Tragedy continues with 'no sign of abatement'; international tribunal established.

Fighting in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, continued unabated despite arduous peacemaking efforts by the UN, the European Community and the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. During April, May and June 1993, cease-fire agreements did not hold for long, and renewed hostilities again resulted in hundreds of dead and wounded.

Negotiations, while initially promising a positive outcome, eventually turned out to be unsuccessful, with setbacks ensuing from the parties' intransigence and refusal to cooperate and make compromises.

In resolution 827 (1993), the Security Council on 25 May set up an International Tribunal to prosecute those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia.

Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) were further strengthened and the country was denied participation in the work of the Economic and Social Council.

Between 1 April and 30 June, the Council met, either formally or for consultations, on 18 occasions, adopting 13 resolutions and issuing 6 statements.

Thorvald Stoltenberg, Foreign Minister of Norway, on 1 May succeeded Cyrus Vance as Co-Chairman of the Conference Steering Committee. On 14 May, he also became the Secretary-General's Special Representative for the former Yugoslavia. Knut Vollebaek, another Norwegian diplomat, was named Deputy to Mr. Stoltenberg on 8 June.

With little prospect for peace, international relief efforts were dwindling and the worsening humanitarian situation in the former Yugoslavia threatened to provoke a "massive disaster". Refugee populations were swelling, with suffering people more destitute and desperate.

Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, reported "massive and repeated" violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, stating that the Yugoslav humanitarian tragedy knew "no ethnic boundaries".

International relief organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP), did not have enough resources to provide humanitarian aid. The gap between the needs and funds actually received was growing wider.

Another aggravating factor was the deliberate targeting of humanitarian personnel and blocking of aid convoys, which was increasingly becoming part of the warring parties' military strategies.

To break

the deadlock 

After signing the Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina on 2 May in Athens, the Bosnian Serbs then rejected it in a 15 and 16 May referendum.

To break the deadlock, a proposal to organize Bosnia and Herzegovina into a confederation - which contained the basic elements of the Vance - Owen plan - was brought up by Serbia and Croatia on 23 June, after consultations with leaders of the Bosnian Serbs and Croats. The Co-Chairmen, without taking any position on the draft, suggested some amendments. The Bosnian Presidency, while rejecting the very idea of division along ethnic principles, set up a group to consider the proposal.

In a move to protect Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac and Srebrenica from bombardments and attacks, the Council declared on 16 April and 6 May that they should be treated as "safe areas". It also authorized the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to use force to implement that policy.

UNPROFOR was "badly strained" too. It already had 548 casualties, including 51 fatalities, in the former Yugoslavia. Although augmented by 7,600 men, the Force urgently needed more troops and materiel to implement its mandate, which was extended until 30 September.

Not only was there widespread fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the humanitarian operations were "obstructed or sabotaged for military purposes", the Co-Chairmen reported on 6 July (S/26066).

The "stark realities" were that there was "little prospect for implementing the safe areas policy" before new resources arrived, they warned. And the civilian population would face "devastating hardship", unless UNPROFOR focused on efforts to restore utilities and humanitarian relief deliveries.

While it was "obviously of paramount importance" to sustain the humanitarian effort for as long as possible, there was a "real risk" that, if the present "downward spiral" continued, it would be impossible for the UN to remain in the area, the Co-Chairmen concluded.

The grave situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was discussed in the Council from 19 to 20 April. Participants called for urgent action before witnessing the disappearance of a UN Member State "before the Council's very eyes", while that body was "powerless to prevent it".

Resolution 819:

|Safe area' proclaimed

Bosnian Serb paramilitary units must immediately withdraw from areas surrounding Srebrenica and cease their armed attacks against that town, the Security Council stated on 16 April.

In unanimously adopting resolution 819 (1993), the Council demanded that all parties concerned treat Srebrenica and its surroundings as a "safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act".

The Secretary-general was asked, with a view to monitoring the humanitarian situation in the safe area, to take immediate steps to increase UNPROFOR's presence in Srebrenica. A decision to send a mission of Council members to Bosnia and Herzegovina to ascertain the situation was also taken.

