Croatia, 1993

Throughout the half century of

its history the United Nations has never rallied a greater

number of Member States and has never played a more

prominent role in global and regional international relations,

than it does today, and it has never borne the brunt of such

problems as it bears today. This, the forty-eighth session of

the United Nations General Assembly, is being held in an

atmosphere of great hope and of even greater commitments

facing the Organization which, in this post-cold-war time,

following the historical collapse of communism and

multinational State communities in Europe, is becoming the

cardinal guardian of global peace and security.

The fall of Soviet and other European Communist and

totalitarian systems has reinforced hope and provided the

prerequisites for the comprehensive democratization of the

world while simultaneously raising the question of what kind

of multilateralism is required and possible in the

contemporary world. Of no lesser importance is the question

of the new role of the United Nations at a time when many

new States are coming into being and when the

strengthening of global peace is becoming the fundamental

ideology of mankind. The United Nations must shoulder the

responsibility for a more equitable global order to take hold

in every corner of the world. But, in order to achieve this

goal, one must thoroughly review multilateral mechanisms

as well as the activity of international organizations under

conditions of the emergence of many new States, the end of

bipolarity and the strengthening of the polycentric foundation

of the world.

The process of disintegration of the Soviet communist

system, which began with the fall of the Berlin Wall, led

towards a fundamental shift in relations, not only within

Europe, but also on a global scale. It has redirected and

drafted new American-Russian and American-European

relations. The competitive wars of the great Powers bent on

gaining influence and predominance in the Third World have

almost died away, but the focus of regional crises has now

moved to Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and to the area

of the former Soviet Union, because of the profound

political, national, social and economic changes sweeping

those areas. International factors, primarily West European

and North American countries, were taken unawares by the

depth and speed of these historical changes. Their initial

disorientation turned, subsequently, into a renewal of

dormant traditional competition for spheres of influence in

changing circumstances. On the international scene, the

ultimate result has been disunity and the inefficiency of the

most responsible international factors in dealing with volatile

regional crises, but such developments have also jeopardized

the European integration processes already under way. The

fundamental values and goals of European regional

organizations now face a serious test and a radical review of

their mission. The new system of European collective

security is yet to take hold, and the same holds true for the

system of general, global security. This is a matter of the

greatest importance because the security of small countries

has become the key to the stability of each region and of the

overall international system.

The world has been slow to accept, and slower to

understand, the changes involving the national and State

emancipation of old and new European and Asian nations,

and it has recognized their international identity with

reluctance. The world has found it hard to grasp the at-first

untenable contradiction implied in the fact that we have

entered a period, in the development of human society and

international relations, of the broadest national

individualization based on a most comprehensive

civilizational integration. Even worse, the world has not

been ready to face the difficulties and the temporarily

destabilizing consequences of such changes, which will

ultimately lead to the full democratization of international

relations.

The view that the collapse of communist systems and

of Soviet domination over nations in the Soviet Union and

Eastern Europe had resolved the problem of regional and

international stability was wrong. There was a similar lack

of understanding of the fact that the process of internal and

international democratization cannot stop at the mere

democratization of political systems, and that it also

inevitably leads to the disintegration of multinational State

formations. This was the logical sequence of political

democratization and national emancipation.

There can no longer be any doubt today about the fact

that the ever-increasing functional integration of the world

was the very prerequisite of national independence and

internal sociopolitical and international democratization.

Forty-eighth session - 28 September l993 7

This has only seemingly been a contradictory process.

Specifically, because of their endangered position, small

nations and their States are anxious to preserve their own

State, cultural and economic identity, and this sustains not

only the variety but also the very development of the world.

It should be remembered that positive nationalism, that is,

the national-democratic movement of oppressed nations in

Eastern Europe and of oppressed stateless nations in other

parts of the world, deserves the greatest credit for the

collapse of the communist systems.

