Croatia, 1994

It is my

particular privilege and pleasure to address the General

4

Assembly of the United Nations at the beginning of its

forty-ninth session.

I believe we all agree that the appearance of any

statesman before the General Assembly is a great moment

for moral and political reconsideration of one’s own

reflections and responsibilities towards the international

public. This applies equally to the representatives of the

esteemed founder States and to us who represent young

democracies. This is an opportunity to present our views

on the problems affecting our countries, but also on all

other issues of importance for the global Organization.

This is also an opportunity to compare, with the utmost

seriousness, the lofty ideals incorporated in the United

Nations Charter with the difficulties and intricacies of daily

achieving political agreement for their realization.

The noble fundamental principles of the United

Nations governing the rights and obligations of individuals,

nations and States generally agree with the basic principles

underlying all world religions and philosophies, as well as

the fundamental laws of individual States. Yet we are still

painstakingly seeking a consensus on a new and just

international order that would unite and harmonize the lofty

goals of the United Nations Charter and the humanistic

Weltänschauung with the visions of the new global order

and with the specific ideals and interests of individual

States. Unfortunately, many countries, such as my own,

Croatia, which labours under difficulties owing to the

disintegration of one regional international order and the

establishment of another new order, are paying the highest

human, material and political price for the imperfection of

the world in which we live.

In addressing the General Assembly as Head of the

Croatian State and the highest representative of the Croatian

people, I can note with satisfaction that the international

position of Croatia has been strengthened and furthered in

spite of all the problems affecting the actions of the

international community. In only a few years since its

independence and international recognition, Croatia has

become a fully fledged and equal international citizen,

having reinforced its position in the international

community and expanded its network of bilateral relations

with almost all States and international agencies.

Moreover, Croatia has become a key factor in the

establishment of the new regional order in South-eastern

Europe and a recognized and important partner of the

super-Powers and of the international community as a

whole in the resolution of the intricate crisis, currently the

most severe international crisis in this part of the world, in

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The adverse experience of the Croatian people

throughout their history, and particularly over the past few

years of the renewal of Croatian statehood, has taught us

that no sublime principle recorded in the United Nations

Charter and in international law is automatically

attainable - even less is it guaranteed - if the people

concerned are not determined to attain it; if they are not

prepared to offer to make a high degree of sacrifice in the

achievement of their right to life and freedom; and if they

do not succeed, by virtue of their strength and decisions,

in bringing their national interests into line with the

essential interests of the international community.

Despite the inalienable right of the Croatian people -

one of the oldest European peoples - to self--

determination and to the renewal of their own State,

despite the blatant barbaric aggression aimed at territorial

conquest, the genocidal expulsion of the population and

the destruction of the most precious cultural heritage of

the Croatian people, such as Vukovar and Dubrovnik, the

Croats would never have won the right to

self-determination, to their State, to freedom and

independence, had they not been prepared to make human

and material sacrifices, had they not shown a firm

nation-building will, with which they have resolutely

asserted themselves as a member of the international

community, while manifesting their readiness to be a

constructive force in the development of the new

international order to replace the unviable and failed old

system.

It is the duty of all of us - and especially of this, the

highest global authority - to take more determined and

more effective steps in the quest for means to break this

vicious circle of suffering by individuals and peoples

wrought by war. As the highest representatives of our

States and peoples, we are morally and politically obliged

to create an international order, with appropriate

mechanisms, capable of efficiently defending the rights of

each nation or group, and especially of small and young

States. What we need are such mechanisms of the

highest global Organization that can resolutely prevent or

punish any violation of the fundamental principles of

international law.

Obviously, this also implies safeguarding the

achievement of such rights and of generally accepted

principles in a democratic way, so that each and every

right does not have to be won the hardest way, with the

blood of innocent lives, because such a way burdens the

collective memory with covert hatreds, bias and

5

vengefulness, stirring up new divisions and even more

destructive internal and regional crises.

This applies to crises in the areas of the former

Yugoslavia, just as it does to those in Rwanda, Somalia, the

Caucasus, the Middle East, South Asia, Africa or America.

