93-95_8-21-10-conference on security and cooperation in europe missions .pdf

7/29/2019 93-95_8-21-10-Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe missions .pdf

1/4

this autumn. They call upon both parties to cooperate fully with

you and Mr. Vance in order to reach agreement on outstanding

issues as soon as possible.

Decision of 15 September 1995 (3579th

meeting): statement by the PresidentBy a letter dated 13 September 1995 addressed to

the President of the Security Council, the Secretary-

General informed the Council that the Foreign

Ministers of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonia had signed a wide-ranging interim

accord that day at United Nations Headquarters in New

York, in the presence of himself and Mr. Vance.642

Article 5 of the accord provided, inter alia, that the

parties would continue negotiat ions, under the auspices

of the Secretary-General and pursuant to resolutions

817 (1993) and 845 (1993), to resolve the difference

between them with respect to the name of the former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

At its 3579th meeting, on 15 September 1995, the

Council resumed its consideration of the item and

included in its agenda the sub-item entitled Interim

Accord between Greece and the former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia. Following the adoption of the

agenda, the President (Italy) stated that, after

consultations among members of the Security Council,

he had been authorized to make the following

statement on behalf of the Council:643

The Security Council welcomes the signing of the Interim

Accord between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia and looks forward to the establishment of a new

relationship between the parties based on international law and

peaceful, friendly relati ons . The Counci l bel ieves the Accord

will promote the strengthening of stability in the region.

The Council commends both parties, the Secretary-

General, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, Mr. Cyrus

Vance, and the United States envoy, Mr. Matthew Nimetz, for

their efforts in bringing about this important achievement,

pursuant to Council resolu tions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993) . The

Council encourages them to continue their efforts to resolve the

remaining differences between the parties and urges the parties

to implement fully the Interim Accord.

642 S/1995/794, annex I.643 S/PRST/1995/46.

J. Conference on Security andCooperation in Europe missions in

Kosovo, Sandzak and Vojvodina, theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia

and Montenegro)

Initial proceedings

Decision of 9 August 1993 (3262nd meeting):

resolution 855 (1993)

By a letter dated 20 July 1993 addressed to the

President of the Security Council, the representative of

Sweden transmitted a letter of the same date from the

Chairman-in-Office of the Council of Ministers of the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(CSCE), in which, in accordance with Article 54 of the

Charter, he informed the Council that at the end ofJune 1993, the Government of the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) had withdrawn its

acceptance of the CSCE missions in Kosovo, Sandzak

and Vojvodina and its cooperation with them.644 The

Chairman-in-Office also noted that it was the

considered opinion of the CSCE participating States

that the decision by the Belgrade authorities aggravated

the existing threats to peace and security in the region.

By a letter dated 23 July 1993 addressed to the

President of the Council, the representative of Sweden

transmitted a letter of the same date from the

Chairman-in-Office addressed to the Minister for

Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, as well as a related

statement by the Chairman-in-Office.645 In his letter,

the Chairman-in-Office called upon the authorities of

the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to revoke its

decision not to allow the CSCE missions to continue

their activities and display its willingness to live up to

the norms and principles it had accepted as a CSCE

partic ipating State.

At its 3262nd meeting, on 9 August 1993, the

Council included in its agenda the item entitled

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(CSCE) missions in Kosovo, Sandzak and Vojvodina,

the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia andMontenegro) and the two above-mentioned letters.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the Council

invited Ambassador Dragomir Djokic, at his request, to

644 S/26121.645 S/26148.


2/4

take a seat at the Council table during the course of the

discussion of the item. The President (United States)

then drew the attention of the Council members to the

text of a draft resolution that had been prepared in the

course of the Councils prior consultations,646 as well

as to two letters dated 28 July and 3 August 1993 fromthe representative of Yugoslavia addressed to the

Secretary-General. 647 The letters transmitted letters

dated 28 and 29 July 1993 from the Minister for

Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

addressed to the President of the Security Council and

the Chairman-in-Office of the CSCE Council,

respectively, in which the Minister objected to the fact

that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been

suspended from participating in CSCE activities since

8 July 1992 and made the point that his Government

was willing and ready to continue to cooperate with

CSCE and would allow the CSCE missions back,

should Serbia and Montenegro be reintegrated into

CSCE.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of

China contended that the issue of Kosovo was an

internal affair of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

and that the sovereignty, political independence and

territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia should be respected, in line with the basic

principles of the Charter of the Uni ted Nations and

international law. Based on that consideration, his

delegation believed that the Council should exercise

extreme prudence and should act in strict conformity

with the purposes and the principles of the Charter,especially the principle of non-interference in the

