Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Yugoslavia

In June 1991 violence broke out in Yugoslavia following declarations of independence by the republics of Croatia and Slovenia. Mandated by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the EC strived to bring about a ceasefire and a political settlement to the crisis. The Hague Peace Conference on Yugoslavia, convened under an EC mandate and presided over by Lord Carrington of the United Kingdom, was tasked with ensuring a peaceful political settlement to the conflict. Lord Carrington met several times in 1991 with all parties to the conflict both in Yugoslavia and the Hague but was unable to obtain a settlement.

On September 25 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 713 which invited the Secretary General to offer his assistance, in consultation with the Government of Yugoslavia, to bring about an effective end to hostilities. The resolution also called for a negotiated settlement of the crisis under the auspices of the EC and asked the Secretary General to report on his findings to the Security Council, and it established a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Yugoslavia.

Pursuant to resolution 713, the Secretary General on October 8 named former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance as his Personal Envoy for Yugoslavia. Following a request for UN peacekeeping in Yugoslavia from both Serbs and Croats, the Security Council unanimously approved resolution 721 on November 27, which asked the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy to pursue their contacts in Yugoslavia as rapidly as possible, so that the Secretary General could present early recommendations to the Council, including on the possible establishment of a UN peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia. Secretary Vance and UN Under Secretary Goulding visited Yugoslavia on several occasions in an attempt to achieve conditions necessary for Security Council approval of a UN peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia, primarily a durable ceasefire and agreement by all parties on the modalities of deployment.

In his report to the Security Council of December 11, the Secretary General indicated he could not recommend deployment of a peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia because of ceasefire violations and disagreements by the parties over the modalities of deployment. On December 15 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 724, which endorsed the views in this report that conditions for establishing a peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia did not exist; endorsed the Secretary

General's offer to send to Yugoslavia a small group of personnel, including military personnel, to carry forward preparations for possible deployment of a peacekeeping operation; and established a committee of the Security Council to examine reports on the implementation of the arms embargo.

The United States has strongly supported EC efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement to the Yugoslav crisis. The United States views UN peacekeeping as a vital but interim arrangement that will create the conditions of peace and security required for the negotiation of an overall settlement in Yugoslavia.

Other Issues

Antarctica

In resolution 38/77 of 1983, the General Assembly asked the Secretary General to prepare a study on all aspects of Antarctica, taking into account the Antarctic Treaty system and all other relevant factors. The resulting report, submitted to the General Assembly in 1984, reviewed a range of activities related to Antarctica without making any major recommendations. General Assembly resolution 39/152 of 1984 expressed appreciation to the Secretary General for the study and placed Antarctica on the provisional agenda of the 40th session.

Consideration of Antarctica by the General Assembly at its 40th session led to a regrettable polarization of views on the issue, with a number of non-Antarctica Treaty members pressing for fundamental changes in the Antarctica Treaty system, and Treaty parties rejecting the alleged need for significant changes in the system. The parties made known at that time that they would suspend their cooperation with the United Nations on Antarctica matters until consensus could again be achieved. This course of action was continued through the 46th General Assembly session.

The unity of countries supporting this position was maintained at the 1991 session, although some Antarctica Treaty countries supported a resolution that called for the exclusion of South Africa from the Antarctica Treaty because of its policy of apartheid.

Two resolutions on Antarctica were adopted by the 46th General Assembly. The first, resolution 46/41 A, expressed the conviction that any comprehensive environmental convention for Antarctica must be negotiated with the "full participation of the

international community" (and not just of the Antarctic Treaty Parties themselves). It reiterated the call upon the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to invite the Secretary General or his representative to their future meetings. It also called for a reduction in the number of scientific stations in Antarctica, while keeping the idea of a UN-sponsored station under review. The plenary adopted the resolution by a vote of 101 to 0, with 7 abstentions and 53 states (U.S.) not participating.

The second, resolution 46/41 B, called upon the consultative parties to exclude South Africa from their meetings because of its policy of apartheid. This resolution was adopted by a vote of 107 to 0, with 6 abstentions and 48 states (U.S.) not participating.