It is precisely the crisis in the former Yugoslavia that has

shown the immense evil that can be done by petty political

exploitation of historical myths about collective guilt or

historical injustice, about a conspiracy of the whole world

against a single people, and by the emphasizing of the

messianic role of a people to justify their conquest-minded

policy, causing a great deal of harm not only to those

threatened by such imperialistic policies, but also to the

people themselves, who fall victim to their own fallacies

and motives, which are unacceptable and detrimental to the

international community.

After the collapse of the bloc division of the world

and the disintegration of many multinational States, we are

faced with the task of building a new international order.

All past experience suggests that the task is very difficult.

To be successful, we need first and foremost a mechanism

for diplomatic and political negotiation, for building

confidence and for patiently overcoming real problems

stemming from objectively differing interests. In cases

where political efforts are obviously futile, the United

Nations must have a more efficient mechanism to achieve

and even impose solutions serving the interests of

international peace and stability. However, for reasons of

realpolitik and of the balance of interests and forces, in

neither case should this contradict the fundamental

principles of this Organization. It should be borne in mind

that the mechanism for establishing and defending the new

international order should not merely serve the coordination

of the interests of the super-Powers, but must reflect their

highest responsibility in dealing with regional crises, while

being designed and structured to strengthen the security and

progress of small or jeopardized members of the

international community, which account for the greater part

of mankind. The United Nations must be qualified to

guarantee, within the international order, equal conditions

in terms of freedom, progress and equality for all the

members of the international community.

The collapse of communism and of the bipolar

division of the world has increased hopes for a world of

greater justice and security for all. However, we must be

aware of the fact that the collapse of the communist bloc

and of multinational States has inevitably produced

temporarily destabilizing effects in the international order.

In this context, it should be noted that the proclamation of

sovereign national States has mainly created positive

conditions for the new international order, although in

some cases, where nationalism has degenerated into

chauvinist-extremist trends, or even into conquest-minded

aggression, the effect has been negative. However, the

essential point of these historical vicissitudes is the

awareness of the fact that the endeavour of small peoples

to attain statehood - meaning their political, cultural and

economic identity and their personality within the

international order - has made the greatest contribution to

the collapse of communist totalitarianism and to the

democratization of many countries. The full

democratization of international relations is not possible

without such democratization of internal political systems.

The security of new small States has become today

the key to stability in every region and it should provide

the groundwork for new collective security systems.

Only their complete security and equality can make them

equal factors of civilizational and functional integration in

specific areas and within the global order as a whole.

The peoples of small countries will eagerly accept

civilizational integration if it is not to the detriment of the

individual quality of their State, culture and economy.

Only such safeguarding of national individuality within

civilizational integration can produce sound foundations

for functional multilateralism in the new international

order. Otherwise, the myths and prejudices of the past

will continue to provide grounds for new conflicts and

even clashes between civilizations. The disturbing scale

which differences between civilizations can assume is

clearly manifested in the former Yugoslavia, where local

aggression threatens to expand even into a conflict

involving three civilizational religious blocs unless the

crisis, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is resolutely

brought to an end. Croatia has always supported a

political solution by accepting the normalization of

relations with all neighbours, even those of whose

aggression we were victims, in order not only to create,

on an equal footing, the prerequisites for a new

international order but also to bring about a productive

blending of the different civilizations facing one another

in this part of the world.

In view of the current state of affairs worldwide, we

support a thorough organizational reform of the United

Nations in order to improve both its responsibility and its

efficiency in dealing with the pressing problems of

humankind. Problems such as uneven development,

population growth, the ecological balance of the planet,

human and collective rights, functional global integration,

and particularly crisis points and military hot spots, call

6

for a more effective organization of the highest

international agency. We need an Organization which

could have a more efficient bearing on establishing equal

standards and obligations for all countries, and which would

be entitled, in crises or on key issues affecting the

development of humankind and life on our planet, "to

encroach", on behalf of the global community, upon

internal affairs of States. The international community

should have, within the United Nations, multilateral

mechanisms capable of dealing more efficiently with

pressing crises, and developmental, environmental and

technological challenges now facing humankind.

In this context careful consideration is required of the

role of the General Assembly. Its activity must be credible,

but it nevertheless cannot assume the role of a global

parliament to the detriment of the sovereignty of Member

States. Experience suggests that a clearer division of

responsibility among the General Assembly, the Security

Council and the Economic and Social Council is required.