internal affairs of sovereign States. The speaker also

contended that recourse to preventive diplomacy, as

part of the pacific settlement of conflicts embodied in

Chapter VI of the Charter, should be carried out at the

explicit request or with the prior consent of the States

and parties concerned, and should never be imposed

against their will. Practice over the years had shown

that the consent and cooperation of the parties

concerned were essential factors in ensuring the

success of the endeavours of the United Nations and

regional organizations. The dispute should therefore be

solved through continued dialogue and consultation,

without outside interference or pressure. The speaker

observed that, when differences arose between a

regional organization and a sovereign State, it was

646 S/26263.647 S/26210 and S/26234, respectively.

important to consider the question whether the Security

Council should involve itself and, if so, according to

what principle. He noted that, in the spirit of

consensus, the Chinese delegation had offered specific

amendments to the draft resolution. As those

amendments had not been accepted, however, it wouldabstain from the voting on the draft resolution.648

The draft resolution was then put to the vote and

adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (China)

as resolution 855 (1993), which reads:

The Security Council,

Taking note of the letters of 20 and 23 July 1993 from the

Chairman in Office of the Council of Ministers of the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe,

Also taking note of the letters of 28 July and 3 August

1993 circulated by the authorities of the Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),

Deeply concerned at the refusal of the authorities in the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to

allow the CSCE missions of long duration to continue their

activities,

Bearing in mind that the CSCE missions of long duration

are an example of preventive diplomacy undertaken within the

framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in

Europe and have greatly contributed to promoting stability and

counteracting the risk of violence in Kosovo, Sandzak and

Vojvodina, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and

Montenegro),

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions aimed at putting an

end to conflict in the former Yugoslavia,Determined to avoid any extension of the conflict in the

former Yugoslavia, and in this context attaching great

importance to the work of the CSCE missions and to the

continued ability of the international community to monitor the

situation in Kosovo, Sandzak and Vojvodina, the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),

Stressing its commitment to the territorial integrity and

pol itical independence of a ll Stat es i n the r egion,

1. Endorses the efforts of the Conference on Security

and Cooperation in Europe as described in the letters noted

above from the Chairman in Office of the Council of Ministers

of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;

2. Calls upon the authorities in the Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to reconsider their

refusal to allow the continuation of the activities of the CSCE

missions in Kosovo, Sandzjak and Vojvodina, the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), to cooperate

with the Conference by taking the practical steps needed for the

648 S/PV.3262, pp. 3-5.


3/4

resumption of the activities of these missions and to agree to an

increase in the number of monitors as decided by the

Conference;

3. Also calls upon the authorities in the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to assure the

monitors safety and security and to allow them free andunimpeded access necessary to accomplish their mission in full;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of

Hungary stated that the CSCE missions had proved

extremely valuable in promoting stability and

counteracting the risk of ethnically motivated violence

in Kosovo, Sandzak and Vojvodina. The Hungarian

delegation strongly believed that transparency in the

protection of human rights was an important factor of

stability and security, being a litmus test of a

Governments fulfilment of its obligations under the

Charter and other relevant international instruments.Hungary, like the CSCE community as a whole, was of

the view that the expulsion of the CSCE missions was

an act that further aggravated the threat to peace and

security in the Balkan region. It considered the

Councils call to the Belgrade Government to

re-examine its position to be a perfectly legitimate

and sound action.649

The representative of Brazil stated that his

delegation had voted in favour of the resolution just

adopted, bearing in mind that the consideration of the

substantive aspects of the dispute fell within the

competence of the regional arrangement represented bythe relationship between CSCE and its member States.

The Brazilian delegation hoped that the resolution just

adopted would help to create conditions for the

adoption of measures of cooperation and ultimately for

the solution of the differences between the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia and CSCE.650

The representative of France stated that his

delegation was pleased that the Council was giving its

support to CSCE, so that the activities of its missions

could continue. As stated in the letters of the

Chairman-in-Office, it was a question of ensuring the

stability of the region. As the resolution just adopted

emphasized, the activities of the missions were in no

way aimed at affecting the sovereignty of a State, but

were designed to ensure respect for the fundamental

principles to which all the member States of CSCE,

649 Ibid., pp. 5-6.650 Ibid., pp. 6-7.

including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, had

committed themselves. The presence of the missions

contributed to avoiding any extension of the conflict in

the former Yugoslavia to Kosovo, Sandzak and

Vojvodina.651

The representative of the United Kingdom

reminded the authorities in Belgrade that they

continued to be bound by obligations which had been

entered into in the context of CSCE and the binding

commitment under the Moscow mechanisms. The

missions were a source of objective information and

they promoted security and dialogue between the

communities, and would avoid the spread of conflict to

other parts of the former Yugoslavia.652

The President, speaking in her capacity as the

representative of the United States, stated that the

United States strongly supported the activities of the

CSCE missions, as they were vital to the international

communitys efforts to prevent the spread of the

conflict in the former Yugoslavia. By monitoring the

human rights situation in Kosovo, Sandzak and

Vojvodina, those missions had announced clearly to the

authorities in Belgrade that the international

community would not tolerate Serbian oppression of

local non-Serb populations. She warned that the United

States was prepared to respond against Serbia in the

event of a conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian action.