Prior to the adoption of resolution 46/41 A in the First Committee, Germany, speaking on behalf of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative and Non-Consultative Parties, focused on the accomplishments of the Treaty, calling it "a uniquely successful agreement." The parties described the importance of the newly negotiated Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which demonstrated the Treaty's ability to respond to new challenges. The parties, therefore, expressed disappointment that the protocol on environmental protection was misrepresented by the resolution; spoke of the farsighted provisions of the Treaty which guarantee that Antarctica will be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; and called for the accession of more states to the Treaty. The parties further noted that Treaty consultative parties have consulted and cooperated with other international organizations, including UN specialized agencies. Regarding the possibility of establishing a UN-sponsored station in Antarctica, for both economic and environmental reasons, they favored greater cooperative use of existing logistic facilities. It was suggested that the United Nations take advantage of the existing institutions and experience of the parties.

Outer Space

The General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted without vote an omnibus resolution entitled "International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space." Resolution 46/45 renewed the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and set the agenda for the Committee and its subcommittees. In adopting the resolution, the General Assembly endorsed a recommendation that the 1992 meeting of Legal Subcommittee should aim at finalizing nonbinding principles on the use of nuclear power sources in outer space.

UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

The 53-member UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and its Legal Subcommittee all met during 1991.

The Scientific and Technical Subcommittee held its 28th session from February 19 to March 1. On February 26 the United States notified other delegations that it would be necessary to reopen the recommendations underlying Principle 3 on guidelines for safe use of nuclear power sources, stressing that the draft text required modification to assure technical accuracy.

The 30th session of the Legal Subcommittee met in March. Its agenda included the definition and delimitation of outer space and the utilization of geostationary orbits, draft principles relating to the safe use of nuclear power sources in outer space and the principle that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all countries. There was discussion of the proposal by the United States to reopen negotiations on Principle 3, with a majority of delegations opposed to the U.S. proposal.

Finally, COPUOS met for its 34th session from May 27 to June 7. Discussions focused on negotiations on nuclear power sources in space, space debris, the delineation and definition of outer space and the use of geostationary orbit. Many delegations expressed concern that negotiations on principles for use of nuclear power sources in outer space had stalled because of calls that had been agreed ad referendum to capitals in 1990. The principle in question, Principle 3, set out guidelines and criteria for safe use of nuclear power sources. The United States also opposed the addition of the issue of space debris to the agenda.

Law of the Sea

The Third UN Conference on Law of the Sea (LOS) began in 1973 and completed negotiations on a UN Convention on Law of the Sea in 1982. The United States has not signed the convention.

The annual UN General Assembly Law of the Sea resolution, adopted as resolution 46/78, departed from earlier resolutions that the United States had always voted against. For the first time, it acknowledged political and economic changes, particularly growing reliance on market principles, and underscored the need to reevaluate the seabed mining regime in light of issues of concern to some states. In recognition of this change in the resolution and the attitudes that it reflected, the United States abstained on resolution 46/78 rather than casting a negative vote; it was adopted 140 to 1, with 7 (U.S.) abstentions.

In a statement to the General Assembly, the United States disassociated itself from the resolution's support for activities of the Preparatory Commission regarding the entry into force of a seabed mining regime that the United States views as seriously flawed and its unqualified calls for early ratification of the convention. The statement noted, however, that the inability of the United States to vote for the resolution did not diminish the significance the United States attached to changing attitudes reflected in it, and it should not be seen as prejudging the U.S. assessment of informal consultations undertaken by the Secretary General.

Special Political Issues
Membership

The year 1991 marked the largest expansion of UN membership in 30 years. Seven new members-Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia and Republic of Lithuania—were all admitted to the United Nations on September 17. The United States sponsored their admission into the United Nations in the belief that their presence furthers the principle of universality of UN membership and increases the stature of the United Nations.

The Republic of Korea submitted its application for UN membership on July 2, followed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on July 19. On August 8 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 702 recommending UN membership for both states.

Two countries formerly part of the UN Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) administered by the United States, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, submitted applications for UN membership on July 17 and July 25, respectively. On August 9 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolutions 703 and 704, recommending UN membership for them.

Following the failed coup in the Soviet Union, the Republic of Lithuania submitted its application for UN membership on August 29, followed by the Republics of Estonia and Latvia on August 30. On September 12, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolutions 709, 710 and 711 recommending UN membership for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania respectively. The Security Council President welcomed "this solemn decision of great symbolic and historic importance," noting that "it is now for the

« ÎnapoiContinuă »