective security, but events do not choose opportune moments to present challenges, and the Council cannot allow the views of a few to determine when it should act while Bosnians continue to be slaughtered. Ready or not, the Council is confronted with the Bosnian situation now. We are witnessing crimes against humanity being committed by the Serbs that threaten to blot out the gains accrued from the end of the cold war, from a revitalized United Nations and from the emerging consensus on values that govern States and societies. What adds to further cynicism is the fact that when women, children, innocent civilians and refugees of Srebrenica were being bombarded by the Serbs, necessary actions were held back for political consolidation reasons elsewhere. AS the Council's effectiveness remains in question, my delegation has no choice but to use this debate to direct our appeal to the United States, both its Government and its people, to help Bosnia. My delegation finds no assurance in the actions of Europe. That region is undergoing a grave revival of ethnic strife, intolerance and conflict that threatens Europe's own standards. By refusing to support military action against Serbian "ethnic cleansing", the Europeans are in danger of allowing a revival of appeasement and genocide. The former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Lady Thatcher, recently excoriated current European leaders for their impassivity. Furthermore, Europe has not only been unable to decide in concert to stop the atrocities, but would appear to have been obstructing the possible role of others, including that of the United States. The situation in Bosnia, whatever the original causes, must now be seen solely as deliberate actions designed to forge together a Greater Serbia territory by any number of killings, rape and other forms of brutalization. The Council has to act to stop the further expansion of the "killing fields'", The Council cannot remain in analysis paralysis, deaf to the chorus of dying voices seeking help. If there is ever any clear role and responsibility for the United States to lead in the Council it is now - to provide a lifeline to the suffering Bosnians, whatever it takes. There is general acceptance that now only the United States can galvanize the Council into action that can save the Bosnians from extermination. The United States is right in expecting support from the international community for selective enforcement actions in Bosnia. Malaysia, and I am sure many of the Members of the international community, stand ready to play their part and join the United States in a United Nations collective enforcement action. If, under certain circumstances, the Council is still unable to act, then the time will come for the Members of the United Nations to consider working towards a Uniting-for-Peace resolution at a special session of the General Assembly.

I thank the representative of Malaysia for the kind words he addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next speaker is the representative of Senegal, I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement, Mr. CISSE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): You are presiding over the Security Council at a time when this body is facing a resurgence of tragedy in the world, Your well-known wisdom and reputation as an even-handed diplomat guarantee that you will guide our discussions successfully. allow me also at this time to congratulate your predecessor, Ambassador O'Brien of New Zealand, on the brilliantly effective manner in which he directed the work of the Security Council last month. If this were once again a matter of taking the floor to denounce the tragedy which slowly but inexorably has been wiping Bosnia-Herzegovina off the map, the Council can rest assured that the Senegalese delegation would have been glad to refrain from speaking. All that has already been said by us and by other delegations. We have shared with you the concerns of the President of the Republic of Senegal,, Ms. Abdou Diouf, the current President of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as to what is happening in that State Member of our Organization, My purpose today, therefore, is not to offer lamentations but rather to express astonishment and make proposals - astonishment at our culpable inefficacy and proposals for the Council at long last to take steps to save what can still be saved. As we see it, what needs to be emphasized today is that nearly a month ago, on 25 March 1993, Mr. Alija Xzetbegovic, President of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, acting on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina signed the documents bearing on the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, thus accepting the plan in toto. That courageous decision, taken at a difficult time in the history of the people of Bosnia - who, though manifestly the victims of certajn parties to the said accord, are accepting it in spirit and in letter - demonstrates how deeply committed they are to the quest for peace. The tragic irony of fate now is that circumstances are rewarding those who are refusing to sign that plan viewed by its advocates as the only recourse for restoring peace. In fact, the response of the Serbian side to the peace efforts is common knowledge. It is in fact a non-response, if not a demonstration of contempt for the international community. We deeply regret that the ineffectve and notoriously inadequate sanctions imposed by the Security Council and the unanimous but not very tangible condemnation by the international community should have led only to an intensification of the acts of aggression by the Serb forces and the acquisition by force of more and more territory. Today, "ethnic cleansing" is all but complete. Srebrenica resounds in our consciences as the cry signalling the end. The contemptuous reaction of Serbia-Montenegro to Security Council resolution 819 (1993) has triggered our anger as it has that of the Council and, in less than 24 hours, the Council has responded by adopting a new resolution 820 (1993) so as at last to stiffen the sanctions against the Serbs. And yet we are not thereby reassured that the Serbs will obey the Council's injunctions. They have, after all, got us used to their flouting of the Council's resolutions. It is high time, therefore, that the Security Council got a grip on itself and took other measures - measures of the kind that will make the Council credible in the eyes of millions of human beings carefully following its deliberations. It is from that perspective that we appeal to the Council to adopt the following measures, which it owes to the suffering people of Bosnia and Herzegovina: first, immediate implementation of the strict economic and financial sanctions put in place by resolutions 757 (1992), 787 (1992) and 820 (1993); secondly, effective implementation of the provisions of resolution 752 (1992) on placing heavy weapons under monitoring and the cutting of the Serb militias’ supply lines; and thirdly, the lifting of the arms embargo imposed against Bosnia and Herzegovina, for experience has shown clearly that the effects of this measure taken against the belligerent parties harm only the Bosnian side. Lifting the embargo would enable the victim of aggression to secure the means to exercise its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. Those measures may not be new ideas, but they are none the less urgently necessary in the present circumstances.