Having achieved their national sovereignty and the

independence of their State, small nations, in their own

interest, became supporters of "civilizational" integration and

democratization. This is the reason why one of the most

important goals of the international community today should

be the successful resolution of problems affecting complete

regional and international integration of States having

emerged after the disintegration of communist systems in

former multinational States such as the Soviet Union,

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

The new world order which is being created so

laboriously, but also of necessity, can no longer be based

only on the ascendancy of the anti-fascist coalition or of the

nuclear Power club. Half a century after the historic victory

over fascism, new economic and political realities have come

into being, and the countries against which the anti-fascist

alliance was directed cannot bear the liability of the past

indefinitely. Germany, Japan, Italy and the countries within

their international political spheres during the Second World

War are today democratic countries with huge developmental

power, which is also obviously beneficial to the world.

Similarly, the fundamental political and other eventful

changes taking place in Russia are transforming that country,

currently in the throes of dramatic upheaval, from a former

Stalinist threat to international peace and order into, we

hope, a constructive component of global order built on new

foundations of equality and partnership of nations and States

for the sake of mutual benefit and the stability of peace.

The balance of military blocs, weapons and ideologies

established during the cold war was only seemingly a stable

system, because it was actually founded on repression or

dependency, first of all at the expense of small States or

stateless nations. Today, to quote Secretary-General Boutros

Boutros-Ghali, "Multilateralism is the democracy of

international society." (The New York Times,

20 August 1993, p. A29, "Don’t Make the U.N.’s Hard Job

Harder")

Multilateralism, certainly! But of what kind? We must

tend towards a multilateralism that will help us - after a gory

history of strife, first between dynasties, then between States

and, finally, between imperialist or ideological-military blocs

- to avoid war between incompatible civilizations. A brutal

entanglement of these civilizational contrasts is taking place

precisely in the area of the former Yugoslavia, threatening

to polarize greater areas along the lines of separation and

conflict between civilizational-religious blocs. We should

tend, instead, to internal, regional and global relations in

which these civilizational spheres will blend productively

and reinforce their identity through peaceful competition,

instead of wasting their precious potential on mutual

confrontation and annihilation.

A new multilateralism capable of coping with the

epoch-making changes of our time also calls for a thorough

reform of the United Nations. This implies, primarily, the

strengthening of international law, but also the development

of mechanisms which will help the United Nations and its

agencies to function more effectively and to be depoliticized,

less costly and more receptive to ideas, influences and

supervision.

In particular, the role and responsibility of the Security

Council in dealing with questions concerning international

peace and stability should be given greater emphasis. Over

past years there has been considerable progress in the

operation of the Security Council, and the use of the veto

has almost become obsolete. Nevertheless, certain Security

Council decisions are still excessively influenced by the

national interests of its members, the permanent ones in

particular. Accordingly, we need a climate of cooperation

in the Security Council that will prevent its being used as an

extended instrument of the foreign policy of individual

Security Council members.

Croatia supports extension of the permanent

membership of the Security Council, which will reflect the

economic and political realities of the present-day world and

assure a balanced regional representation in the Council.

Croatia also endorses the limitation of the right and practice

of veto. The major crises of our time, such as the one in the

area of the former Yugoslavia, should be used as precious

lessons for more effective and concerted action by the

Security Council.

We also believe that a high degree of responsibility and

authority in decisions concerning the major directions of

global economic and social development should also be

vested in the Economic and Social Council, so that its

8 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

decisions, in specific areas of decision-making, would have

executive force similar to that of Security Council decisions.