Regional conflicts have become the chief problem now

confronting the international community - not only because

of the threat posed to international peace but also because

they can cause terrible human disasters such as those in

Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Somalia.

And, of course, they also block regional developmental

processes, and result in scarcely reparable ecological

damage and destruction of the natural and cultural heritage

of entire areas.

Such a state of affairs requires first a reform of the

Security Council.

The new global order can no longer be based only on

the coalition of the victors in the Second World War, or on

the nuclear club of the great Powers. It must reflect new

democratic, economic and regional realities which

necessarily lead to permanent Security Council membership

and enhanced regional responsibility for countries such as

Germany or Japan, and also some regional representatives

of the so-called third world. On the other hand, the reform

of the Security Council ought to avoid solutions which

would, because of the increased number of members, make

decision-making more difficult and the Council inefficient.

The efficiency and credibility of the Security Council

should be substantially strengthened in order to resolve the

main problems related to international security, especially

in conflicts causing military conflagration, first of all by

reducing the gap between the content of the enacted

resolutions and the possibility of their enforcement. All

States of the world, and particularly the great Powers which

have an enhanced responsibility within such a system,

should in good faith make adequate economic and

military instruments continuously available to the Security

Council so that its decisions can be implemented. The

peacemaking mediation of the global Organization must

evolve from a static freezing of the conflict and curbing

its expansion, into a mechanism capable of preventing the

development of the crisis in a timely manner and of

eliminating the consequences that are already present.

In some cases the very decisions of the Security

Council will suffice to stop and resolve the crisis, but

sometimes a demonstration of firmness will be required.

The international community must develop more

systematic mechanisms to punish those States that do not

accept or that violate Security Council decisions. The

enforcement of international political or economic

isolation of the aggressor, with concurrent compensation

for neighbouring States which are indirect victims of such

isolation, should be made even more effective. Sanctions

are becoming an instrument used at an ever increasing

rate when there is no political consensus, or will to resort

to more energetic means, but they can produce the wanted

effect only if implemented consistently within the scope

of systematic pressure.

The democratization of the international order entails

a greater focus on the protection of human rights,

including also punishment for violations of humanitarian

law and the law of war. Croatia has endorsed the

establishment of the War Crimes Tribunal in the area of

the former Yugoslavia. Croatia likewise supports the

establishment of a permanent international institution

which would deal with the most severe violations of

humanitarian law, whether in Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Croatia or Haiti. However, the

international community should also devise ways and

means to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes from those

aggressor countries which refuse to cooperate with the

Tribunal.

Croatia proposes the provision of a permanent peace-

keeping task force for the intervention requirements of the

Security Council, involving special military units made

available, through agreement with a specific number of

countries for Security Council requirements. We believe

that this could forestall the flaring up of many regional

crises, or contribute to their rapid prevention. Such

international forces should have a broader mandate in

terms of the use of force, not only for their own

protection but also for the energetic implementation of all

7

Security Council resolutions - from humanitarian

objectives to disarmament and demilitarization. The peace-

keeping force should be set up so that the national

contingents within it implement the decisions of the

Security Council and not the specific policies of their

countries.

The proliferation of regional crises confronts the

United Nations with ever-increasing tasks which the

Security Council cannot fulfil successfully with its limited

resources. This suggests the need for the Security Council

to assign the implementation of its decisions to regional

organizations as well. This in turn requires the redefinition

and strengthening of the role of regional organizations

within the collective security system. Each crisis point

should be dealt with by appreciating all specific features

and by realistically evaluating the possible scope of regional

systems in the implementation of Security Council

decisions.

The solutions at which we aim in the regional crisis

affecting the area of the former Yugoslavia, as well as

elsewhere, must proceed from the fundamental tenets of

international law in order to arrive at a just and lasting

solution which, in order to be acceptable, also implies

compromise in terms of detail, but not in terms of the

essential issues.

Croatia is very encouraged by the increasingly

successful peace developments in the Middle East, which

demonstrate the patience and wisdom of both the Israeli

and the Arab sides. We firmly believe that similar positive

endeavours are also possible in South-Eastern Europe and

the Balkans if they win the necessary united support and

determination of the great Powers.