I thank the representative of Senegal for the kind words he addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next speaker is the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I invite him to takf'a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. KHARRAZI (Islamic Republic of Iran): At the outset, Sir, I should like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to YOUI a distinguished diplomat from the brotherly and friendly country of Pakistan, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. Allow me also to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to you for the prompt consideration of the request of a number of delegations, including my own, for the convening of this meeting to consider urgently the tragic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am confident that your skill and vast diplomatic experience will enable you effectively to guide the Council's deliberations on this important subject. I should like also to extend my gratitude to your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of New Zealand, Ambassador O'Brien, and his able delegation for a valuable and lucid performance as President last month. The Security Council meets today to discuss an issue which continues thoroughly to shock the conscience of every human being, For more than a year tens of thousands of innocent Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been subjected to wholesale uprooting, mass rape and systematic murder by Serbs. It is high time we asked ourselves why the Security Council did not act resolutely and in time in the face of this clear and blatant Serbian aggression. An overwhelming majority of Member States believes that the Council has not shouldered its responsibilities with regard to safeguarding the territorial integrity of a State Member of the United Nations. The Security Council has had ample opportunity to reverse the aggression, but the fact of the matter is that the Council has always acted passively and belatedly regarding the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The evidence is enormous. When the Serbs started their aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Council neither confronted the aggression nor took any action to enable the Bosnian Government to exercise its inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter. When the Council adopted its resolution 781 (1992) banning all military flights over Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs continued to disregard that Council decision. The Security Council therefore had to adopt another resolution to enforce resolution 781 (1992). Faced with Serbian intransigence, the Security Council adopted resolution 757 (1992) calling for a sort of partial economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. But the other day the Council had to adopt another resolution to tighten the sanctions in order to remedy the shortcomings and close the loopholes of the first resolution. Had the Security Council acted resolutely and expeditiously when the Serbs started their aggression, the abhorrent policy of "ethnic cleansing", the killing and torture of defenceless people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the mass deportation of civilians, the systematic rape of thousands of women and the gradual annihilation and extinction of a State Member of the United Nations could have been avoided. Moreover, in that case there was no need to negotiate with an aggressor, a process which has resulted in that aggressor's intransigence, In fact, the Security Council has not followed a consistent line when faced with different instances of aggression. Fair enough: the Council acted promptly in the case of the occupation of Kuwait; But a policy of appeasement and leniency'towards aggressors was adopted in the case of Bosnia and that of Iraq's aggression against Iran. It is with profound indignation and outrage that we see the Serbs Continuing with impunity their aggression against a young Member of the United Nations. The ever deteriorating situation of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ever widening scope of the atrocities committed against them warrant urgent action by the Security Council to reverse this ominous trend. The Security Council must bolster its actions in this regard with a meaningful enforcement mechanism and with serious political will. Indeed, numerous resolutions and statements of the Security Council calling for a cease-fire and an end to hostilities have invariably regrettably gone unheeded by the Serbs. The essence of the matter here is that the Serbs will never voluntarily reverse their abhorrent campaign of "ethnic cleansing" or abandon their goal of creating a Greater Serbia. That can be easily surmised from their genocidal behaviour. They have even exploited the peace-process negotiations as a cover for their insolent practice of "ethnic cleansing" and in order to ward off any pressure by the international community. With none of the weapons they need to counter the Serbian aggression in the hands of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and with the Security Council discounting any talk of lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs are now gearing up for a final assault on surrounded areas in that country. The intensification of daily Serbian acts of aggression and barbarism against the defenceless people of Bosnia and Herzegovina appears to herald a Serbian attempt quite soon to overrun completely a State Member of the United Nations. Under such alarming circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence that the Serbs are inclined even to think about stopping their atrocities, it is plausible to conclude that no argument can justify the continuation of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Islamic Republic of Iran, which has spared no effort to alleviate the agonies of the innocent and defenceless people of Bosnia and Herzegovina through rendering humanitarian assistance, has emphasized on numerous occasions that the Security Council, morally, legally and politically, is duty bound to allow a nation whose existence is at stake to defend itself. In this connection it is noteworthy to recall that during its forty-seventh session the General Assembly adopted resolution 47/121, which reaffirmed the right of Bosnia and Herzegovina to self-defence, This resolution, which represents the collective will of the majority of States Members of the United Nations, underscores, among other things, the necessity of lifting the arms embargo against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to secure its inherent prerogative to defend itself as well as to restore its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. When the Islamic countries first advocated the lifting of the arms embargo against the Repiblic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, their idea was rejected immediately by certain countries that claimed to know the Balkans better. Now that the idea of lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina is supported more and more, those countries should answer this critical question: Is there a legal and moral justification for the continuation of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina? It should be clear by now that the Serbs will not heed the international call to stop the aggression and that the adoption of any resolution by the Security Council, short of lifting the arms embargo, will only make the Serbs believe that, for the time being, resolute action is not on the horizon. The aggressors have proven that they continue to understand the language of force alone. If many countries and the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference view the use of force against the aggressors as a genuine and effective way to confront the Serbs, why are certain members of the Council still resisting the implementation of justice7 In the light of the foregoing, and in order to remedy its past mistakes, the Security Council should not limit its actions to the mere adoption of resolution 820 (1993). Therefore, the Security Council in the view of many delegations, including my own, must adopt the following immediately: first, take measures to interdict the supply lines of Serbian paramilitary units in Bosnia and Herzegovina; secondly, neutralise the heavy weaponry besieging cities and killing civilians and enforce measures to place this weaponry under international control; thirdly, reaffirm its support for the Government and the people of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the exercise of their inherent right to self-defence and the lifting of the arms embargo against this Republic; fourthly, enforce its resolution 770 (1992) expeditiously in order to guarantee the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and, fifthly, establish immediately the international war-crimes tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law on the basis of provisions envisaged in resolution 808 (1993).

I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his kind words addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next name inscribed on the list of speakers is that of the (The President), representative of Indonesia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr.. SOEGARDA (Indonesia): I should like, at the outset, to extend my delegation's congratulations, Sir, upon your assumpiton of the presidency of the Council for this month. We remain fully confident that, with your extensive experience and diplomatic skills, our deliberations will be brought to a successful conclusion. I also wish to pay a well-deserved tribute to Ambassador O'Brien of New Zealand for the able guidance he provided to the Council last month. Let me also avail myself of this occasion to express our appreciation to you, Sir, and the other members of the Council for giving us the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is with a profound sense of sorrow and anguish that my delegation is addressing this meeting as the people of Bosnia are being subjected to the darkest moment in their history. At this critical juncture, therefore, the international community is duty bound to take immediate and resolute action not only to end the unspeakable suffering of the people but also to forestall attempts to dismember a nation. For the past year, Indonesia, as a non-aligned country, has noted with grave concern the tragic chain of events that have engulfed,the newly independent Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have followed daily reports of escalating violence, the relentless bombardment of cities and towns, mounting casualties, the deadly manoeuvres to starve people into submission, forced expulsions, and, worst of all, the unconscionable policy of "ethnic cleansing". The catastrophic dimension of the situation is fully evident in the horrendous loss of innocent human lives, massive violations of human rights, the devastation of the country and the unending flight of refugees. Reflecting the grave concern of the international community, both the United Nations Secretary-General and the European Community have, since the eruption of the conflict, sought to achieve a cease-fire so as to create an atmosphere conducive to reaching a negotiated settlement. Likewise, we placed our confidence in this body, which adopted numerous resolutions. Thus, the embargo on weapons, the imposition of economic sanctions, the ban on military flights over Bosnian airspace and the decision to Eacilitare the delivery of humanitarian aid represent important first steps towards the adoption of more effective measures to end the conflict. It was the justifiable expectation of the Member States that those measures would suffice to deter aggression and halt genocide and forceful land-grabbing. It is most regrettable to note, however, that despite these intense diplomatic efforts, the situation in Bosnia has markedly worsened, My delegation, therefore, fully shares the international outrage at the unabated aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State Member of this Organisation and at the continuing violence and bloodshed. Meanwhile, the Bosnians are offered a peace plan with provisions for new constitutional principles and a map that divides their country into 10 autonomous provinces. It also spells out terms for an unconditional cease-fire, separation