Although it would be difficult to envisage the General

Assembly assuming the role of a global parliament to the

detriment of the sovereignty of Member States, a clearer

delimitation of authority among the General Assembly, the

Security Council and the Economic and Social Council

would nevertheless be required. A more articulated link

with United Nations agencies, which ought to improve their

efficiency and prevent the political blocking of certain

processes, is also necessary. However, the enhanced role of

the Security Council, which we are advocating, should not

affect the authority of the General Assembly, which is a

forum for the manifestation of the views of the vast majority

of small countries Members of the United Nations. As a

form of present-day democracy, multilateralism should

provide the foundation for the stability of the new and, in

every respect, democratic world order. However, while

striving to turn our global Organization into a most

consonant orchestra which will provide for the full

expression of the voices of all differences and contrasts,

natural-permanent and secondary-provisional ones alike, we

must never lose sight of uncontroverted historical

experience - namely, that the role and, hence, the

responsibility, of the small and the greatest components and

lines of force in international life are not and cannot be

identical throughout all events, times and circumstances.

Because of this we should continue to build global

organization on the efficient activity of the Security Council

and, within it, on the role and responsibility of its permanent

members.

The central point with reference to the efficient role of

the Security Council, and of the entire United Nations, is the

need to develop a new foundation for peace mediation.

Established in cold-war times, the mechanism was adjusted

to the need to prevent the outbreak and spread of conflict

between the blocs, or between their dependants in the third

world, with long-term freezing of conflict as the goal.

Today peace mediation requires a much more active and

flexible approach, first of all because of the need and

possibility of preventive action, but also because of a

selective use of force in the implementation of peace

agreements and Security Council decisions. The example of

my country, the Republic of Croatia, and that of the

neighbouring Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

pinpointed most exactly the two fundamental weaknesses of

the existing peace-keeping-force model and mandate. First,

the classic mandate, the freezing of the conflict by sustaining

a cease-fire, does not resolve the conflict but, rather, creates

further complications. Second, as has become manifest,

certain countries whose forces are engaged in the

implementation of the multilateral peace mandate are trying,

through the members of their peace-keeping units and

negotiation mediators, to pursue their national policies and

not the policy of the Security Council.

The reform of the overall peace-operation mechanism

requires, first and foremost, a more efficient use of

coordinated instruments of diplomatic, economic, political

and military pressure and consistency in the implementation

of the peace-keeping-force mandate. Such an approach,

which also implies the selective use of force, not only could

have prevented the escalation of the conflict in the former

Yugoslavia but also reduced peace-keeping-forces’ casualties

to fewer than have actually been the case with the present

static mandate, which does not offer adequate protection

even to the peace-keeping force itself.

In recent years extensive positive, but also negative,

experience has been acquired in the conduct of

peace-keeping operations in Croatia, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Somalia and Cambodia. It has been found that

peace-keeping forces should be more qualified and better

trained and equipped for special missions in each peace-

keeping operation. The United Nations should also have

greater authority in the sensitive conduct of peace-keeping

operations. This suggests the need for the establishment of

already well-trained and prepared national military

contingents to be available, with all their facilities, to the

global community. Under the current system, in the best of

cases several months are required for unit selection and the

provision of necessary facilities for the deployment of

peace-keeping forces in specific areas, which results in

delayed action and substantially affects the conditions of

peace-keeping-mandate implementation. It has also become

evident that regional organizations, regional military

alliances and systems in particular, can in the majority of

cases be the main and most efficient mechanism to

implement peace-keeping operations. Peace-keeping

operations are being used at an ever-increasing rate to

prevent disastrous humanitarian situations or to alleviate their

consequences, but they will still have a role to play in

political mediation and organization of the basic State

institutions, as well as in supervising political and economic

reconstruction in the initial period. Such United Nations

operations of an increasingly more comprehensive scope call

for the cooperation of the entire international community in

the implementation of regularly highly complex missions.

The international community must act through the Security

Council whenever there is obvious aggression against a

Member State, as well as in cases where international

security is seriously threatened. Selective interventionism

Forty-eighth session - 28 September l993 9

mainly has an adverse effect on the reputation and credibility

of the United Nations.

Economic sanctions are becoming, at an ever-increasing

rate, an instrument of international pressure in the absence

of political will to use stronger means to implement Security

Council resolutions or to protect basic interests of Member

States and promote international law standards. In our view,

sanctions can have an effect only if combined with other

instruments of international pressure and isolation.

