Emma Bonino speaking elements.

Crans Montana, 2/7/1995

First, some data concerning the EU Office under my direct responsibility.

Humanitarian aid provided by ECHO to the former Yugoslavia:

1992 ECU 277 million - 70 % of total ECHO aid

1993 ECU 395 million - 66 % of total ECHO aid

1994 ECU 269 million - 35 % of total ECHO aid

All in all, the European Union as a whole (the Community plus its member states) has provided so far well over two thirds of total humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

Whatever one may think of the political outlook in this tormented region, the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved through the Union's emergency relief efforts.

ECHO mandate is based on three main principles: aid should be provided to the needy on a neutral, impartial and apolitical basis. This we have done throughout the world and this we will continue to do.

Nonetheless, it only takes a quick glance at how ECHO's aid was apportioned among the various republics of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to realize who are the main victims of the conflict: roughly 50% went to Bosnia, 20% to Croatia, 5% to Macedonia.

Moreover, one does not need hard data to underline that although the war involves Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians, only the territory of Serbia and Montenegro has so far been spared the devastating effects of the conflict.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion on this matter: mine is that it should not be too difficult, in retrospective, to acknowledge which side is the aggressor, and who it is that violates international rules in this war.

We are facing here a glaring paradox (and I am no longer talking about ECHO missions).

On the one hand, the international community is not willing to intervene to stop the aggression and to restore somehow the rule of law.

On the other hand, the same international community is denying the victims their right to self-defense, by enforcing a supposedly even-handed arms embargo. An embargo whose main practical result is to consolidate the aggressor's superior military capacity, and thereby further punish the victims.

The Republican majority in the U.S. Congress has been calling repeatedly for a clear-cut solution to the paradox: a withdrawal of UNPROFOR, coupled with a lifting of the arms embargo as far as the Bosnian government is concerned.

This approach has perhaps the virtue of clarity - a virtue too often lacking thus far in the endless pronouncements (or should we say hollow threats?) of the Western world vis-ŕ-vis the war in the former Yugoslavia. The present mood in the U.S. Congress also reflects a growing sense of frustration - which I share - towards the dimming prospects of a negotiated solutions. Let's face it - all the warring parties are now decidedly after a military solution to the present stalemate. And it is not at all clear whether the Franco-British-Dutch Rapid Reaction Force is being deployed to secure the channelling of aid, or rather to protect a hasty retreat of UNPROFOR.

It does sound rethorical by now to dwell at length on the fact that the credibility of the international community and of its institutions was at stake in this conflict; and that this credibility has been badly shaken by the (mis)management of the Yugoslav crisis.

The explosion of Yugoslavia has thrown us back to national rivalries (within and, most depressing, outside the Balkans themselves), to a web of international relations obsessed by geopolitics.

Geopolitics - I note in passing - is a word that sounds nice to academic ears, certainly nicer than what it really means: blind, narrow-minded national interests come first.

Only few years have passed since the determined multilateral reaction to the invasion of Kuwait: yet we seem to be ever more far away from the desired "new world order": if you look at the huge gap between the international community's words and deeds, we might as well close the shop.

What shop? Well, the UN certainly. But also the European Union. In Cannes, only a few days ago, the European Council issued its umpteenth statement on Yugoslavia.

But let me quote here a few sentences from a previous occasion, the Edinburgh Council of December 1992. It read:

"Le dirigeants actuels de la Serbie et des Serbes de Bosnie sont les premiers responsables du conflit et de sa brutalité...Les auteurs de tous ces crimes contre le droit humanitaire commis par les différentes parties seront tenus pour personnellement responsables et traduits en justice...Le Conseil européen rappelle que la communauté internationale n'admettra pas l'acquisition des territoires par la force. Elle n'acceptera pas davantage la partition de la Bosnie-Herzégovine".

Nothing more than the crisis in the former Yugoslavia has shown how long is the road before us that leads toward a Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU true to its name. For there is no such policy without credibility. And there is no credibility without the means to enforce it. Including military means.

In the meantime, however, we can't just wish the Yugoslav conflict away from our conscience - as many would certainly like to do.

Whatever the eventual outcome of this bloody conflict, that part of the Balkans once known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will one day claim its own place in Europe. Our failure to enforce the rule of law now will only make more painful the eventual, inevitable re-integration of the region in the European fold.

We should start acting now. In practical terms, we should quickly and symbolically make of Bosnia the 16th member of the European Union, or at least the last of the very long line of official candidates for accession. It would remind all our governments that the Bosnian people's predicament is a European predicament, as their history and culture belongs to Europe. That a savage war of aggression so close to our borders is not compatible with the evolution of a prosperous and integrated European society. And that symbols do matter when it comes to peace and legality. They are important for us, and as a legacy of achievement for the future generations.