Further, the Council demanded the "unimpeded delivery" of humanitarian assistance to all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and asked the Secretary-General to arrange for the safe transfer of ill and wounded civilians from Srebrenica and its surroundings. All parties must guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and other personnel of the UN and humanitarian organizations, the Council stated.

It demanded that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia immediately cease the supply of military arms, equipment and services to the Bosnian Serb paramilitary units in Bosnia and Herzegovina and "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide"

Bosnian Serbs' deliberate actions to force the evacuation of civilians from Srebrenica and other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were condemned and rejected as part of their "overall abhorrent campaign of |ethnic cleansing'".

Resolutions 820, 821:

Tougher sanctions enacted

A decision to strengthen sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) - Fry - was taken by the Security Council on 17 April, when it adopted resolution 820 (1993) by a vote of 13 to none, with 2 abstentions (China and Russian Federation).

Tougher sanctions were to prevent diversion to the FRY of commodities and products "said to be destined for other places", and to freeze its funds held in other States to "ensure that they are not made available directly or indirectly to or for the benefit" of the FRY authorities.

However, "desirous of achieving the full readmittance" of the FRY to the international community, the Council expressed its readiness - after all three Bosnian parties had accepted the Vance-Owen peace plan - to reconsider its sanctions "with a view to gradually lifting them".

Another punitive measure against the Federal Republic was taken by the General Assembly on 29 April. Acting on the recommendation made in Council resolution 821 (1993) of 28 April, the Assembly decided that the FRY should not participate in the work of the Economic and Social Council. A 37-power text was adopted as resolution 47/229 by a vote of 109 to none, with 11 abstentions.

Earlier, the Assembly decided that the FRY could not automatically succeed to the seat of the former Yugoslavia, but instead would have to apply for membership. In adopting resolution 47/1 of 22 September 1992, it also stated that the FRY in the meantime could not participate in the work of the Assembly.

The Assembly's action was an "incredulous example of exerting pressure on Yugoslavia" to stop the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which it was "not a party", the FRY stated on 29 April (A/47/936-S/25707). Resolution 47/229 was an "affront" to its "constant efforts" in search of a just and lasting settlement to all aspects of the crisis and hostilities in the former Yugoslavia, it claimed.

Resolution 824:

Five areas added

On 6 May, Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde and Bihac were declared "safe areas". Acting unanimously on resolution 824 (1993), the Council also authorized the strengthening of UNPROFOR by an additional 50 military observers to monitor the humanitarian situation in those areas.

All parties and others concerned were called upon to "cooperate fully and promptly" with the Force and respect the rights of UNPROFOR and the international humanitarian agencies to "free and unimpeded access to all safe areas".

In the event of any party failing to comply with resolution 824, the Council declared its readiness to consider immediately the adoption of "any additional measures" necessary to ensure its full implementation.

Demanding that "any taking of territory by force" must cease immediately, the Council declared that its present action would remain in force "up until the provisions for the cessation of hostilities, separation of forces and supervision of heavy weaponry" of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina were implemented.

The Council also welcomed the 30 April report (S/25700) of its Mission established under resolution 819.

The report questioned the viability of UNPROFOR's essentially humanitarian role and suggested a revision of its mandate. Once established, it stated, the safe areas should be "enforced or defended if need be".

The Mission had visited Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zagreb and Split in Croatia, as well as Belgrade in the FRY, from 22 to 27 April. Its members were representatives of France, Hungary, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and Venezuela.

Resolution 827:

Tribunal created

The Security Council on 25 May decided to establish an International Tribunal "for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law" committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.

The Council took that action by unanimously adopting resolution 827 (1993), by which it also endorsed a 34-article draft statute of the Tribunal, annexed to the Secretary-General's report (S/25704).

Expressing "grave alarm at continuing reports of widespread and flagrant violations" of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia, as well as the "continuance of the practice of |ethnic cleansing', including for the acquisition and the holding of territory", the Council stated that the Tribunal would contribute to "ensuring that such violations are halted and effectively redressed".

Under its Statute, the Tribunal is to deal with "crimes against humanity", such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, and other inhumane acts. Also, acting upon an order of a Government or a superior would not relieve the perpetrator of criminal responsibility and should not be a defence. Obedience to superior orders could, however, be considered a mitigating factor should the Tribunal determine that justice so requires.