However, what is also required is a more efficient system of

compensating those countries which subsequently have to

bear, with no guilt on their part, the burden of sanctions

against specific regimes. A more effective system is also

needed to supervise the implementation of sanctions through

the enforcement of "sanctions imposed for violations of

sanctions". In the opposite case, the sanctions, to be sure,

will have a long-term effect, but before the ultimate

objective is achieved the highest price will be paid by the

innocent population of the affected country, by people who

cannot deal by themselves with the internationally censured

regime.

The democratization of international relations and a new

multilateralism also imply a greater commitment of the

international community to the safeguarding and respect of

human rights, the punishment of the violators of

humanitarian and war law and the protection of the

ecological balance of the planet. Although we uphold the

view that the defence of cardinal rights and international law

standards cannot take precedence over the sovereignty of

United Nations Member States, regimes and individuals that

violate such rights and standards may not be allowed to hide

behind the principle of "non-interference with internal

matters of countries". Balance should be sought in

reconciling the two approaches, and the ways in which, and

conditions under which, international mechanisms can be set

in motion ought to be codified in the safeguarding of

universal human rights and interests in order to preserve

peace and the international order.

Because of its own experience - the orchestrated military

revolt of part of the Serbian population organized from

Belgrade, resulting in the occupation of one quarter of

Croatia’s territory - the Republic of Croatia supports

cooperation with the international community in the

identification and incorporation of the highest standards of

protection of the Serbian minority into Croatian legislation.

We accept international supervision of their implementation

in the interest of inter-ethnic reconciliation,

confidence-building and the future stability of the country

and the greater area.

Of course, the responsibility which the United Nations

should assume at an ever-increasing rate in crisis areas,

relief operations, protection of the environment and

assurance of balanced development, as well as in other

issues of general interest, requires vast financial resources.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the regular budget and the

financing of peace-keeping operations have assumed such

key importance among the matters to be discussed at this,

the forty-eighth, session of the General Assembly. Part of

these outlays can be reduced by a more economical use of

existing resources and by improving the efficiency of the

United Nations system itself. We should prevent United

Nations actions from becoming an end in themselves, and

avenues should also be explored towards greater

programming coordination with other organizations and

initiatives within the international system. Greater care

ought to be exercised in preventing all instances of abuse

and corruption within the United Nations system, because

they not only increase the cost but also undermine the

reputation of the global Organization.

The global community is saddled with many adversities

and crises, but the international order is nevertheless

becoming more and more settled. We are encouraged by the

fact that, after half a century of Israeli-Arab conflict, the

way has finally been paved towards more stable peace in the

Middle East. This example can also be instructive with

regard to the solution of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.

It demonstrates the practical use and advantage of carefully

worded agreements which are possible especially when their

resolution actively involves the leading world power as well.

Such cases call on both sides for statesmanship and courage

in making concessions for the sake of peace and require

realism in the assessment of national interests with regard to

objective international circumstances and the particular

historical moment. The statesmen involved, and the

responsible officers of the global Organization, are expected

to be reasonable and principled, determined but also

moderate, in a way allowing for no narrow-minded

radicalism, but tending rather to seek the most favourable

solution for the protection of peace and the international

order.

We are also encouraged to see that conditions are being

established for the withdrawal of the peace-keeping forces

from Cambodia early next year. This gives us hope that a

similar process will also be completed in the Republic of

Croatia in the immediate future, and in Bosnia and

Herzegovina in the nearest possible future.

We welcome the evident progress attained in the

transfer of power to the black majority in the South African

10 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

Republic. We hope that the sporadic cases of racial and

political violence in that country are only aftershocks

following the major political shifts towards racial tolerance

and democratization of political life in that country. We are

convinced that the international community will also find the

means to succeed in the already initiated and then halted

process of political stabilization in Angola and Mozambique.

