Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1996

I should first like to greet you,

Sir, and to wish you a successful term as President of the

General Assembly. I am also happy to inform the Assembly

that I come here today from Bosnia, where there is no

killing any more. I make both of these statements with

great satisfaction.

Allow me now to deliver a less optimistic page of my

address. While flying to New York the day before

yesterday I read an article published in a prominent

American newspaper that dealt with the provision of the

Bosnian army with arms during the war. The author of the

article does not say so explicitly, but he implies that

everything that is Muslim smells of terrorism. For him, it

seems it is enough to have a Muslim name and to wear

a beard to be suspicious. The writer also mentions a

number of people. Their only fault is that they helped the

Bosnian army to obtain some arms during the war. Today,

there are more than a billion Muslims world wide. I do

not know in whose interest it is, in this or similar articles,

to push them into the embrace of the extremists.

Our country and people went through hell. The

world deemed that it had the right to impose an arms

embargo; we believed that we had the right to self-

defence. In a competition between those two rights, we

believed, and we still believe, that our right was greater.

Therefore, I am not going to apologize to anyone for our

having done everything possible to secure arms in order

to survive. On the contrary, I pay tribute to all brave

people, and express my gratitude to all of the friendly

countries that assisted us during the war. That page of our

history is over, and we are turning to a new one: Peace.

I thank the United States of America for starting the

initiative for peace and for making efforts, together with

other countries, to strengthen this fragile and complex

peace.

We are a small country, and we must pursue an

open and honest policy. Secret diplomacy and double

games are privileges of the mighty. For this and many

other reasons, among which is also the aforementioned

article, I should like to reiterate some facts and our

objectives.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is possible only as a

democratic State of three equal nations and of free citizens.

We accept this fundamental provision of the Dayton Peace

Agreement, with all of its consequences. That is, the well-

known formula: one State, two entities, three nations.

It is often considered that the Dayton Agreement is not

good enough. It is good because it has stopped the killing

in Bosnia and Herzegovina and because a better plan does

not exist. Its main deficiency is not in it, but in its

implementation. All of the bad aspects of the Agreement

could be improved if it were completely and consistently

implemented. Unfortunately, this is not the case. According

to the provisions of the Agreement, “Herceg-Bosna”,

established as a parallel State during the war, should cease

to exist. But it still exists and impedes the building up of

the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Dayton peace accord provides that the second

entity, the Republika Srpska, should facilitate the return to

their homes of more than half a million Bosniaks and

Croats who have been expelled. This is not happening;

rather, expulsions are continuing.

Generally speaking, the problem of the Dayton Peace

Agreement lies in its selective, that is, partial

implementation. The Serbs, for instance, like paragraph 2

of Annex 4, which mentions the Republika Srpska, yet they

do not like Annex 7, which demands the return of people

who have been expelled. They accept the first provision and

reject the second one. The world, and above all, the Contact

Group members, should tell them explicitly that the Dayton

accord is a whole. If there is no return of the expelled

people, there is no Republika Srpska. Otherwise, the

Dayton Agreement will grow from a small and bearable

injustice into a huge and intolerable injustice — and an

intolerable injustice leads to new conflict.

The provisions of the Dayton Agreement stipulate that

there should be respect for human rights but, nevertheless,

human rights are being violated more or less throughout the

entire territory.

The September elections and the pre-election campaign

offered an opportunity to test this in a very effective

manner. Conditions are particularly bad in this regard in the

territory of Republika Srpska. For the people from the

Federation, neither before nor during the elections was there

freedom of movement, or it was very limited; and only

Serbian political parties could act. Moreover, the electoral

boards that registered the voters and counted the ballots

consisted in all cases of only one nation and, very often,

one party.

With regard to free media, significant progress has

been achieved only in the territory of the legal Bosnian

Government, where a large number of independent

newspapers and magazines, 40 radio stations, and 12

television stations operate. During the last 50 days of the

pre-election period, the ruling party had only one-tenth of

the allotted time available at prime time on the State

television station, Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

from 8 p.m. to 12 p.m., while opposition parties had nine-

tenths of the allotted time at their disposal. The

Government also granted preliminary approval to the

Open Broadcasting Network and stands ready to extend

this approval on the condition that the Open Broadcasting

Network covers the entire territory of Bosnia and

Herzegovina and is open to all the political tendencies,

left and right.