The Council also invited all States to cooperate fully with the Tribunal and take any measures necessary under their domestic law to implement the resolution and the Tribunal's Statute. States, as well as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, were urged to contribute funds, equipment and services, including the offer of expert personnel.

The Secretary-General was asked to make practical arrangements for the effective functioning of the Tribunal, which would be located at The Hague.

It was also agreed that, pending the appointment of the Tribunal's Prosecutor, the Commission of Experts, established under Council resolution 780 (1992), should continue collecting information on "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia.

On 28 May, two items on the Tribunal's financing and on election of its judges were added to the agenda of the General Assembly's forty-seventh session.

The Secretary-General on 3 May reported (S/25704) that the Tribunal would operate as a subsidiary organ of the Security Council, performing its functions independently of political considerations and would "not be subject to the authority or control" of the Council with regard to the performance of its judicial functions. Its life span would be "linked to the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security" in the former Yugoslavia.

The new body would consist of two Trial Chambers, an Appeals Chamber, the Prosecutor, and a Registry, servicing both chambers and the Prosecutor.

With regard to competence, the Tribunal is to apply those rules of international humanitarian law which are "beyond any doubt part of customary law", such as international conventions relating to the protection of war victims, respective laws and customs of war on land, and prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.

It also deals with "crimes against humanity" - first recognized in the Charter and Judgement of the Nurnberg Tribunal - which include "inhumane acts of a very serious nature", committed as part of a "widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds".

In the case of the former Yugoslavia, such inhumane acts took the form of so-called "ethnic cleansing" and widespread and systematic rape and other forms of sexual assault, including enforced prostitution, the report stated.

War crimes body

dispatches team

A decision to send an investigative team to the area of Abmici/Vitez in Bosnia and Herzegovina to enquire into the mass killings committed there in April was taken by the Commission of Experts, as it held its fifth session (24-25 May, Geneva).

The Commission also agreed to continue preparations for other selective in-depth investigations in the following "general areas": mass killings and destruction of property; treatment of prisoners and detainees; systematic sexual assaults; and ethnic cleansing.

The session noted with satisfaction that a Trust Fund for the Commission - announced by the Secretary-General on 2 April - was operational, and welcomed contributions to the Fund to assist the Commission in the fulfilment of its mandate.

Resolutions 836, 844:

Force authorized,

troops added

In a move to ensure full respect for the six designated safe areas, the Security Council on 4 June expanded UNPROFOR's mandate by authorizing it to use force, in reply to bombardments or attacks against those areas or any "deliberate obstruction" of protected humanitarian convoys. In adopting resolution 836 (1993), the Council also decided that Member States might take, under Council authority, "all necessary measures" to support UNPROFOR.

Under its new mandate, the Force was to deter attacks against the safe areas, monitor the cease-fire, promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than those of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief.

Affirming that those safe areas were a temporary measure and that the primary objective remained to "reverse the consequences of the use of force" and allow all displaced persons to return to their homes in peace, the Council asked the Secretary-General to make the necessary "adjustments or reinforcements" of UNPROFOR.

On 14 June, the Secretary-General reported (S/25939) that such additional requirements amounted to some 7,600 personnel. Such reinforcement, "as an initial approach", was authorized on 18 June by unanimously adopting resolution 844 (1993). The Council also called upon Member States to "coordinate closely" with the Secretary-General and contribute forces, including "logistic support and equipment", to facilitate the implementation of provisions on the safe areas.

Resolution 838:

Sanctions monitored

A report on options for the deployment of international observers on the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to monitor effectively the implementation of sanctions was asked from the Secretary-General on 10 June.

In unanimously adopting resolution 838 (1993), the Council also called for the observers to be drawn from the UN and, if appropriate, from Member States "acting nationally or through regional organizations and arrangements".

The Secretary-General was also asked to contact those States immediately to "ensure the availability to him on a continuing basis of any relevant material derived from aerial surveilance".

In preparing his report, the Secretary-General

was to take account of developments since his 21 December 1992 report (S/25000), in which he agreed with the UNPROFOR Commander's view that implementing border controls would require a significant addition to the Force's resources.