Croatia welcomes the peaceful transfer of power to the

majority people in South Africa after decades of internal

and regional instability. South Africa is the best proof that

there is no alternative to the equality of all citizens of a

State.

We also welcome the involvement of the international

community in Rwanda, which, although it has not,

unfortunately, prevented a human disaster on a scale

beyond description, has at least stopped the spiral of death

and lawlessness. We continue to support the current efforts

to stabilize Rwanda and to prevent the revival and

expansion of the conflict.

The agreement of the international community to

finally stop the agony of Haiti and establish a democratic

order there is also encouraging. We similarly welcome

the successful processes of democratization and

stabilization throughout Latin and Central America. We

have been following attentively the development of

functional regional integration in North America, and the

stronger integration trends in Europe, differences

notwithstanding, as well as the rapprochement between

the two largest countries in the European and Asian

regions: Russia and China. We also welcome the

constructive role of Japan in the Pacific area and the Far

East.

Within the scope of such global developments, with

the major world Powers aiming not at reciprocal

destruction but at positive competition and cooperation,

Croatia, as a small country, sees its place, first of all, in

West European civilization and in its economic and

security system in order to have a guarantee for its

independence, security and progress. Croatia sees its

welfare and stability in the achievement of full

membership in European integrative organizations.

Croatia is prepared to responsibly assume its share of the

burden in the development of the new international order

and to constitute a strong link in the integration chain of

a new Europe.

In the very short time since it gained independence,

Croatia has become a mature and responsible member of

the international community. It is already a pillar of

future stability and cooperation in that part of

southwestern Europe which is linked to the traditionally

agitated Balkans. Croatia has in good faith accepted

international mediation and United Nations peace-keeping

forces in its territory in order to stop the war and reach a

political solution that will simultaneously safeguard its

territorial integrity and the rights of national minorities

within its borders. Croatia has accepted the

well-intentioned advice given it concerning the

constitutional position of the Serbian ethnic community in

line with the highest standards of international

conventions on the rights of national minorities, and has

incorporated them into its constitutional law.

Croatia has borne the heaviest brunt of the Bosnian

crisis and of the human catastrophe wrought by war in

that country. Croatia has provided a home or provisional

accommodation to hundreds of thousands of refugees

from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We sustained this effort

even during the Croatian-Muslim conflicts that occurred

as a result of Serbian aggression, as the victims of that

aggression sought space for their survival. We have

prompted proposals on a mutual agreement on a

8

federation between the Croats and the Muslims in Bosnia

and Herzegovina, and their confederal alliance with Croatia,

which eventually resulted in the signing of the Washington

Agreements. We have spared no effort to end the senseless

war and renew cooperation between the Muslims and the

Croats, who, owing to the indecision of the international

community, have been brought to the point of a desperate

fight for the remnants of Bosnian living space left after the

barbarous Serbian aggression.

In circumstances affected by its intricate ethnic and

historical heritage, Croatia has shown the highest degree of

cooperation in the search for a peaceful political solution to

the crisis in the area of the former Yugoslavia, believing,

in spite of all of its negative experiences, in the final

victory of the principles of international law and in the

necessity to normalize relations between the newly emerged

States.

However, this readiness to cooperate and this patience

have certain limits. Split into two parts by the occupation

of one-fourth of its territory, threatened continuously by

outlaw terrorism, burdened by the social pressure posed by

displaced persons and the war-exhausted economy, Croatia

cannot endlessly agree to fruitless compromise, because the

continuation of the crisis threatens the existence of the State

and the lives of its citizens, and prevents the reconstruction

of the economy destroyed by war. We believe that it

would also be in the interest of the international community

to give Croatia more determined and more consistent

assistance so that it can successfully play its constructive

part in the solution of the crisis.

Croatia already is, and wants to remain, a mainstay of

the new international order and a bridge of cooperation

between the newly emerged States on the basis of mutual

recognition. The indecision and aimless manoeuvring of

the international community in circumstances distinguished

by the presence of militancy in certain circles of the parties

in conflict threaten to push Croatia into a new military

conflict which could be even worse than the previous one

in terms of scope, depth and consequences. The

international community should not leave Croatia without

a choice, in a position where it would be forced to resort on

its own to all means necessary to defend its sovereignty,

territorial integrity and the right of its citizens - displaced

persons - to return to the occupied areas.