of combatants and the demilitarization of the country. Taken together, they seek to recognise that Bosnia will be a decentralized State, with most governing functions to be carried out by the provinces. But it is undeniable that the plan offers the Bosnians the agony of dismemberment of their country. The fragmentation of the country will not reflect geographic, historical, demographic or economic realities. It rewards "ethnic cleansing" by assigning to Serbs areas that they seized after driving out the other communities. Hence it is unfair to Bosnian Muslims and unduly rewards the Bosnian Serbs. It lacks a mechanism that would compel Serbs to comply, and it represents an enforced compromise between aggressors and their victims. Yet, despite grave misgivings and scepticism concerning the plan's efficacy and feasibility, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina accepted the proposals in the cause of peace and saving lives. Its contemptuous rejection by the Serbs is clearly a blatant attempt to divide Bosnia along ethnic lines and thereby create States-within-a-State, taking them closer to their proclaimed goal of an independent Bosnian Serbian State that will join up with the former Yugoslavia to form a Greater Serbia. Such insidious designs could succeed only by means of the policy of enforced population transfers that has already been condemned by the international community. To let the policy succeed would be tantamount not only to undermining the stability of the region but also to igniting an already dangerous situation in Bosnia. The most urgent need is for the prevention of more bloodshed and loss of life, and for the reinforcement of existing humanitarian operations. Any further interference with relief convoys should not be tolerated. Military attacks on civilians, as well as the siege of Sarajevo and other cities and towns, must cease forthwith. These should be followed by the dispatch of additional peace-keeping forces to secure safe havens for refugees and to facilitate the surrender of heavy weapons. Indonesia is firmly committed to the peaceful settlement of conflicts. We believe that a renewal of dialogue is essential for this crisis to be resolved, and that a negotiated solution within the framework of the appropriate international mechanism is still within reach. A year after the eruption of hostilities and 10 months after the imposition of embargoes, there is scant evidence that sanctions have brought about any of the intended results. Consequently, the Serbs have become increasingly brazen and increasingly contemptuous of those who are trying to end the carnage. This body can no longer remain passive in the face of defiance and the flouting of the international will. In this context, Indonesia has noted with particular satisfaction the imposition of stiffer sanctions on the Bosnian Serbs and the ultimatum for them to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan by 26 April, The Council, however, has the further obligation to respond to the appeals made by several members to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and to uphold its right to self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, and to take further appropriate measures, including enforcement action under Chapter VII, in order to restore the territorial integrity and national unity of Bosnia. Over and above the foregoing, however, the Council should unequivocally support the call by the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Izetbegovic, for the inclusion in the peace plan of a timetable and provisions for its enforcement; a single constitution for the entire country; the control of Bosnia's borders by its central Government: and an undivided Sarajevo as the capital. These measures should be buttressed in future negotiations by the transfer of power from the provinces to the central Government. The international community has missed far too many opportunities to prevent the intensification and deepening of the conflict in Bosnia. For months, only half-hearted measures were taken. The adoption of resolution 820 (1993) is eloquent testimony to members' determination to re-establish the rule of law in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 'The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Indonesia for his kind words addressed to my predecessor and to me, The next is the representative of Sweden. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. OSVALD (Sweden): Sweden appreciates this opportunity to participate in the Security Council's debate on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I think we are all painfully aware of the extremely grave and steadily worsening humanitarian situation on the ground, in particular in places such as Sarajevo and Srebrenica, where the shelling and destruction carried out by the Serbian forces is taking an appalling toll of the civilian population. The senseless killing and maiming of defenceless civilians in besieged cities, added to the atrocities that have been carried out for more than a year now, are totally unacceptable. Not only are communities where Serbs, Croats and Muslims used to live side by side now falling apart; the credibility of our common ideals is also fast unravelling as the international community has seemed unable to take decisive political decisions to stop the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from reaching even more unimaginable levels of savagery and destruction. We are obviously not unaware of some of the problems that in past weeks have prevented the Security Council from taking stronger action in relation to Serbian recalcitrance about accepting current peace efforts. It is only to be hoped that the decisions taken over the weekend, prompted by alarming events in and around Srebrenica, signal a firmer intention to uphold the authority of the Council and to act decisively in a case as exceedingly grave as that which now confronts us in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is true that the Security Council has taken a number of measures in the 33 resolutions on the conflict in the former Yugoslavia that it has adopted up to now. As far as Bosnia and Herzegovina is concerned, I should particularly like to stress the decisions that enabled a major humanitarian relief operation to be carried out by keeping the airport at Sarajevo open and by protecting the distribution of relief supplies throughout the country. This operation is a significant United Nations achievement under extremely difficult conditions. Sweden supports the Vance-Owen plan, which has been negotiated within the framework of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, Allow me, in this context, to pay a particular tribute to Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, and all their collaborators, for their tireless efforts. Lasting peace in the region must be based on the principles laid down in the peace plan, and on the concept of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent (Mr. Osvald, Sweden) State. Even if no plan can be ideal under present circumstances, the Vance-Owen proposal takes into account the concerns of the parties to a sufficient degree. If the war is allowed.to continue, the peace plan as now envisaged could rapidly lose its relevance. The fighting flaring up regularly between Bosnian Croat and Muslim forces, including during the last few days around Vitez, is of considerable concern. Today it is of the utmost importance that the Bosnian Serbs follow the example set by the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croats and sign the peace agreement immediately. By failing to sign the peace agreement and by continuing, at the same time, their shelling against civilians and their "ethnic cleansing", for example in Sarajevo and Srebrenica, Serbs bear a tremendous responsibility for the human suffering that is now taking place. The regime in Belgrade as well as the Bosnian Serbs must realize this. Only Serb acceptance of the peace plan and the ending of military aggression will create conditions, for avoiding total isolation of Serbia and the eventual lifting of sanctions. In order to induce the Serbs to sign the remaining parts of the peace agreement, Sweden supports the further strengthening of sanctions decided upon by the Council and will work for their full implementation in the context of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The support which is brought to the efforts of the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia by the CSCE follow three parallel lines of action. Together, they comprise the strategy of supportive action by the CSCE: first, crisis containment and prevention of its spillover to new areas; secondly, efforts to counteract crimes of war and violations of human rights; and, thirdly, support of the implementation and coordination of the United Nations sanctions regime. These efforts will be further strengthened in pursuance of Security Council resolution 820 (1993). Sweden for its part does not believe that the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina should be lifted. We strongly doubt that more weapons could contribute to peace in that war-torn country. It is much more likely to lead to a further escalation of violence and destruction, It is true that in the present circumstances there are arguments for not denying the defenders the weapons they need for their self-defence. However, in the view of my Government, the response of the international community should be to take on the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council, This, in our view, would be the better means of ending further fighting and further human suffering, In that light, (Mr. Osvald, SwedenL) continued Serb defiance, such as that already voiced by Mr. Karadzic and Mr.'Mladic, may well make international selective military action against Serbian military targets unavoidable, If and when a peace agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina is signed by all the parties concerned, the Members of the United Nations must accept the responsibility of contributing to an international peace-keeping force under United Nations command. This force will be required to monitor compliance with the agreement, thus establishing a basis for a lasting peace in the region. Sweden is prepared to contribute to such a force. International relief measures must be strengthened, in an effort to alleviate the needs and suffering of the civilian population. The rest of the world cannot stand by and watch the humanitarian disaster which is now taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Increased contributions are imperative. The international community has a duty, furthermore, to ensure that those responsible for crimes such as indiscriminate shelling of surrounded towns and cities, mass rape and "ethnic cleansing" should be prosecuted as soon as possible by the internationdl war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia established by the Security Council,