The Secretary-General reported (S/26018) on 1 July that it would be unrealistic for the Council to authorize international observers to establish full control over the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as worldwide resources for additional peacekeeping troops were becoming increasingly stretched.

Another option was border monitoring, the report said. Observers would only monitor and report on the borders, without checking the nature of goods coming into and out of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But even that would require substantial additional resources which might not be available.

With outstanding contributions to UN peace-keeping accounts totalling $1,260 million in mid-June and unpaid assessments amounting to some $2,236 million, it was "highly probable that in the coming months the Organization will not be able to meet its day-to-day obligations", the Secretary-General concluded.

Crossing points approved

The location of road and rail border crossing points between the FRY and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Romania was approved on 11 June by the Security Council Committee established under resolution 724 (1991).

At those points, the passage of all freight vehicles and rolling stock into and out of the FRY "shall not be prevented" if in accordance with relevant Council resolutions and the Revised Consolidated Committee's Guidelines for the conduct of its work approved on 26 April, stated Committee Chairman Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg of Brazil.

On 12 May the Committee also announced procedures for shipping foodstuffs, medical supplies, commodities and goods to and through the Federal Republic, pursuant to resolution 820.

Resolution 843:

Adverse effects examined

Responding to a number of complaints by States adversely affected by sanctions against the former Yugoslavia, the Security Council on 18 June confirmed that its Committee was entrusted to examine their requests for assistance, in accordance with Article 50 of the UN Charter.

(Article 50 gives States experiencing special economic problems arising from preventive or enforcement measures taken by the Council against any other State the right to consult the Council on finding a solution.)

In adopting resolution 843 (1993), the Council also welcomed the establishment by the Committee of a working group to deal with the matter. It also invited the Committee to complete its examination of each request and recommend appropriate action to the Council President.

Complaints had been received from Bulgaria, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Ukraine.

No exemption

A move to exempt Bosnia and Herzegovina from the arms embargo - imposed under resolution 713 (1991) against all parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia - was rejected by the Councit on 29 June.

Acting on a draft resolution sponsored by its non-aligned members, the Council voted 6 (Cape Verde, Djibouti, Morocco, Pakistan, United States, Venezuela) to none, with 9 abstentions (Brazil, China, France, Hungary, Japan, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom).

Introducing the draft, Cape Verde said it was a response to a "moral call" to enable those who had been victims of aggression and ethnic cleansing to "exercise their inherent right of self-defence".

Those abstaining argued that lifting the arms embargo would only increase the level of fighting and would result in more civilian casualties and refugees.

Resolutions 817, 842, 845:

Macedonia

The Security Council, in adopting resolution 817 (1993) on 7 April, recommended the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) for UN membership, "pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State".

On 18 June, the Security Council welcomed the United States offer to provide about 300 troops to reinforce UNPROFOR's presence in the FYROM. In unanimously adopting resolution 842 (1993), the Council authorized the deployment of the additional personnel.

The proposal by Co-Chairmen Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, which provided that the FYROM would agree to use, for all official purposes, the name of Republic of Nova Makedonija and not to use the Vergina Sun in symbols, names, flags, monuments or emblems, was commended by the Council on 18 June.

In unanimously adopting resolution 845 (1993), the Council also urged the FYROM and Greece to continue their efforts, under the Secretary-General's auspices, to arrive at a speedy settlement of their differences before the commencement of the forty-eighth Assembly session.

The Co-Chairmen's proposal was contained in a draft treaty on confidence-building, friendship and neighbourly cooperation between the two countries, presented on 14 May to the Greek and Macedonian sides.

The Secretary-General on 26 May reported (S/25855) to the Council on the Co-Chairmen's activities in that regard. Annexed to his report were the parties' responses to the Vance-Owen proposal.

Greece objected (S/25855/Add.1) to the name "Nova Makedonija", reiterating that in a spirit of "genuine compromise" it would agree to the adoption of "Slavomakedonija".

The FYROM stated (S/25855/Add.2) that the constitutional name "The Republic of Macedonia" did "not imply territorial or other aspirations whatsoever".

