PRESS CONFERENCE BY BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

12 December 1996

Press Briefing

19961212 FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY

Muhamed Sacirbey, Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said this afternoon that the General Framework Agreement for peace in Bosnia was not an a la carte menu but a full meal which required full compliance with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. His country could not accept its uneven or partial implementation. There was no chance of peace if it was to be based on muzzling those who demanded full implementation. Speaking at a Headquarters press conference, Mr. Sacirbey began by citing two resolutions before the United Nations on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There would be a Security Council resolution and debate this afternoon, at which he would speak. A debate on another draft resolution was anticipated in the General Assembly on 17 December. With respect to the text before the Council, Mr. Sacirbey stressed three major criteria: the interest of all Bosnians, without prejudice to any ethnic group or legitimate interest; the elements of the peace agreement; and most importantly, the provisions of his country's constitution. In that context, the draft resolution was welcome. His statement to the Council would deal in greater specificity with certain of its provisions. Within his country's Presidency a differing view existed on the issue of cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal, Mr. Sacirbey said. The Dayton/Paris peace agreement, the Paris and London conferences, and his country's constitution all demanded full cooperation and compliance with the orders of the Tribunal. However, Momcilo Krajisnik, a member of the Presidency, held that the laws and constitution of Republika Srpska did not provide for such cooperation. Nevertheless, international law was clear in its demand for cooperation. The Security Council draft resolution could have been more activist in addressing the question of full compliance, Mr. Sacirbey said. As to the General Assembly text, there was a feeling that some were attempting to block action on it, in order to muzzle the voice of the Bosnians which called for earnest, full and comprehensive implementation of the peace agreement. Mr. Sacirbey said he had recently attended a meeting of a group called the Coalition for Return, which represented Muslims, Serbs, Croats, refugees and displaced persons, families of those who were missing, and others. They understood that they had more that united them and much less that divided them. Their union cut across ethnic lines. All were increasingly victims of indifference to their legitimate demand for fulfilment of the promises made in the peace agreement.

Asked about the deteriorating human rights situation in Bosnia, Mr. Sacirbey said some Bosnians were not doing well. However, just as there were specific victims of war crimes, there were also specific perpetrators. If they were allowed to hid under generalizations because no one wished to confront them, the peace process would be seriously endangered.

Would the peace process die if genocidal war criminals were permitted to go unpunished? the correspondent asked. Mr. Sacirbey said the peace agreement was not an a la carte menu but a full meal. Unless the full course was addressed, the peace process might never reach fruition.

Asked if he was angry and frustrated at the Tribunal's inefficiency and incompetency, Mr. Sacirbey said he had tremendous appreciation for the hard work of the Tribunal, and particularly for the integrity of its judges. The issue was over the support it was receiving from the Security Council -- the very institution that created it. The Tribunal was not being given a chance to do its job. A growing number of Bosnians believed they were getting an agreement meant to muzzle them without adequately addressing their concerns.

Had it been a mistake to sign the agreement in the absence of assurances with respect to the functioning of the Tribunal? the correspondent asked. Mr. Sacirbey said the many lives already saved indicated that a mistake had not been made. What was lacking now was not so much the details of a peace agreement, but a commitment to see it comprehensively implemented. It was particularly lacking in those who were interpreting the agreement as a means of achieving their own agendas. Just because one member of the Presidency did not believe the Tribunal had authority in Bosnia, should all Bosnians keep quiet and accept the view that the Tribunal was biased or did not have jurisdiction?

Asked about international factors which sought to marginalize Bosnia, Mr. Sacirbey said the very countries who should support the rule of law were only using the rules of procedure. Asked to name specific countries, he said the Assembly vote on 17 December would reveal their names.

* *** *