We have always been aware that no crisis, particularly

one as intricate as this, can be solved without consensus by

the international community without a division of

responsibility and an agreed approach of the great Powers.

Accordingly, we are the first, as with previous peace

endeavours, to welcome the efforts of the Contact Group

to find an acceptable solution.

Croatia is prepared to continue its high degree of

cooperation and partnership with the international

community if solutions for Bosnia and Herzegovina and

for the occupied Croatian areas are not sought at its

expense. Both crises - the one in Croatia and the other in

Bosnia and Herzegovina - have the same source: Serbian

aggression. Because of this, and in view of the

increasingly stronger cooperation between Croatia and

Bosnia and Herzegovina, a package solution should be

sought. Since the sanctions imposed by the international

community have forced Belgrade to accept the proposal

to end the war and the isolation of the Bosnian Serbs,

who oppose it, Belgrade should also be made to desist

from supporting the Croatian Serbs, who refuse to agree

to the reintegration of occupied Croatian areas and

brazenly oppose the implementation of all Security

Council resolutions.

In terms of its actual consequences, the 1991 arms

embargo was aimed first and foremost at the victims of

Serbian aggression. It was accepted at a time when those

who formulated global policy mistakenly deceived

themselves into thinking that that policy could save

Yugoslavia, failing to see that the post-Tito crisis had

developed because of the attempt to impose Serbian

hegemony over all non-Serbian peoples in that artificial

and Communist State formation. Our conditional restraint

with regard to the lifting of the embargo is motivated at

present exclusively by an endeavour focused on

achieving, after all, a peaceful solution over the next few

weeks or months. Croatia does not want to be drawn into

a new war against its will, but it will be forced to accept

it, in cooperation with the other victims of Serbian

aggression, if the international community fails to achieve

a peaceful solution that would not only put an end to the

war in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also bring about the

reintegration of occupied Croatian areas.

Croatia welcomes Belgrade’s announced readiness to

isolate the Bosnian Serbs, with their suicidal war option,

but expects Belgrade to do the same with regard to the

insurgent Serbs in Croatia. Croatia demands that the

lifting of sanctions against Serbia (Yugoslavia) be linked

also to the cessation of the occupation of Croatian areas,

that is, to their reintegration into Croatia’s constitutional

and legal system. Moreover, the lifting of sanctions can

be considered only after we have seen whether the

9

announced isolation is truly enforced and after this has been

verified by credible control mechanisms.

In order to promote positive trends, we also

understand up to a point the partial symbolic suspension of

sanctions in order to encourage in Serbia those currently

expressing their commitment to peace. Nevertheless,

Croatia will continue to insist that the lifting of certain

sanctions against Belgrade, particularly those related to its

being fully released from international economic and all

other isolation, be linked to the solution of the problem of

the occupied Croatian areas.

Croatia has shown a great deal of patience in its

dialogue with insurgent Serbs, but now, after three years of

occupation, it demands from the international community a

redefinition of the UNPROFOR mandate that will provide

for the implementation of Security Council resolutions 769

(1992) and 871 (1993), and force the Croatian Serbs to

accept gradual normalization and reintegration pursuant to

the adopted peace plan.

We realize that both sides, after any conflict, have to

invest much time and effort into restoring and strengthening

mutual confidence. We are also quite aware that no

long-term stability and progress is possible in Croatia

without guaranteed human and ethnic rights to the Serbian

and other minority groups. We have indeed guaranteed

such rights by a special constitutional law enacted three

years ago, but we urge the international community to

create conditions for the implementation of this law in

accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

We have also recently taken the decision to speed up the

establishment of the human rights tribunal, and are prepared

to accept international supervision of compliance with

human and ethnic rights. However, the leaders of the

Serbian insurgents, and their patrons in Belgrade, should

forget their idea of a Greater Serbia and accept the

reintegration of occupied Croatian areas on such

foundations, to their own benefit and to the benefit of the

entire community. We are prepared to accept gradual

reintegration through the opening of communications, the

return of populations, the reconstruction of destroyed towns

and villages, and provisions for social welfare and legal

protection. The democratic Government of Croatia is

prepared - while urging the resolution of the fundamental

political issue: the restoration of the sovereignty of the

Croatian State over occupied areas - to genuinely comply

with all guarantees related to the rights of the Serbian

ethnic community.