We also believe that resoluteness of the United Nations is

also required in the area of the former Yugoslavia, just as it

has been in Somalia, in terms of selective use of force,

protection of the peace force and assurance of relief. But in

Somalia as well, the international community must also

assume broader responsibilities in the restoration of the basic

functions of the State and in the establishment of law and

order in that country. It is obvious that differences in the

approach to the solution of problems which frustrate the

efficiency of the peace-keeping forces stem not from

operative but from political reasons.

The Republic of Croatia welcomes the efforts of the

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the

European Community and the United Nations to mediate

peace in the conflicts between or within the former Soviet

republics, and we express our readiness to take part in these

peace efforts. Fortified by its own experience, Croatia will

be ready, especially after the end of the war in the Republic,

to contribute even more to the new mission of peace-keeping

operations throughout the world.

As a country of outstanding natural attractions, but also

of a very vulnerable environmental system, the Republic of

Croatia will consistently implement the commitments of the

Action Plan - Agenda 21 - the conclusions of the Conference

on the Environment and Development and the Rio

declarations.

Croatia believes that support of the programme of

sustainable development is the proper way towards the

gradual bridging of the growing developmental gap between

the North and the South, which is a permanent source of

political and social instability and ecological imbalance in

specific areas and in the world as a whole.

The crisis in the area of the former Yugoslavia is the

most difficult crisis in the world today, and it cannot be

resolved without a more determined role on the part of the

international community. Past mediation efforts have been

shown to be insufficient because they were limited by a

mandate lacking firmness, but also rendered more difficult

by the diverse political interests of individual external forces.

It has not been sufficient to try to freeze the conflict, send

in humanitarian aid and engage in empty threats, thus

allowing the crisis to deteriorate to the point where

"everybody would get tired of waging war" and then agree

to a political settlement. The initial aggression of the

Yugoslav communist army, Serbia and Montenegro, for the

conquest of Croat and Muslim territories was not countered

by determined steps, and the consequences of such a policy

have been disastrous. They have included first and foremost

the terrible destruction and "ethnic cleansing" in areas

conquered by the Serbs, and then the extension of the

conflict to the Muslim and Croat sides as well, the struggle

for the remaining territory, the incessant growth of the death

toll, and the ever swelling tide of refugees, which has now

exceeded the figure of one million agonized men, women

and children.

In the Republic of Croatia the United Nations

Protection Force (UNPROFOR) mandate achieved certain

initial results in putting a stop to fighting and providing for

the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army. However, the

mandate has been misused by the Serbian extremist

insurgents and their promoters, the Belgrade expansionists,

to freeze territorial gains, continue "ethnic cleansing," and

consolidate occupation which has assumed forms of

terrorism even at the expense of the local Serbian

population. The international community has allowed the

Serbian side to completely ignore all Security Council

resolutions and other agreements, in spite of the fact that the

modalities of resolving the conflict have been clearly and

well defined: complete cease-fire and the disarmament of

Serbian paramilitary units; the return of all refugees and

displaced persons to their homes; the normalization of traffic

and supply; the guarantee of extensive ethnic rights to the

Serbian minority within the scope of the territorial integrity

and sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia; the gradual

reinstatement of Croatian authorities and of law and order in

the occupied areas; confidence-building measures; scheduling

of elections for local self-government authorities; and

general amnesty for all persons not found guilty of war

crimes.

Owing to the lack of determination on the part of the

international community in the implementation of the

UNPROFOR mandate, the Republic of Croatia has found

itself, through no fault of its own, in a position where

pressure is being brought to bear on it, including even

threats of sanctions, because it is trying to deal with its vital

communications problems, or prevent Croatian towns from

being shelled from areas under the protection of the

peace-keeping forces. Thus, Croatia is being taken to task

for reinstating civilian traffic across the Maslenica Strait, on

which a million people in southern Croatia and parts of

Bosnia and Herzegovina depend. Croatia is first urged to

Forty-eighth session - 28 September l993 11

negotiate and normalize relations with Belgrade, and then

accused of doing so. Meanwhile, nothing efficient is being

done to disarm Serbian paramilitary units and to prevent

Serbian extremism and terrorism in the United Nations

protected areas.