She also stressed that human rights abuse would simply

delay Serbia and Montenegros return to the

community of nations.653

In the course of the debate, other speakers shared

the view that the CSCE missions were fundamental to

the maintenance of peace and stability in the region

and that their departure would further aggravate the

existing threat to that peace and stability.654

651 Ibid., pp. 9-10.652 Ibid., p. 14.653 Ibid., pp. 17-18.654 Ibid., pp. 7-9 (Pakistan); pp. 10-11 (Japan); and

pp. 12-13 (Spain).


4/4

K. The situation in Croatia

Initial proceedings

Decision of 14 September 1993 (3275th

meeting): statement by the President

At its 3275th meeting, on 14 September 1993, the

Security Council began its consideration of the item

entitled The situation in Croatia. Following the

adoption of the agenda, the Council invited the

representative of Croatia, at his request, to participate

in the discussion without the right to vote. The

President (Venezuela) then stated that, after




The Security Council expresses its profound concern at

the reports from the Secretariat of recent military hostilities in

Croatia, in particular the escalation of the means employed, and

the grave threat they pose to the peace process in Geneva and

overall stability in the former Yugoslavia.

The Council reaffirms its respect for the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of the Republic of Croatia, and calls on both

sides to accept the proposal of the United Nations Protection

Force for an immediate ceasefire. It calls on the Government of

Croatia to withdraw its armed forces to positions occupied

before 9 September 1993, on the bas is of tha t proposal, and call s

on the Serbian forces to halt all provocative military actions.

Decision of 7 February 1995 (3498th meeting):

statement by the President

At its 3498th meeting, on 7 February 1995, the

Council resumed its consideration of the situation in

Croatia. Following the adoption of the agenda, the

Council invited the representative of Croatia, at his

request, to participate in the discussion without the

right to vote. The President (Botswana) drew the

attention of the members of the Council to several

documents.656 The President then stated that, after


655 S/26436.656 Letter dated 18 January 1995 from the representative of

Croatia addressed to the President of the Security

Council (S/1995/56); and letters dated 25 and 31 January

1995, respectively, from the representative of Croatia

addressed to the Secretary-General (S/1995/82 and

S/1995/93).



The Security Council reiterates its support for the efforts

to bring about a political settlement in the Republic of Croatia

which ensures full respect for the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of the Republic of Croatia and which guarantees thesecurity and rights of all communities living in a particular area

irrespective of whether they constitute in this area the majority

or a minorit y.

The Council strongly supports the recent efforts of

representatives of the International Conference on the Former

Yugoslavia, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the

United States of America aimed at achieving a political

settlement in the Republic of Croatia. The Council calls upon

the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the local Serb

authorities in the United Nations Protected Areas to enter

urgently and without preconditions into negotiations on such a

settlement, benefiting from proposals now made to them as part

of these efforts. It calls upon all other relevant parties to support

this process.

The Council reaffirms its commitment to the search for an

overall negotiated settlement of the conflicts in the former

Yugoslavia ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of

all the States there within their internationally recognized

borders and stresses the imp ortance it attaches to the mutual

recognition thereof.

The Council reaffirms its view that the continued and

effective presence of the United Nations Protection Force in the

Republic of Croatia is of vital importance for regional peace and

security and expresses its desire that discussions over the weeks

ahead will lead the Government of the Republic of Croatia to

re-examine its position taken on 12 January 1995 in relation to

the continuing role of the Force in the Republic of Croatia.

Decision of 28 April 1995 (3527th meeting):

resolution 990 (1995)

On 18 April 1995, pursuant to resolution 981

(1995), the Secretary-General submitted to the Council

a report on the implementation of the mandate of the

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in

Croatia (UNCRO).658 The report contained a detailed

plan for the implementation of the UNCRO mandate,

as well as an assessment of the resources needed,

indicating that the strength of the United Nations

forces currently in Croatia could be reduced to 8,750

troops and that their deployment could be completed

by 30 June 1995.659

657 S/PRST/1995/6.658 S/1995/320.659 For further details see S/1995/320, paras. 11 to 29.

93-95_8-21-10-conference on security and cooperation in europe missions .pdf

Documents