In keeping with its peaceful policy, Croatia is also

prepared to normalize relations between Belgrade and

Zagreb. To this end we shall accept any meeting leading

to the recognition of the Republic of Croatia by Belgrade,

within its internationally recognized borders, which would

make the message to the insurgent Serbs regarding the

necessity of gradual reintegration quite unambiguous.

For this reason we have also raised the problem

regarding the parts of the Republic of Croatia occupied by

the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia before the General

Assembly, because there is indisputable evidence as to the

comprehensive integration - in military, judicial, customs

and monetary terms - of occupied Croatian areas into the

economic and legal system of Serbia, or the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia. We would like to thank the vast

majority of States in the General Assembly that have

already given us their support in this matter. If Belgrade

should express its readiness to recognize the Croatian

State in the meantime, and to genuinely support

reintegration and normalization, we would be pleased to

spare the General Assembly the task of dealing with this

problem any further.

We would also like to thank the General Assembly

for its support for the post-war rebuilding of Croatia, and

we expect members’ continued understanding in this

matter.

In particular, we would like to emphasize that any

normalization of relations - diplomatic, political or

economic - on equal footing between the Republic of

Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will not

affect partnership and cooperation between the Croats and

the Muslims in the realization of the Washington

Agreements on the Croat-Muslim Federation in Bosnia

and Herzegovina, and its confederation with Croatia.

No peace in the Balkans is possible without the

establishment of a balance of forces, nor does the future

of any people lie in endless reciprocal military exhaustion

or in blocking development throughout the region. We

therefore genuinely endorse the normalization of

Croat-Serbian relations, but also the implementation of

the Washington Agreements, which are in our view not

only a tactical manoeuvre by the victims of Serbian

aggression but also a development creating the

preconditions for ensuring full equality to the Croats as a

numerically smaller constituent people in Bosnia and

Herzegovina. We see in this a pledge of future regional

stability and balance of forces. The confederal link

between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and

10

the Republic of Croatia provides the foundations for

sustaining the sound political and economic relations

suggested by history, the geographical link and geopolitical

realities. By agreeing to a confederal relationship, Croatia

is also prepared, with the assistance of primarily Western

countries, to assume its share of the responsibility for

curbing the smoldering, extreme national and religious

trends on all sides, the spread of which could jeopardize

stability not only in this part of South-Eastern Europe but

also in the greater area.

Croatia also attaches importance to the strengthening

and realization of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

and its confederation with Croatia, the progress of which

depends both on mutual relations and on the action taken

by the international community in the coming months, for

this establishes a political and economic bridge with the

Islamic world. Along these lines we have already

established close cooperation with Islamic countries

fostering identical aspirations, such as Turkey, Jordan and

others.

Decisive weeks and months, in which we must

struggle for a peaceful resolution to the grave crisis in the

area of the former Yugoslavia, lie ahead of us. Not only

the parties in conflict, but first and foremost the principal

actors of the international community, bear a huge

responsibility at this moment. This involves not only the

decision on the fate of the United Nations Protection Force

mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also whether the

Contact Group will succeed in sustaining a united

operational basis for a solution or allow the situation to

founder into a new military nightmare. The efforts of the

international community focused on building a new

international order are now being put to the test, more

strikingly than anywhere else, on reversing the

consequences of the aggression against Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Croatia. We can ultimately resolve this

crisis if each of us assumes his share of the responsibility.

Hatred must give way to happy children’s faces in

reconstructed Croatian Vukovar, to the restored splendour

of medieval Dubrovnik, to peaceful coexistence in long--

suffering and destroyed Sarajevo and Mostar.

In order to achieve this, we must overcome the

disastrous war and political crisis by joint efforts and by a

well-devised vision of a new international order in this part

of the world, in the interest of the entire global order and

of the United Nations.