On the other hand, the name "Slavo-Macedonia" was not acceptable to Albania. That proposal "openly ignored" the existence of a "very strong Albanian community" which made up "nearly 40 per cent" of the FYROM's population, Albania informed (S/25892) the Council on 7 June.

Resolution 847:

UNPROFOR extended

UNPROFOR's mandate was extended on 30 June for an additional interim period, until 30 September.

By unanimously adopting resolution 847 (1993), the Security Council also decided to reconsider after one month the Force's mandate in Croatia. It took into account Croatia's position, which views the extension as a trial period to evaluate Serbian efforts to implement the UN peace plan. The Secretary-General was asked to report in one month on the progress towards the plan's implementation.

The Council also approved the Secretary-General's relevant reports and his request for an additional $91.2 million to strengthen the Force.

On 24 June, Mr. Boutros-Ghali stated (S/25993) that UNPROFOR's presence was "indispensable" to control the conflict which continued to "simmer, and sometimes boil over", in Croatia. Extending and enhancing the Force's mandate required a total of 2,650 additional troops and 100 military observers, he said on 25 May (S/25777/Add.1).

UNPROFOR mandate

thwarted

But implementation by UNPROFOR of its mandate was thwarted by the "virtually irreconcilable positions" of the parties concerned, the Secretary-General observed on 15 May (S/25777). Thus, the Council had three options: declare the mandate unworkable due to Serbian non-cooperation and withdraw the Force; accept the Croatian view and approve enforcement action to exact compliance from the Serbs; or leave UNPROFOR in place, with no changes in mandate, but with limited enhancement of its military capacity.

On 17 June, the Secretary-General reported (A/47/741/ADD.1) that maintaining UNPROFOR from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994 would cost about $77 million a month, excluding nonrecurring expenses for start-up items for "expansions" in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In that regard, he asked the General Assembly to make appropriate provision for UNPROFOR.

The Force was originally established on 21 February 1992 by Council resolution 743 (1992) for an initial period of 12 months. Its mandate was subsequently extended until 31 March by resolution 807 (1993).

At present, the Force is principally deployed in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Its mandate also extends to Serbia and Montenegro and it has a liaison presence in Slovenia. UNPROFOR's current strength is slightly over 24,000 troops, military observers and civilian police personnel.

Ban on flights

France, the Netherlands and the United States had already deployed its aircraft to ensure compliance with the ban on all military flights in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Secretary-General informed (S/25608) the Council President on 16 April. The list of countries offering aircraft for that operation included Turkey and the United Kingdom, he added.

The ban, instituted in October 1992 by Council resolution 781 (1992), was subsequently enforced by resolution 816 (1993). However, it had been continuously violated. From 1 April to 30 June, 125 flights - other than those exempted under resolution 816 - were reported. That brought to 624 the total number of flights assessed as apparent violations since monitoring began in November 1992.

Annexed to the Secretary-General's 16 April letter were revised guidelines for approval of non-UNPROFOR and non-UNHCR flights. Those guidelines provided that UNPROFOR would authorize flights "within or into" Bosnia and Herzegovina involving: transportation of personnel from international organizations; official delegations; evacuation of persons of "special humanitarian concern"; medical and casualty evacuations; and evacuation of third country nationals.

Agreement on maps

An agreement on interim arrangements and the provisional provincial map for Bosnia and Herzegovina was signed on 2 May by the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, in Athens at the end of the two-day peace talks,

convened by the Co-chairmen of the Steering Committee.

That was a major achievement" which marked a "decisive moment" in efforts to stop the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Secretary- General said on 3 May SI25709). The signing of the Vance-owen peace plan "in its entirety by all parties" was also welcomed on 3 May by the Security Council. Under the plan, some 60,000 to 70,000 peace-keeping troops were to be deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

However, the Bosnian Serb assembly on 5 May annulled Mr. Karadzic's signature and called for a referendum on the peace plan.

Immediately after the assembly meeting, the FRY announced that it was cutting off all but humanitarian supplies to the Bosnian Serbs.

On 6 May, the Secretary-general stated he believed the "last word has not been spoken" by the Bosnian Serbs, and there would be "more negotiations" to overcome the current difficulties.