One of the basic concepts of our policy has been the

guarantee of the most comprehensive rights for all

minorities - including of course the Serbian minority as a

whole, and particularly in the areas of Croatia in which the

Serbs constituted a majority before the war - in the interest

of the future permanent stability of the Croatian State and of

its role within the international order. However, at the same

time the Serbian insurgents must provide for the return of

hundreds of thousands of displaced Croats and other

non-Serbian citizens to their homes in the areas under the

protection of the peace-keeping forces. Belgrade must

finally recognize the Republic of Croatia and its borders, as

the whole world has already done. Croatia cannot tolerate

a situation in which the Serbian minority abuses its rights in

order to break up the Croatian State or to create the legal

framework for the secession of territories under local

self-government and their annexation to the "federation of

Serbian lands". This would mean the realization of the

Greater Serbia idea, which was precisely the underlying

motive of the present war against Croatia and Bosnia and

Herzegovina. The sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro

must remain in force until peace is achieved in Croatia, too,

and not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as is also provided

for by the respective Security Council resolutions. Croatia

resolutely urges the consistent and effective implementation

of all Security Council resolutions - no more, but no less

either.

Croatia has shown extreme patience within the scope of

endeavours for a peaceful settlement of the conflict with the

Serbian minority, orchestrated during the time the former

socialist Yugoslavia was disintegrating and the democratic

State of Croatia was being established. However, Croatia

cannot tolerate indefinitely the occupation of its territories,

the pressure of the hundreds of thousands of displaced

persons from Croatian areas, and a situation in which the

State is split. Croatia can no longer be forced to accept the

fourth extension of the UNPROFOR mandate if the mission

of the peace-keeping forces is not specified in more resolute

terms, and if the Serbs are not given an ultimatum to

implement the Vance Plan and all relevant Security Council

resolutions. The means used to bring about Serbian

withdrawal from Igman and Bjelasnica - military strikes -

must also be applied in Croatia.

The Republic of Croatia is not pleased with the latest

report of the United Nations Secretary-General, which

suggests the extension of the UNPROFOR mandate in

Croatia by six months, with no essential changes in respect

of the present mandate. If the UNPROFOR mandate is not

amended within the next 48 hours to ensure energetic

implementation of the relevant resolutions and other

documents of the Security Council, the Republic of Croatia

will be forced to renounce the United Nations peace-keeping

operation on its territory and to request units to abandon

Croatia not later than 30 November 1993. Maintenance of

the status quo, which is nothing but the occupation of part

of Croatian territory, and the inefficiency of UNPROFOR

are detrimental to the sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia

and to the normalization of its economic and overall life.

Croatia is prepared to resolve the key problem of its

existence by all necessary means and at any cost - by

negotiated agreement and settlement if possible, but, if

necessary, by resort to legitimate means of restoring law and

order, with full observance of laws governing war and

humanitarian affairs, in areas currently suffering the anarchy

of Serbian terrorist and paramilitary troops.

With its involvement in the area of the former

Yugoslavia, UNPROFOR has borne a great burden and has

suffered considerable casualties, operating in extremely

difficult circumstances. Croatia is grateful to all

UNPROFOR members who have performed their duty

bravely and honourably, risking their personal safety and

their lives, and helping thousands of suffering people.

Croatia does not oppose UNPROFOR, but it can no longer

tolerate the consequences of the Force’s inefficiency and its

persistent circumventing of relevant Security Council

resolutions. The implementation of these provisions will

affect not only the existence of the Republic of Croatia but

also the basic credibility of the United Nations.