The next speaker is the representative of Slovenia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his-statement, Mr. TURK (Slovenia): May I begin, Sir, by emphasizing how pleased we are to see you in the presidency of the Security Council. We are convinced that under your guidance the work of the Council will be successful. We are also grateful to Ambassador Terence O'Brien of New Zealand for his tireless and successful work as the President of the Security Council in the month of March. (Mr. Ti;rk, Slovenia) The Security Council is meeting today to discuss the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to contemplate further measures necessary for the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security. The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in particular its eastern part, has deteriorated very considerably over the past few weeks. This has necessarily, among other things, heightened what is expected of the Security Council. More than ever before, it is clear that action, or inaction, by the Security Council will have a decisive bearing upon the questions of life and death - namely, guestions of, first, the existence - or extinction - of a United Nations Member State; and, secondly, the survival - or genocidal extermination - of a people: the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Last Saturday, the Security Counckil started to act with vigour and determination by adopting its resolution on additional sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. Now there is a need to demonstrate persistence and commitment to the cause of real peace. The key question is this: will the current debate actually result in meaningful further action? The stakes are high indeed, for - as a prominent commentator emphasized in a powerful opinion published recently - the unpunished aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina has put the whole moral foundation of the United Nations in jeopardy. One thing is clear: The need for action by the international community is becoming more and more cnmpelling, and traditional rationalizations for insufficient action - including those which describe the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a civil war or ethnic conflict arising from centuries-old hatreds - simply will not do. It is necessary that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina be finally recognized for what it really is: a war of aggression, (Mr. Tiirk, Slovenia) a war for territory fought with ferocious brutality. "Ethnic cleansing" committed by Serbs against others in Bosnia is a deliberate method and not a side effect of that war. Security Council resolution 820 (1993) represents a step in the right direction, Slovenia supports that resolution and joins all other Members of the United Nations in the efforts to implement it, On the other hand, we are also aware of the need to give further thought to pursuing the resolution's operative paragraph 8, concerning the measures for the implementation of peace, particularly in case the Vance-Owen peace plan is not accepted by all parties or if it is accepted in bad faith. The Foreign Minister of Slovenia, Mr. Lojze Peterle, made a specific proposal on 8 April 1993 for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will be recalled that the proposal was communicated to the Foreign Ministers of all States members of the Security Council and to the Secretary-General. The essence of the proposal is expressed in the following four points - and I quote from the letter from the Foreign Minister: “1 l The United Nations Security Council should immediately send its peace-keeping forces to those areas that are under the control of the parties who have accepted the Vance-Owen peace plan and in which there are no major military activities. It is of special importance to deploy peace-keeping forces on the territories still under Muslim control. "2 l For the protection and defence of these areasI the international communit? would have to provide the necessary means, including military for.:e. Should all three parties accept the peace plan, these areas without military activities would have to be demilitarized. "3 . For the maintenance of peace in the protected areas, additional United Nations peace-keeping forces may be required. “4. It may be necessary that the Security Council issue a warning to all parties to the conflict that those who decline to cooperate in this endeavour will be subject to the possible use of all available means stipulated by the United Nations Charter." The main thrust of the proposal advanced by the Slovenian Foreign Minister is clear: immediate deployment of the United Nations peace-keeping forces in the territories controlled by the parties which have accepted the Vance-Owen peace plan. There are several reasons which support that line of action. (Mr. Tiirk, Slovenia) First, the troops would be deployed in areas in which United Nations protection is accepted and appreciated, Secondly, the troops would have a preventive role as a deterrent to further acts of aggression. Thirdly, such deployment would provide an opportunity to develop a more robust mandate of the peace-keeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with actual needs. Fourthly, the proposed action is compatible with the existing humanitarian missions and complements them. Moreover, such an approach would also be compatible with the enforcement of the "no-fly regime" over Bosnia and Herzegovina and with all other types of enforcement action. This afternoon we have heard a number of proposals to that effect - should the Security Council authorize appropriate enforcement actions. It is particularly important that further action by the Council is not made contingent upon agreement of the Serbs to the Vance-Owen plan. There has been enough waiting. It is important that further action not be made contingent upon the actual cooperation of the Serbs in the realization of the peace plan. A renewed effort for the protection of Bosnia and Herzegovina, perhaps along the lines proposed by the Foreign Minister of Slovenia, could serve the genuinely humanitarian purpose of preventing further genocidal action and would decisively help to keep the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and preserve that United Nations member State. Let us be very clear: Without Bosnian Muslims, there is no Bosnia and Herzegovina. And let me also add that the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a vital prerequisite for Stability and peace in the Balkans and in the larger area of Europe. While pointing out the need for vigorous and focused action by the United Nations Security Council, we by no means underestimate the need for a comprehensive approach. The requirements of coherence and credibility call for a consistent policy of the United Nations and all its organs with respect to the fact that the former Yugoslavia has ceased to exist and that it has been replaced by five successor States. In fact, even the use of the name Yugoslavia by one of those successor States is apparently misleading and has created an obstacle to finding political solutions. We have to insist on the principle that none of the successor States of the former Yugoslavia could be granted automatic membership in the United Nations. We plead with the members of the Security Council to be faithful to this principle, as formulated in resolution 777 (1992) adopted by the Security Council in September 1992, and to insist, as envisaged in that resolution, that Serbia and Montenegro should apply for membership of the United Nations and that it fulfil the criteria of Article 4 of the United Nations Charter. In the present statement we have concentrated on the essential aspects of the action required at this critical moment. Two notions are central in this context: urgent action for the protection of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its people and political coherence in the action pursued by the United Nations.

I thank the representative of Slovenia for his kind words addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next speaker is the representative of Germany. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. GRAF ZU RANTZAU (Germany) (interpretation from French): Today is my first opportunity, Sir, to speak before the Council under your presidency. Please allow me, therefore, to offer you my congratulations. I have no doubt that the work of the Council will benefit this month from your high competence and that it will register important advances at a time when the international community, through the United Nations, has been prompted to assume greater responsibilities. I also take this opportunity to express my (Mr. Graf zu Rantzau. Germany) deep gratitude to Ambassador O'Brien for the manner in which he guided the Council's work in recent weeks. Apart from the adoption of Security Council resolution 820 (1993), unreservedly endorsed by Germany, the current debate on Bosnia and Herzegovina is not irrelevant. It is one more sign that the patience of the international community is running out. As to Srebrenica, everything has already been said in resolution 819 (1993). I should like only to draw attention to two aspects. The population of the district of Srebrenica was 75 per cent Muslim before the conflict erupted. The Vance-Owen plan did not attach that district to a province with a Serb majority. This speaks volumes about the Serbs' approach. Just as we must strive to spare the civilian population further suffering, we must also be aware of the fact that that city has almost fallen. Any evacuation of the civilian population, however orderly or peaceful, must be viewed as "ethnic cleansing" by force originated by the ' Serbs and therefore as a crime. Any support lent to a possible evacuation can only be justified as interference aimed at saving the civilian population from massacre and oppression. At the same time, those responsible for this barbarity - whose names are well known to us - should be reminded that they will have to answer personally for their acts. For that matter, developments around Srebrenica represent only a part of an overall and particularly alarming development. The Serbian party has rejected the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will also most likely repudiate the April 6 cease-fire in Croatia once again. The oppression of the Albanian majority in Kosovo is deepening. The minorities of Sandjak and Vojvodina are subject to unrelenting pressure. Less than ever before can one speak of their rights being respected. In sum, all of this implies that the Serbs' policy of force against the smallest and weakest of the nations of the former Yugoslavia is being pursued. It signals in particular a continued drive to exterminate the Muslims, who represent the largest national community in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The intellectual, material and political centre of this war of nationalist conquest is in Belgrade. Its strategic direction is controlled from that city. The weapons terrorizing the population to exhaustion come from that centre. It is thence that assistance in materiel and personnel is sent. The paramilitary units of Serbia and Montenegro, at least, are financed, equipped and transported from Belgrade. And it is thence that propaganda is broadcast, the unbridled nationalism of which is responsible for the vitiation of all moral scruples vis-fi-vis, the non-Serbian civilian population. If we look at what has been happening over the last 18 months we must find that a sincere readiness to accept a political solution based on patterns for a solution worked out by the international bodies responsible for settling the conflict and adopted by the international community as a whole has never existed on the Serb side. At no time has the Serbian party been prepared to honour obligations entered into at the London Conference. This amounts to an enormous challenge to the international community and its institutions. The latter have constantly been taken advantage of and their representatives on the scene have been humiliated time and time.again. To continue to tolerate this situation would bring in its wake the threat of irrevocably losing credibility and would entail consequences that would go beyond the confines of the current conflict. This loss of credibility is all the more imminent inasmuch as the international community cannot shirk its share of responsibility in the current situation. The Serb leadership has been able unscrupulously to take advantage of the fact that the arms embargo has contributed to weakening the weakest still further. They have pursued a stalling strategy and, as we have noted today, they have negotiated in appearance only so as to pursue in the meantime their policy of conquest and also make the most of the patience shown by the international community, ' We must now draw the inevitable conclusions in the light of all these facts, The game being pursued by the Serbs can no longer be tolerated. We must put an end to the destruction of a State Member of the United Nations. Guaranteeing the physical and political survival of the Muslim community in its own State of Bosnia Herzegovina must now become an absolute priority. If one party had truly been ready to envisage a political solution on the basis of a military victory of the Serbs, today's debate should eliminate all doubt that the policy of force being pursued by the Serbs will never enjoy international recognition. The Serb leadership should be clearly informed about the price Serbia will have to pay for a military triumph which in the long run could in any case be no more than ephemeral. It is now up to Serbia to opt for a timely return to the way of the community of civilized States.