The issue of Brcko will be solved by the main

Arbitrator, Mr. Roberts Owen, an American, since the

Serbian side does not attend the meetings of the

Arbitration Commission. Both parties have presented their

arguments. I wish to emphasize that, in making his

decision, the Arbitrator will not be totally free. He is

bound by respect for the principles of legality and equity,

as explicitly stated in Annex 2, Article V of the Dayton

Agreement.

I will complete this brief analysis of the

implementation of the Dayton Agreement by stating that

the main war criminals, Karadzic´ and Mladic´, are still

free, in spite of Dayton, in spite of the orders of the

Hague Tribunal and in spite of the elementary demands

of justice.

We would like to proclaim the principle of

reconciliation of peoples and nations. Bosnia needs this.

Here, no one advocates the idea of the collective guilt of

a nation. Guilt is always individual, regardless of the

number of perpetrators. But for the people to be absolved

and for the road towards reconciliation to be open, the

criminals must be punished. That is why the international

tribunal in the Hague was established, but, as is well

known, neither the chief Prosecutor nor the President of

the Tribunal are satisfied with what the international

community is doing. In vain, they repeatedly indict the

perpetrators and forward the warrants. Even on the issue

of war crimes, the world is seeking some painless middle-

ground solution. When the issue of war crimes like those

committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina comes into

2

question, every compromise is a shameful betrayal of

justice. Unpunished war criminals will continue to poison

the world and ruin its institutions.

Some people in Europe, and in the United States also,

ask whether, after everything that has happened, Bosnia and

Herzegovina is possible. These people either do not know

the facts or are morally corrupt. They do not know that on

the territory of the Serb entity, over half a million people,

40 per cent of the indigenous pre-war population of Bosnia

and Herzegovina, were either killed or expelled, and they

are totally indifferent to this fact. My answer is that if

genocide without punishment is possible, then Bosnia and

Herzegovina is not possible.

So the real question is not whether the people can live

together, it is more concrete and more straightforward: does

a larger nation have the right to expel a smaller nation and

then, under the slogan “we cannot live together”, usurp its

property and demand that these violations be forgotten and

legalized? This is how the question “is Bosnia and

Herzegovina possible?” should be formulated. And for

people of principle and morality, the answer is clear.

Finally, what should the future Government of Bosnia

and Herzegovina do at this crucial and historic moment for

Bosnia and Herzegovina? In my opinion, it should be

constituted as a maximally representative Government

composed of all the relevant political actors in conformity

with the results of the elections, including an opposition

from both entities. It should thereafter proclaim that its

programme consists of at least three points. First, it should

request from all the signatories of the Dayton Peace

Agreement that the Agreement be fully and consistently

implemented. At this moment, all the domestic as well as

international actors, at least verbally, express their support

for this Agreement. The Government should hold them to

their words. International pressure in this regard will be

necessary for a long time.

Secondly, the Government should proclaim the

reconciliation of the peoples and nations on the condition

that war criminals are prosecuted vigorously. And thirdly,

the Government should ensure freedom of the media as a

way to heal the country. The media started the war several

years ago with the unprecedented spread of hatred. The

media can have the same influence in strengthening peace

through spreading tolerance and understanding among the

people. State radio and television were an appropriate

example during the election campaign. The Open

Broadcasting Network could also contribute to this if it is

open to all ideas and all political directions and if it is

regulated by Parliament.

This programme cannot be carried out by the

Government alone. Bosnia and Herzegovina is still a

recovering patient and it needs the world’s support. The

presence of international military forces will be

indispensable for a certain limited period of time, and

economic assistance will be necessary for longer.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words

about the United Nations. We support reform of the

United Nations system. The changes are necessary not

only in the Organization but in its psychology as well, if

I may say so. Reform of the Security Council is also

necessary, in conformity with the changes in the world,

and also to ensure a new attitude towards obligations. The

United Nations must not undertake obligations it cannot

carry out. This is impermissible. My people have paid an

infinitely high price for this irresponsibility.

The “safe area” of Srebrenica and its more than

8,000 innocent victims are not the only, but are the

gravest, example of this incomprehensible attitude. We do

not know who is responsible, but we seek reforms which

will ensure that this will never happen again.

Yesterday, in this very building, I signed the

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We are a small

country, and my signature on that Treaty is not of great

significance. Nevertheless, we want to participate, even if

only symbolically, in everything that is constructive. One

day Bosnia and Herzegovina, through its representative,

will sign a treaty on the suppression of terrorism, and

some other day a treaty on the struggle against drugs and

organized crime. I hope that in future Bosnia and

Herzegovina will join in any activity whose aim is to

confront evil, and that it will continually push the limits

in the direction of good and towards a better and safer

world.