The Vance-Owen peace plan was the "basis for a peaceful solution" to the Bosnian conflict, and work for its implementation should continue, stressed Council members in a 7 May statement made by its President, Yuliy M. Vorontsov of the Russian Federation.

The validity of the Bosnian Serb referendum, given the war conditions and all the "ethnic cleansing" that had taken place, was doubted by the Secretary-General on 11 May. Besides, he said, the UN did not recognize the legitimacy of the "Bosnian Serb Republic" or its assembly in Pale.

Bosnian Serbs, on the very eve of their plebiscite, were called upon by the Assembly of the FRY and the Assemblies of Serbia and Montenegro to opt for the plan's acceptance.

The decision on the referendum was "untimely and unthoughtful", the legislatures stated (A/481/69-S/25787) on 14 May, since a referendum in the conditions of ongoing civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina "cannot be an expression of will by all citizens".

Nevertheless, the 15 and 16 May plebiscite resulted in the Bosnian Serbs' rejection of the Vance-Owen peace plan.

One of the prerequisites for "forging ahead" with the implementation of the peace plan in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the "absence of agreement" by Bosnian Serbs, had been the "continuation of cooperation between Muslims and Croats", the Co-Chairmen reported (S/26066) on 6 July.

But such cooperation "no longer existed" due to "major fighting" between the two sides in central Bosnia and failure to negotiate a durable cease-fire. Another truce - a 15 June agreement among the three Bosnian parties' military leaders to halt the conflict on 18 June and cooperate with UNPROFOR - held for only three days, broken by renewed hostilities.

Besides, the overall focus of the conflict had shifted from a "relatively localized Serbian-Muslim confrontation in the east to a wide-ranging Croat-Muslim confrontation" in the centre.

A "new stage had been reached" in the Bosnian conflict, the Co-Chairmen concluded.

Confederation?

In parallel, proposals to divide the Bosnian Republic into three areas were discussed in Geneva by the Presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the FRY at a 15-16 June meeting. According to a UN spokesman, the proposal was "neither the Vance-Owen peace plan nor a variation of it".

The Bosnian Presidency on 21 June rejected (S/25995) "every possibility of any division of Bosnia and Herzegovina along ethnic principles", saying it would not accept the "alleged impossibility of common life" for its people.

On 23 June, a plan to organize Bosnia and Herzegovina into a confederation of three constituent republics was presented to the Co-Chairmen by President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia and President Franio Tudjman of Croatia. The draft, they said, was based on the constitutional principles agreed upon in the Vance-Owen plan.

The Co-Chairmen, without taking any position on the document, suggested additional elements" to foster Bosnia and Herzegovina's "cohesiveness and integrity" as a UN Member State. Those elements related to: the establishment of a Confederated Council of Ministers with rotating posts of Prime Minister and Foreign Minister among the three republics; referral of disputes that could not be settled by consensus in the Constitutional Court to a special Chamber of the International Court of Justice; and International monitoring of throughways to ensure freedom of movement.

The Bosnian Presidency meeting on 29 June in Sarajevo, set up a three-member group to make policy suggestions in reacting to the draft. The decision had been made in the light of its discussions with the Co-Chairmen on 23 and 28 June in Geneva.

Bosnia's nightmare

The consequences of the Bosnian conflict were "clear and tragic", President Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia and Herzegovina wrote (S/25873) to the Security Council President on 1 June - two thirds of the country was occupied, over 200,000 civilians killed, more than 2 million people "uprooted from their homes", and hundreds of towns and villages destroyed.

Attacks on the civilian populations and artillery bombardments of Sarajevo, Gorazde, Zepa, Mostar, Brcko and other Bosnian towns and villages were continuously reported by the Bosnian Government.

Another distressing factor was fighting between Bosnian government forces and Bosnian Croat paramilitary units. Deep concern on the oubreak of military hostilities north and west of Sarajevo was expressed by the Council on 21 April.

Appalled by

atrocities

Council members were "appalled" by reports of atrocities and killings, in particular the "setting on fire of Muslim houses and the shooting of entire families", Council President Jamsheed K. A. Marker of Pakistan stated (S/25646). They demanded an immediate cessation of those hostilities and that parties refrain from "any action which endangers the lives and well-being" of the region's population.