I thank the representative of Germany for the kind words he addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next speaker is the representative of Italy. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. SCIALOJA (Italy): Allow me to extend to you, Sir, our congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of April. We are fully confident that your well-known diplomatic qualities and experience will allow you to successfully guide the Council at this difficult time, Allow me also to pay a tribute to Ambassador O'Brien of New Zealand for his exemplary presidency of the Security Council last month, The Italian Government believes that the new sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, adopted by the Security Council in its resolution 820 (1993), represent a firm, appropriate and, regretfully, necessary answer of the international community to the refusal of the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan, to the continuation of their military offensive against the Muslim population of Srebrenica and to their massive violations of human rights, This unavoidable measure, about whose zadoption both Bosnian Serbs and the Government of Belgrade had been duly warned, aims at two objectives: to discourage further military aggression and to persuade the Bosnian Serb authorities to agree to the peace plan and contribute to its implementation in order to preserve the independence and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and stability in the Balkans. As the current Chairman of the Western European Union, Italy will honour its commitment to'ensure an effective and coordinated enforcement of the strengthened sanctions in the Adriatic Sea. We welcome the recent agreement, following the adoption of resolution 819 (1993), on a cease-fire in Srebrenica, the deployment of the United Nations Protection Force in that city and its demilitarization, the delivery of humanitarian supplies and the evacuation of the wounded. In this connection, I wish to recall that the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a message to President Cosic, urged him to end the fighting in Eastern Bosnia and, in particular, in Srebrenica. The decision of the United Nations to strengthen the sanctions should be a clear indication to the Bosnian Serbs that the international community no longer intends to tolerate their defiance of international law and principles, apparently accompanied by a misleading presumption of impunity. The Bosnian Serb leaders must above all understand that they will not be permitted to occupy new territories in the days preceding the enforcement of resolution 820 (1993). If, indeed, all armed attacks do not cease immediately, the international community will be forced to consider further measures to oppose them, not excluding, as a last resort, selective initiatives of a military nature, which should obviously avoid all unnecessary suffering by the civilian population. As a matter of fact, the course of action adopted by the Security Council is not directed against the Bosnian Serb population, nor the population of Serbia and Montenegro, but against all those responsible for violations of human rights and incitement of intolerance. Finally, we would like to stress that, should the Bosnian Serb leaders choose to end their military aggression, agree to the terms of the Vance-Owen plan, and contribute to its complete implementation, the Italian Government would favour - as stated to the Belgrade authorities during bilateral consultations - a gradual softening of the sanctions, the progressive reinstatement of Serbia and Montenegro in the international community and the adoption of a plan for economic reconstruction of the whole region.

I thank the representative of Italy for the kind words addressed to my predecessor and to me. The next speaker is the representative of Romania. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. VOICU (Romania): I should like first of all to extend to you, Sir, and to Pakistan our congratulations on your assumption of the high office of President of the Security Council for the month of April. Your tremendous diplomatic ability, vast experience and fine leadership are the best assurances that the Council will successfully perform its mandate this month, We wish also to express our appreciation to Ambassador O'Brien of New Zealand for the excellent way in which he guided the work of the Council during March. The major concern of Romania about the situation in the former Yugoslavia has been made manifest in many instances and circumstances, including in the Security Council on 25 September 1991. (Mr. Voicu. Romania) Romania is a country with a unique position in our area, because it never waged war against any of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. Our perceptions and attitude are burnished by history and are in no way biased by territorial or other interests of any kind. As a State providing constant and full evidence of balanced conduct and good relations with all the former Yugoslav republics, Romania is determined further to support the intensive efforts of the international community to solve the tragic Yugoslav crisis, and to halt the military confrontation throughout the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Government of Romania supports the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina set out in the report of the Secretary-General on the peace talks held by the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, In the same context, Romania backs the activity of the Security Council on this important subject, as well as the measures undertaken by the European Community in cooperation with the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and the recent decisions of the Western European Union. Romania welcomes the political initiatives of the United States in this respect and shares its hope that the gravity of the situation in the area will develop a consensus among the members of the Security Council. That hope is particularly topical today, after the adoption of Security Council resolution 820 (1993) of 17 April 1993. Romania is deeply alarmed and concerned about the magnitude of the plight Of innocent victims of the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is therefore in favour of attracting the cooperation of all realistic and responsible factors from the area, whose contribution is essential for creating conditions which could ensure political dialogue and the identification of viable compromise solutions in the interest of all parties, At the same time efforts should, in our view, be channeled towards the prevention of the expansion of hotbeds of tension under circumstances in which some analysts warn of a global epidemic of conflict. Those efforts should guarantee a lasting halt to the fighting and must galvaniae and focus the trend against the emergence of new elements of tension which could lead to the escalation of a crisis of extreme complexity. For Romania the absolute priority is the political settlement of the Yugoslav crisis. As the first non-European-Community neighbouring country represented on the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia last year and also at present, Romania has consistently stressed that a political settlement is the only alternative acceptable to all parties to the conflict. Therefore we fully support the demand expressed by the Security Council that all the parties and others concerned continue to observe the cease-fire and refrain from any further hostilities. By making that demand, the Council has demonstrated its commitment to a peaceful settlement and its resolve to end this conflict, which has been filled with tragedy from the start. Convinced that the international community has a duty to encourage the parties to reach a political settlement, Romania is determined to continue its non-inVOlVement in the conflict ana to strengthen its role as a factor for stability in the area. We believe that all neighbouring countries should act in the same spirit and manner. We in Romania are very sensitive to the dangerous developments in the former Yugoslavia and we are of the opinion that ' the neighbouring countries have the great responsibility to act in such a way as to prevent exacerbation of the conflict and to further a political solution. We are also of the view that a solution will be viable only to the extent that it takes into full account the tragic realities in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, Yugoslavia's neighbours, the other European countries and the United Nations have to do everything in their power to help the parties involved come to a valid and lasting agreement. Recent experience has illustrated the fact that the attitude of Romania - of equal rapprochement towards all State entities of the former Yugoslavia - facilitates the establishment of contacts with al.1 political representatives who can make a meaningful contribution to the process of consensus building and who can illuminate the human responsibility of politicians to stop the tragic events in the area. At the international level, Romania supports the relevant activities and decisions of the United Nations concerning the Yugoslav crisis. We consider that the resolutions of the Security Council should be implemented in good faith by all the parties involved and others concerned, as well as ,by all States Members of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the world Organiaation. The Romanian Government, for its part, gives full backing to the Vance-Owen plan, which appears at present to be the only way out of the crisis and whose clear and unambiguous acceptance in full by all parties could mark a crucial turning-point in the overall efforts leading to a peaceful Political settlement. It is relevant to recall that 64 years ago the great Romanian diplomat Nicolae Titulescu said: (swoke in French) "It is my deep conviction based on observations that war is never - never - the solution of a conflict, At the best of times - that is to say when you are victorious - war can only change the terms of the problem: tomorrow's discontent replaces today's. A war in the name of justice is followed by another war in the name of justice, ad infinitum. And at what price? It is an enormous price paid by the entire international community for the subjective reasons of one or several of its members". (swoke in Enulish) In a recent statement by the Government of Romania it is emphasized that while understanding the point of view of the leadership of the Bosnian Serb party, for which the acceptance of the Vance-Owen plan would mean new sacrifices, such sacrifices would be incomparably smaller than the heavy loss in human lives caused by the continuation of the conflict. By the same token the Romanian Government has launched an appeal addressed to the neighbours of former Yugoslavia, to States of the area and to other countries concerned to exercise all their influence on the parties in conflict to make a positive contribution to halting the acts of violence, to prevent the danger of the expansion of the conflict and to promote the political settlement of existing problems. As to the resolutions of the Security Council, my country observes in good faith the sanctions