Months after the end of the Gulf war, the United Nations is struggling to settle the ongoing civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia. Both of these conflicts pose the danger of escalating into full-scale wars. The UN's difficulties in dealing with these two conflicts have raised the familiar criticism that a UN collective security system hinges solely upon the political-economic interests of the Council members. The description of today's international political environment as a "new world order" is in danger of losing its validity.
Parliamentarians for Global Action will examine the events leading up to the current situations in Yugoslavia and Somalia, and speculate on which principles of the Agenda for Peace could have been applied to deter further conflict from arising. We will also reflect upon the ongoing situations and determine what can be done now with regards to the precepts of Agenda for Peace that could stop the fighting and establish peace.
It is important to note that the situations in Yugoslavia and Somalia have raised proposals that UN preventive deployment force should be coupled with humanitarian relief efforts. Specific speculation will be given on the possibilities of establishing such a force for the future.
______________________________________________________________
YUGOSLAVIA
A. PREVENTIVE DIPLOMACY:
Events:
Jan. 1991: "Yugoslavia's federal collective presidency authorizes the Yugoslav army to disarm all "illegal armed units" in the nation's 6 republics. The Serbian-dominated presidency gives the republics until January 19 to collect weapons of "paramilitary groups" or face military intervention; deadline is later extended until January 22. Croatia and Slovenia ignore 1/19 deadline and extension; Croatia places its police and territorial-defense units on maximum alert."
Question:
At this stage no action was taken by the UN. Given the Agenda for Peace and Resolution A/RES/46/59 should the Secretary-General (paras. 13 & 19) have asked that a fact-finding mission be sent to Yugoslavia and investigate the situation?
OR:
On his own initiative, should the Secretary-General have gone to Yugoslavia to try to mediate conflict between Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian republics?
OR:
Should the Security Council have voted on deploying preventive deployment force on the borders of the republics namely between Serbia and Croatia (& Slovenia?) [assuming that the government or all parties concerned consented/requested]? Aim of UN presence would be to discourage further hostilities arising between the republics.
B. PREVENTIVE DEPLOYMENT:
Events:
6 June 1991: The Presidents of Yugoslavia's six republics agree to negotiate a proposal to turn the country into a loose confederation.
A gunbattle, June 6, between Croatian paramilitary special police and ethnic Serbs in Borovo Selo (northeastern Croatia) leaves 12 policemen and 3 civilians dead; fighting ends when federal army units take over town later that day. Yugoslav military goes on combat alert, June 6, and begins, June 7, calling up reserves and deploying units in western part of country, in response to increasing bloodshed and antimilitary unrest.
June 9: Yugoslavia's collective presidency votes unanimously to give the military sweeping powers to end ethnic fighting in Croatia; plan falls short of approval for martial law."
June 20: "Slovenia and Croatia boycott emergency meeting of Yugoslavia leaders aimed at resolving crisis over federal presidency".
Question:
Given tensions escalating rapidly between the republics, as well as Slovenia's and Croatia's unwillingness to negotiate, might the Security Council have voted to send a preventive deployment force at this time?
Form of preventive deployment: Demilitarized zone (para.33) "with the agreement of the two parties, as a means of separating potential belligerent, or on one side of the line, at the request of one party, for the purpose of removing any pretext for attack."
C. LEGAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Events
June 25: Slovenia and Croatia formally declare independence form Yugoslavia but hedge on actual secession.
June 28-29: Slovenia and Croatia agree to three-month suspension of their independence declarations in order to halt federal military intervention.
July 2: In Slovenia the cease-fire negotiated by European Community members falls apart when rebel and Yugoslav military forces resume combat. EC, July 5, suspends economic aid and arms sales to Yugoslavia, in an effort to compel the federal state to accept binding EC mediation.
August 6: Croatian defense officials concede that Serbs occupy about 15% of Croatia. A federally-mandated truce begins, August 7.
August 22: Croatian President Tudjman orders federal forces to leave republic and Serb rebels to honor cease-fire and lay down arms by August 31. Yugoslav federal forces launch, August 25, a full-scale military offensive reportedly in support of ethnic Serb guerrillas in Croatia. Tudjman, August 27, holds an unprecedented meeting with Yugoslavia's top military leaders-- the defense minister and the chief of Staff -- in effort to forestall all-out mobilization of Croatian forces and an escalation of fighting.
September 2: Yugoslav federal presidency approves EC plan to end civil warfare in Croatia but clashes continue, September 2, between Croatian forces and Serbian guerrillas backed by federal army. Peace talks open, September 7, in The Hague under the sponsorship of the EC. Mediator Lord Carrington, October 4, brokers a cease-fire accord signed by Croatian President Tudjman and Serbian President Milosevic, to take effect October 8.
September 7: Croatia and Slovenia formally declare immediate secession form Yugoslavia.
September 8: Macedonia votes by significant majority to declare independence form Yugoslavia.
November 8: EC imposes economic sanctions on Yugoslavia and urges the UN Security Council to order an oil embargo in the hope of cutting fuel to Serbian-led attacks on Croatia; Serbia denounces the EC move, November 9. US President says, November 10, that US will join with EC in economic sanctions; places economic sanctions on all six Yugoslav republics, December 6.
November 23: In another UN-brokered agreement, Croatian President Tudjman, Serbian President Milosevic and General Kadijevic, head of the Serbian-led Yugoslav army, sign the cease-fire agreement and allow multinational peacekeeping force into Yugoslavia; Tudjman accuses the federal army of plotting to capture more Croatian territory in final offensive before peacekeeping force arrives.
November 27: UN Security Council pledges to send peacekeeping force of up to 10,000 soldiers to reinforce the UN-brokered cease-fire in Yugoslavia, which falls apart, December 7, after several days of increasingly violent clashes.
December 5: Federal President Mesic resigns as Yugoslavia's leader amid renewed fighting in Croatia.
December 17: EC says it will recognise Slovenia and Croatia as independent states by January 15, 1992. Serbia says it will recognise Serb-inhabited areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; move amounts to Serbian decision to annex the territory.
December 20: Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina decides to apply to EC for recognition as an independent state.
December 23: Germany recognises Croatia and Slovenia as independent states.
December 24: The republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the UN to send peacekeeping forces.
December 26: Yugoslavia's federal government unveils plans to form new, smaller country, including territory taken during civil war with Croatia.
December 31: UN special envoy Cyrus Vance wins formal agreement from Serbian and Yugoslav officials for a cease-fire plan, the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces and withdrawal of pro-Serbian federal army from Croatia.
1992
January-April: News reports of war crimes being committed: genocide and "ethnic cleansing" acts.
Recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign nation-state.
UN Security Council votes to impose "No-fly zone".
October 6: UN Security Council votes set up war-crimes commission to collect evidence of violations of humanitarian international law.
Questions:
Should there be an International Criminal Court to try terrorists, drug traffickers and war criminals?
In order to facilitate the settlement of disputes between states, should all countries accept as compulsory the jurisdiction of the World Court?