Bosnian Serbs were also urged to implement fully resolution 819, including the "immediate withdrawal from the areas surrounding Srebrenica", and allow UNPROFOR personnel "unimpeded access to the town".

On 10 May, the Council strongly condemned the "major military offensive" launched by Bosnian Croat paramilitary units in the areas of Mostar, Jablanica and Dreznica, which was "totally inconsistent" with its signature of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In a statement (S/25746) by Council President Vorontsov, the Council demanded that those attacks cease, Bosnian Croat paramilitary units withdraw immediately from the area, and all parties strictly comply with their previous commitments, as well as the 10 May cease-fire between the Government and the Bosnian Croat party.

The Council also expressed deep concern over the fact that an UNPROFOR battalion in the area had been "forced under fire to redeploy", and condemned Bosnian Croats' refusal to allow the presence of UN military observers, particularly in Mostar.

Croatia, in its turn, blamed the Bosnian Muslims. On 9 June, it called on the Council to consider an "adequate response" to the situation created the "recent offensive by Muslim forces" on Croatian civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Hundreds of Croats had been killed around the town of Travnik, with more than 25,000 expelled from their homes, Mario Nobilo, Croatian Permanent Representative to the UN, stated (S/25920). The continuation of the offensive would lead to a massive flow of refugees into Croatia, which was already accommodating more than 250,000 Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The situation, he warned, had "all the elements of a humanitarian catastrophe" that could jeopardize the fragile peace process in the region.

Stalemate in Croatia

Deep concern over the failure of the Krajina Serbs to participate in talks held in Zagreb on 26 May with the Croatian Government on the implementation of resolution 802 (1993) was expressed by the Security Council on 8 June.

In a statement (S/25897) by Council President Juan Antonio Yanez-Barnuevo of Spain, it urged the parties to solve all problems by peaceful means and stated its willingness to help ensure the implementation of an agreement based on that resolution, "including respect for the rights of the local Serb population".

An agreement between the Croatian Government and the Krajina Serb local authorities, signed on 6 April in Geneva, provided for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of the Croatian armed forces to the lines of confrontation existing before the outbreak of hostilities on 22 January, the Secretary-General reported (S/25708) on 30 April. Besides, all Serb heavy weapons were to be placed under UNPROFOR's supervision, with the Force fulfilling all police functions "within any area from which Croatian government armed forces withdraw", the report said.

However, the accord did not enter into force due to the "unwillingness by the Serbian side to continue a dialogue" to normalize the situation in the UN Protected Areas (UNPAs), Croatia complained (S/25854) on 27 May.

Croatia, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 8 June letters to the Council, strongly denounced the planned referendum on "unification" of territories under the control of Serbian insurgents in Croatia with those held by Bosnian Serbs.

That plebiscite was qualified by the Government (S/25904) as "illegal, contrary to the Croatian Constitution and thus absolutely invalid and irrelevant".

Since the occupied territories in Croatia had been "mostly ethnically mixed areas before the Serbian aggression", they were a "disturbing model" of a demographic ethnic change achieved by "force and intimidation", as there were "no other ethnic groups living there now but Serbs", the Croatian letter stated.

Bosnia and Herzegovina condemned (S/25906) the referendum plans "as a blatant disregard for all norms of civilized behaviour", stating that such an action "should be considered null and void". The international community could not condone what had become a "mockery of the democratic process by Belgrade and their surrogates in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina", the letter stated.

Human rights:

More massive violations

"Massive and repeated" violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the former Yugoslavia were reported (S/25792) on 10 May by Special Rapporteur Mazowiecki of the Commission on Human Rights.

Those violations were being committed by Serb forces in Cerska, Konjevic Polje and Srebrenica, "attacking and ambushing civilians" and villages themselves, refusing to allow the humanitarian aid to enter and denying the evacuation of the wounded, and attempting to "link the above issues to the independent question of freedom of movement for Serbs in Tuzla", which were the "target of discrimination and harassment", the report said.