adapted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). It should be noted that Romania was the first (Mr, Voicu, Romania) country which asked for international monitoring of the observance of the embargo, along our Danube border with former Yugoslavia. Very recently, Romania has expressed its willingness to increase the number of Sanctions Assistance Mission observers. In the same field, Romania is grateful to the United States of America for dispatching to us some patrol boats as assistance for monitoring the embargo on the Danube. Consultations are under way with the Western European Union on conditions for technical assistance it has offered Romania and other countries along the Danube. The position of Romania on the subject under consideration is fully consistent with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Our conduct will continue to be the same in spite of the ample negative consequences on the course of economic reforms in Romania deriving from the observance of sanctions. The implementation of resolution 820 (1993) is going to engender further economic hardships for my country. Having invoked Article 50 of the United Nations Charter, the Romanian Government expresses its hope that it will have the support of the international community in identifying specific forms of compensation to solve the economic difficulties entailed in Compliance with the sanctions regime. We are encouraged in this respect by recent decisions on that issue taken by the Security Council and hope that the forthcoming consultations under Article 50 of the Charter will be fruitful for Romania, We find great merit in the Security Council resolutions dealing with the humanitarian dimension of the Yugoslav crisis. We are deeply concerned at the great number of innocent victims and displaced persons who have been forced to (Mr. Voicu. Romania) abandon their homes and property. In this respect we share the opinion expressed before the Council by Mr. Cyrus Vance that everything possible must be done to bring humanitarian relief and assistance to the suffering communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We also believe that the serious violations of international humanitarian law and basic human rights are intolerable. At present the Romanian Government is considering the possibility of receiving a limited number of refugees, in particular children, -from the conflict areas. We are in contact in that regard with the Geneva Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (Mr. Voicu, Romania) We continue t0 be confident that through new and perseverant efforts viable solutions can be found to halt a conflict whose continuation is absurd. As in the past, when Romania was a member of this body, we believe that the unity of the Security Council on this important matter is a basic prerequisite for the success of its endeavours. We are also convinced of the value of the efforts to be undertaken by the Secretary-General and will be awaiting hopefully his report to the Security Council, as requested in paragraph 8 of resolution 820 (1993). On 16 April 1993 Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated, (spoke in French) "NO doubt in recent years we have found cause for hope, especially when the collapse of the Berlin Wall simultaneously shattered the bloc mentality, of which it was the sad symbol. Some actually saw the end of this confrontation as the dawn of a world at peace and even, ingenuously, as the culmination of history. "Developments have rapidly made us more realistic again. In a very short time, the outlook has become singularly overcast". (SG/SM/4979, p.2) (suoke in Enalish) We trust that the clouds will vanish and that the situation in the former Yugoslavia will return to normalcy, thereby restoring peace and stability to that troubled area, It is Romania's fervent hope that a'just and lasting solution can be achieved, in harmony with the aspirations of all peace-loving nations.

1 thank the representative of Romania for his kind words addressed to my predecessor and to me. (The President) The next name on the list of speakers is that of the representative of Afghanistan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. FARHADI (Afghanistan): I have the privilege, Mr. President, to have known you for more than a decade, and I know the high moral principles you cherish and your remarkable ability in dealing with very difficult matters. I congratulate you on your leadership in presiding over the Council. The Islamic State of Afghanistan, as a matter of policy, supports, in cases like this, the efforts of the non-aligned group, particularly the non-aligned caucus, in which you, Mr. President, have played a great part, of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and of course of the United Nations. Therefore, Afghanistan fully supports resolution 820 (1993) of 17 April, which elaborates, in a way, and lists the problems and to some degree provides remedies. But if Afghanistan approves of resolution 820 (19931, it also recognizes it as the minimum that could be done to protect the c*'edibility of the United Nations, which must not surrender to the forces of aggression once again. We find that the many economic sanctions mentioned in the resolution,may not be fully adequate. There are still in the text some remnants of healf-hearted measures, some remnants of hesitation and some remnants of what has been called realism in some powerful countries. That realism is doing nothing but providing permissiveness for the Bosnian Serbs. We Afghans know that, because for 11 years we experienced many similar situations. The President of the Council is himself an expert on the history of the war in Afghanistan, and he knows how much of a resemblance there is between what is happening today in Bosnia and what happened in Afghanistan: an attack on sovereignty, on territorial integrity and on the political (Mr. Farhadi, Afqhanistan) independence of a nation and taking territory by brute force; that is the resemblance. Of course, there is killing of civilians, including women and children, with ferocious brutality, We Afghans lost 1.7 million people in that way. Displaced persons are the other problem that makes this case resemble the Afghan case: the expulsion of people, forced to flee from their ancestral dwellings. The magnitude of this human tragedy is akin to the tragedy of Afghanistan. The war in Bosnia has in some ways surpassed the tragedy of the Afghan war - in some ways, The label "ethnic cleansing" is not even linguistically accurate. In fact, it is simply an extermination on the basis of religion. Hence it is a return to the most barbaric ways of the Middle Ages. Of course, all of us know that the International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling stating that there is suf‘ficient basis to say that violations of the Convention on genocide is being committed against the Muslim Bosnian people. Therefore; there are serious violations of international humanitarian law, and the leaders responsible for these crimes are well known, Of course, since I have mentioned the Middle Ages, let us remember that today the aggression against civilians - the killing, the policy of extermination - is performed with the most modern weaponryI in addition to that very modern tactic of hypocritical propaganda of the hegemonist Bosnian Serb leaders. To return to the war in Afghanistan, another difference is that in the case Of the Bosnian war, the systematic detention and rape of women practised in massive proportions by the Bosnian Serbs is atrocious, while some of their leaders are even considering that this crime is a means of imposing the morals Of the invaders. This is an insult to the honour of US all. (M . WFarhadi, Now, of course, there is the peace plan, which, of course, does not adequately recompense the victims among the Muslims of Bosnia; rather, it in many CaSeS rewards the territorial aggressions of the Bosnian Serbs, And this plan has been prepared taking into consideration some of the expansionist Views of the Bosnian Serb leaders, yet the Bosnian Croats and Muslims have, however, accepted it, as the representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina said today, as a necessary vehicle. However, the Bosnian Serb refusal to accept the plan proves that it was wrong to be optimistic in talking to the Bosnian Serbs about it, that it was useless to take into account the Bosnian Serbs' claims in the process of preparing the peace plan. And what has happened in the last few days in Srebrenica? The Bosnian Serbs, having first pledged that they would not shoot, then did shoot, carried out massive shelling and killed civilians, later shamelessly claiming that they had done nothing - the denials are coming in. These are the facts. Therefore, in order to save the honour of everybody here, I think that there is a need to use air power against the Serbian military lines for any country, community, pact or organization that has the ability to do so if it claims to protect human rights and justice. This is a question of honour: we must study how urgent steps can be taken to bomb the Bosnian Serb artillery units before they kill more women and children and wound many others. In what was said here today before I spoke many important points were raised. I am sure that you,. Mr. President, and the Council, will study all the important proposals tha t were made today over and above what is contained in resolution 820 (1993). Of course, many of the points received support from many delegations, and these concerned meaningful action and effective measures, including military action, that should be taken, first Of all, in (Mr, Farhadi, Afghanistan) order to take control of, or to neutralise the Bosnian Serbs' heavy weapons: Secondly, to interdict the supply lines from Serbia-Montenegro - I call it that because the name "Yugoslavia@' is illegal - that penetrate Bosnia; thirdly, to state clearly that the arms embargo does not deprive the side that has been aggressed - the Bosnian Muslims - of their inalienable right to selfdefence. It must be made possible for Bosnian Muslims to untie their hands, to receive arms in order to defend their lives and the honour of humanity. Fourthly, a war crimes tribunal must be established pursuant to United Nations documents already before us. Fifthly, a committee must be set up in due course to assess the destruction of all kinds committed against the Bosnian Muslims, in order to ascertain the war reparations to be paid by the aggressors and by Belgrade. I found that in the proposals by the representative of Slovenia there were some very interesting points; the Slovenians know the subject and they are on the spot, as a neighbouring country, However, they were, again, minimalistic. As far as the special session of the General ASSeMbly is concerned, many countries, I know, support Lt: but specific endeavours must precede it - endeavours by various natio.ls and by the United Nations - because the special session of the General Assembly must not become a forum for delaying tactics, and we know how expert the Bosnian Serb leaders are at delaying tactics. A special session of the General Assembly must also be a means for undertaking serious endeavours on the p?rt of all nations against what has become a dishonour for humanity.