By renouncing the UNPROFOR mandate, Croatia does

not close its doors to any humanitarian action or to the

possibility of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

operation in the former Yugoslavia. On the contrary,

Croatia welcomes the readiness of NATO to assume the role

of principal guarantor of peace and stability in this part of

Europe, and will actively support its units in the

implementation of the peace settlement. We also look

forward to seeing NATO involved in the implementation of

the Vance plan. At the same time, Croatia’s door is being

opened wide to all relief and human rights organizations,

European Community monitors and UNPROFOR civilian

logistic personnel engaged in the provision of relief to the

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

12 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

International factors - I refer to the European

Community and the United Nations - have brought the

negotiations on resolutions of the crisis in Bosnia and

Herzegovina to the settlement currently proposed. It should

be remembered that the Republic of Croatia and the Croats

in Bosnia and Herzegovina were the first to support all

serious peace plans put forward by the international

community. However, the indecision and inconsistency of

the international community have allowed both the Serbian

and the Muslim representatives to reject or to flout these

plans. Even the proclamation of independence of the

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been

impossible without the agreement of the Croats, expressed

through the 1992 referendum. Without the resistance put up

by the Croats, no part of Bosnia and Herzegovina would

have been defended, in the beginning, from Serbian

aggression. We were the first to recognize the Republic of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the first to send an ambassador

to Sarajevo. The Republic of Croatia has contributed more

to the defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the care of

Bosnian refugees, than have all other countries combined,

and that situation continues despite the aggression waged by

the Muslim army against Croatian populated areas in central

Bosnia and against territory envisaged for the Croatian

Republic within the Union of Republics of Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

In view of past developments, there are no longer any

completely equitable and clear-cut solutions to the complex

Bosnian crisis. If peace is to be achieved, all the parties

must accept political and territorial compromise. The Croats

in Bosnia have made major concessions for the sake of

peace. They have lost the most, especially in Posavina and

Central Bosnia, where the majority of the Croatian

population used to live. They have agreed to accept

18 per cent of territory although the previous Vance-Owen

plan envisaged a share of about 27 per cent. Indeed, for

strategic, political and psychological reasons, the Croatian

side cannot agree to any further concessions.

It should be remembered that in 1948 the Croats

accounted for 23.9 per cent of the Bosnian population. That

proportion declined as a result of the pressure of the

hegemonistic policies of the Serbs and then of the Muslims.

In the search for a solution, the same principles must be

applied throughout. One might ask, for instance, why

Mostar, along with Sarajevo, is being singled out for

European Community supervision. Why not Banja Luka and

Zenica or Vare, where the Croatian population is struggling

for survival?

What about the fact that, as a result of Serbian and then

Muslim aggression, two thirds of Catholic parishes in Bosnia

and Herzegovina have been occupied or completely cleansed

of the Croats who lived there for centuries? The

international community must face facts and problems in

their entirety. It must identify ways of halting Serbian

aggression, but also means of protecting the Croatian people

from the attempts of extremists to set up a Bosnian Islamic

state, mostly at the expense of the Croats.

Nevertheless, I am pleased to report, here and now, that

hostilities between the Croat and Serbian sides in Bosnia and

Herzegovina have stopped and, in particular, that, on my

initiative and with the good offices of Turkey, political

agreement has been reached between the Croats and the

Muslims concerning the cessation of hostilities and the

provision of the prerequisites for permanent peace and

cooperation.

We believe that the purpose of peace would be served

by NATO’s energetic assumption of the chief role in

implementing the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina

and in solving the problem of the United Nations protected

areas in Croatia, with the United Nations assuming

responsibility for implementation of the peace settlement.

For geopolitical, historical and economic reasons, as

well as for the sake of transport links, the Republic of

Croatia is interested in the closest future cooperation with

the Union of Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the

same token, the Republic of Croatia supports the

normalization of relations with all States that emerged

following the disintegration of Communist Yugoslavia, on

the basis of mutual recognition. This is not only in the

interests of the peoples of these States; it is also a

prerequisite for the establishment of peace and for the

creation of a stable international order in this part of the

world.