Compliance with human rights and humanitarian law obligations by one party was not conditional upon compliance by others, Mr. Mazowiecki stated, as those obligations were "absolute for each party" and did "not depend on reciprocity".

Violations had also been perpetrated by government forces when they refused to allow the evacuation of civilians from Srebrenica, thus attempting to use them as a "humanitarian shield", the Special Rapporteur stressed. Another concern was "forcible recruitment into military forces", as well as the "punishment of the family of those who resist".

Respect for human rights should be given priority in the peace process in Bosnia, Mr. Mazowiecki stressed, calling for: an immediate release of all detainees "into conditions of safety"; an end to blockades of cities and enclaves and opening of humanitarian relief corridors; expansion of the "safe area" concept; and guaranteeing the "right to flight and the right to seek asylum".

The international community was also urged to support immediately the UNHCR and WFP humanitarian aid programmes for the former Yugoslavia, which benefited almost 4 million people.

Emergency food supplies for refugees and displaced people, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, would "run out within days", the Secretary-General warned on 12 April. He called on the world donor community to "act with speed" to provide the food needed to "prevent high rates of deaths from starvation".

Also, the Security Council expressed shock and alarm at the "dire and worsening humanitarian situation" in Srebrenica, Council President Marker stated on 30 April, because of the Bosnian Serbs' "unacceptable decision" not to permit any further humanitarian aid to that town, and allow only evacuation of its civilian population.

On 8 April, the Council had expressed concern over a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross that 17 detainees in Bosnia and Herzegovina had lost their lives in a 26 March ambush while being transported for work at the front from the Batkovic Camp that was under the control of Serb forces.

Indignation at the "inexcusable assault on civilians" in Srebrenica was also expressed by the Secretary-General on 15 April. He condemned the shelling of that town by Bosnian Serb forces and called upon them to halt those "unjustifiable attacks". All concerned were urged to cooperate with the efforts of the UNPROFOR Force Commander to restore a cease-fire and allow free passage and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Two-day debate:

Need for action

"Genocide" and "aggression" were powerful words in any language that gave rise to a legal obligation on the part of the world community to halt actions that those words represented, Muhamed Sacirbey of Bosnia and Herzegovina told the Council on 19 April, as it began a two-day debate on the deteriorating situation in that country.

Initially requested (S/25604) on 15 April by members of the Non-Aligned caucus in the Council - Cape Verde, Djibouti, Morocco, Pakistan and Venezuela - the meeting was held following the adoption of resolutions 819 and 820.

The need for action by the community of nations was stressed. The Council was called to "consider all the options opened to it under the Charter" if efforts to find a negotiated solution failed.

Attacks condemned

Attacks on humanitarian convoys and continuing killings of UNPROFOR personnel were widely condemned. Sadako Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, on 1 June called these "vicious, unprovoked acts".

Several UN agencies in 1993 aimed to assist more than 3.8 million war victims throughout the former Yugoslavia.

"We are at a turning-point in the humanitarian effort", Mrs. Ogata stressed. A "gigantic, sustained international effort" is needed. If the world community did not come up with those resources, it would provoke a "massive humanitarian disaster with even greater consequences for Europe", she warned.

Co-Chairman Stoltenberg on 1 July said the growing level of threats to UN forces was of great concern. "Every day we lose, the situation on the ground deteriorates further in a way that will undermine what we are trying to do here."

Serious concern was also voiced regarding what many called the appalling humanitarian situation in the former Yugoslavia.

The Vienna-held World Conference on Human Rights on 15 June called for measures to end genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly in Gorazde.

Another call - by Albanian President Sali Berisha -urged steps to "prevent the spillover" of the Bosnian conflict into Kosovo and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Other developments

General Jean Cot of France on 1 July replaced Lieutenant-General Lars-Eric Wahlgren of Sweden as UNPROFOR's Commander.

On 24 May, a prestigious Prince of Asturias Award for International Cooperation was accepted on UNPROFOR's behalf by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Expressing his personal appreciation to the Prince of Asturias Foundation, Mr. Boutros-Ghali said its decision was a "welcome recognition for the Force's efforts to end the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia and a great encouragement for it to continue implementing its mandate in a difficult environment".