I thank the representative of Afghanistan for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Croatia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr, (Croatia): On behalf of my delegation I have the honour to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council during this month of April. Your distinguished diplomatic skills have enabled you to guide this body around several difficult obstacles in its deliberations in recent days. I should also like to express our profound appreciation for the tireless efforts of your predecessor, Ambassador Terence O'Brien of New Zealand, for his capable statesmanship and for the wise manner in which he guided the work of the Security Council during the month Of March. "The entire international community has been affronted by a series of brutal acts. .,, Fellow members of the Security Council . . . we meet at the hinge of history. We can use the end of the cold war to get beyond the whole pattern of settling conflicts by force, or we can slip back into ever more savage regional conflicts in which might alone makes right. . . . Simply put, it is a choice between right and wrong." (S/PV,2963, DD. 101-105) Those brave words, which perfectly match the tragic situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and are, indeed, the appropriate answer to the barbaric Serbian aggression, have already been spoken before the members of the Security Council, by James Baker III on 29 November 1990. In deciding to confront the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the world made a choice between right and wrong and did not stand idly by. But now it is unwilling to take decisive action. It goes without saying that the United Nations made enormous efforts to stop the bloodshed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to ease the suffering of the anguished population. But phrases and medicine are not enough. Unfortunately, in the last two years - during the Servian aggression again& Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina - strong words have not been followed by strong acts. While the Security Council has been passing resolutions - 37 of them so far = ruthless Serbian forces have been "passing" "ethnic cleansing", thus carving in blood the borders of "Greater Serbia". The horror in Srebrenica comes as no surprise to one who has seen the destruction of Vukovar and the slaughter of captured wounded Croatian soldiers and civilians. The mass graves around Vukovar are horrifying harbingers of what will happen after Srebrenica and other towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina are overrun by Serbian forces. But it is not only Bosnia and Herzegovina that is at stake: European security and stability as a whole will. be dangerously undermined if Serbian fascism is not stopped immediately and all its war criminals are not brought to justice. In Srebrenica the community of nations must defend the new post-cold-war world order and the basic principles of the United Nations Charter, not only for the sake of those who are suffering, but alS0 for the sake of the generations to come. At this moment Serbians are pounding civilian targets in Sarajevo and all across Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are also shelling Croatian cities along the Adriatic coast and mainland. Just a few hours ago, the very centre of the ancient Croatian coastal town of Sibenik was heavily pounded by salvoes from multiple rocket launchers. The result of this savage Serbian attack is 2 dead and 11 wounded civiliians - two of the wounded have life-threatening injuries. For many months, Serbian aggression, transparently wrapped in the unfounded statements about the endangered Serbian population that needs protection at any cost, remained unchallenged by the world community, The results of all those futile compromises and inadequate responses can be seen in the graveyards and ruins that stretch from Vukovar, Zadar, Dubrovnik and Osijek to Sarajevo, Gorazde and Srebrenica. The only Serbian reponse to the Security Council demands so far has been the endless tide of humiliated refugees, death camps, raped women and massacred prisoners and disregaxd for elementary norms of international humanitarian law. How many times has it been clearly and loudly stated that the only language the Serbian aggressor understands is the language of force? The United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1992 adopted a resolution in which it expressed determination to restore peace in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as to preserve its unity, sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. So far, none of these goals has been achieved. In operative paragraph 7 of this resolution, the General Assembly urged the Security Council to consider measures on an urgent basis, but no later than 15 January 1993, using all necessary means to stop the Serbian aggression, including the lifting of the arms embargo. The 15th of January passed long ago, and the only results thus far have been more destruction and more territory "ethnically cleansed" by the murderous Serbian forces. The Republic of Croatia has had painful experience of Serbian aggression and is still under continuous attacks by Serbian paramilitary units that have occupied parts of Croatian territory. The expansionist attempts to create Serbian states inside the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and to annex them to Serbia are contrary to all the fundamental principles that world peace and stability are based on. The fact that Serbian extremists are openly refusing to honour the major Security Council resolutions that emphasize the commitment to ensure respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina must lead to appropriate United Nations action. The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) operation should be aimed not only at the cessation of hostilites but also at the determined protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the two United Nations Member States that are exposed to foreign aggression. What is the way out of the humanitarian, moral and political disaster in Bosnia and Herzegovina? The answers are simple and easy to find: First, we must stop the Serbian aggression, using all necessary means. Secondly, we must start to implement all the relevant Security Council resolutions. Thirdly, all sides must accept and carry out the peace plan proposed by the co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. Croatia strongly supports the proposed peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which must be implemented in a way that will protect the legitimate interest of all three constituent nations of that Republic. Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina were the first to sign all the elements of the Vance-Owen plan and are ready to cooperate with the United Nations in its fulfilment. We sincerely regret the recent tragic clashes between Croat and Muslim fOrCeS in central Bosnia, which were a result of the extreme tension in the entire area and the failure to fufil the Vance-Owen plan. These sad events are one more example of how important it is to speed up the peace process and immediately start implementing the Vance-Owen plan. The Croatian Government will do everything possible within its capacity to help solve the grave situation in central Bosnia and to stop the fighting between allied Croatian and Muslim forces. This fighting can only benefit the Serbian aggressor. Croatia firmly supports the joint agreement on the immediate cessation of the hostilities, signed yesterday between the President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic, and the President of the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosna, Mate Boban. It is obvious that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is very much linked to what is happening in the occupied parts of the Republic of Croatia. Both Republics are exposed to Serbian aggression, which is being orchestrated by the top political and army circles in Belgrade. This is the fact that the Security Council should take into account when determining future action by the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). The first, and essential, steps must be the complete disarming of Serbian paramilitary units, the creation of the conditions for the safe and voluntary return of all the refugees, and the securing of the international borders of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. We are advocating the creation of safe-haven areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which must be under total United Nations protection. Hut just easing the horrendous human suffering is not enough: strengthening the WNPROFOR mandate and changing the nature of the United Nations forces from a peace-keeping to a peace-making force which is capable of fulfilling all the goals emphasized in Security Council resolutions is the essential step towards peace and stability in the Balkans. Croatia welcomes Security Council resolution 820 (1993), which imposes news sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and is aimed at exhausting the Serbian military machine and blunting the virulent nationalism of Serbian warlords. We particularly welcome operative paragraph 12 of this resolution, which gives the Croatian Government authority over the import, export and transhipment through the United Nations protected areas, thus emphasizing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Croatia within its internationally recognized borders. The Security Council in its resolution 815 (1993) firmly stated that these protected areas are an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Croatia, and we hail that paragraph as a concrete step in the operative confirmation of that fact. The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, should immediately take the strongest possible measures against the Serbian aggressors. If the world is not yet ready for this, then the United Nations must at least lift the arms embargo which has been imposed upon the Republic Of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the world must provide Croats and Muslims the opportunity successfully to defend their freedom and human dignity. The legitimate right to self-defence inscribed in the United Nations Charter must not be limited for the sake of dubious political pragmatism. The: I thank the representative of Croatia for his kind words addressed to my predecessor and me. The next speaker is Mr. Engin Ansay, Permanent Observer of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, to whom the Council has extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. ANSAY: At the outset on this solemn occasion, I should like with deep sorrow to avail myself of the opportunity to offer my Oganization's expression of condolence to the Government and people of Turkey on the sudden and untimely demise of His Excellency Mr, Tirgut Oaal, the eighth President of the Republic of Turkey and a great statesman of sagacious foresight, immense tolerance and the qualities of constructive leadership, May I extend to you, Sir, my warmest congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council during this most difficult period. We are indeed confident that your vast experience and very well known professional skills will serve well in the successful discharge of the complex task currently facing the Security Council. If this question is before the Council today, after nearly a year's delay, it is thanks to your personal efforts and to those of the Non-Aligned Caucus and the membership and the Contact Group of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). I should like to take this opportunity to thank your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of New Zealand, Ambassador Terence Christopher O'Brien, for his able performance in steering the work of the Council during the month of March. Last but not least, 1 should like to pay a tribute through you8 Girt to Mr, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International COIlferenCe on the Former Yugoslavia for their untiring efforts in the search for peace in the former Yugoslavia, to all the valiant members of the United Nations Protection Force (HNPROROR) in the area, and to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, for her courageous humanitarian efforts, as well as to the other international humanitarian organizations engaged and involved in bringing relief and aid to thousands suffering in Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia* The Organization of the Islamic Conference is deeply concerned, frustrated and angered over the latest developments with regard to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and has made numerous efforts 'tQ restore peace and promote reconciliation since the very inception of this crisis* The Secretary-General of the OIC, Mr. Hamid Algabid, personally visited Sarajevo and Zagreb quite recently and established contact and held meetings with the parties concerned, In my intervention before the General Assembly last Decemberr 1 gave a detailed account of all the efforts undertaken by the OIC, an active member of the Steering Committee of the international Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, concerning this tragic situation, which has been a Source Of immense worry and sorrow to \he Organization of the Islamic conference from the very beginning. This time, I shall try to be brief.and to focus On the bare essentials which are urgently required to remedy, if that is even possible at this point, the plight of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina* The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference regards Security Council resolutions 819 (1993) and 820 (1993) on Srebrenica and the economic sanctions adopted over the weekend as inadequate and insufficient. Had they been adopted much earlier, they might have served a good cause. The Secretary-General of the OIC has expressed the anguish, indignation and shock of the Islamic world over the feeble response of the Security Council to the continued siege and criminal bombing by the Serbian forces of Srebrenica, which is about to fall or be "ethnically cleansed". The Secretary-General of the OIC strongly deplored the fact that efforts made by the Islamic Group at the United Nations in New York to put an end to the Serbian aggression have been rendered futile so far by the prevarication and shirking of responsibility by some States, permanent members of the Security Council, whose attitude has prevented the Council from taking adequate appropriate measures in time to stop the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For the OIC, the fall of Srebrenica, designated as a Muslim province under the Vance-Owen plan, will sound the death knell of the ongoing peace efforts in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the auspices of the United Nations and the European Community, We firmly believe that these tragic events constitute an affront to the authority of the United Nations and compel a reassessment of the relevance and efficacy of the principle of collective security on which the founding fathers,' of the United Nations pinned their hopes for constructing a world free from the scourge of aggression. We also noted that certain permanent members have, one after the other, invoked the complexities on the ground, the dangers of the conflict's spilling over, and of bloodshed on a larger scale, to prevent the Security Council from taking vigorous action to bring the Serbian aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina to an end. Today, while genocide and "ethnic cleansing" continue unabated, while mosques and Catholic churches are razed and civilians are forced to flee under the threat of death, while concentration camps continue to operate, with new detainees delivered all the time, while scores of Bosnian cities are being subjected to ferocious bombing by the Serb forces, while thousands of Muslims are being massacred and women are being raped, these same countries cite the holding of the referendum in another country as a sufficient reason to prevent the Security Council from taking measures required by such a situation for safeguarding international peace and security. The Islamic world cannot and will no longer accept such a scandalous conception of international legality and of the role of the Security Council. We had hoped that those who had opposed effective action by the Security Council in the face of the criminal aggression of which Bosnia and Herzegovina is a victim, and counted on latent Serbian pacifism, would realiae today the error and futility of their approach. The question before the Council today is no longer one of acting with a view to isolating Serbia or decreeing new economic sanctions against it, as resolution 820 (1993) does. The tragic , course of events calls for vigorous and determined action on the part of the Security Council if the objective is really to prevent the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and to stop the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The OIC, in accordance with the will of the overwhelming majority of the international community as reflected in General Assembly resolution 471121, calls for the immediate lifting of the iniquitous arms embargo imposed against Bosnia and Herzegovina and the adoption of effective military measures under the aegis of the Security Council to bring the Serbian aggression to an end. These include, inter alia, that the United Nations should interdict the supply lines bringing weapons and troops from Serbia and Montenegro and proceed to mandate that all heavy weapons be placed under the control of the international community. This is required by the military arrangements of the Vance-Owen plan, which was one of the documents agreed by all the parties. The non-aligned members of the Security Council have already strongly endorsed this plan and have drafted a Security Council resolution that authorizes further appropriate measures to take control or otherwise neutralise the heavy weapons. In conclusion, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference once again submits to the Council this tragic humanitarian case, which will probably have unprecedented repercussions if not tackled in a swift, adequate and effective manner. We expect and plead for concrete action, without further delay, in the form of precise measures to which I and several other speakers have referred in our interventions.

I thank the Observer of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference for his kind words addressed to my predecessor and to me, There are no further speakers for this meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to continue consideration of the item on the agenda will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, 20 April 1993, at 11.30 a.m. The meetina rose at 6.10 a.m.