From: pnmideast@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:39 PDT
Subject: Re: UN RESOLUTION
Nf-ID: #R:1992Oct12.040209.4045@cc.uow.edu:643416283:cdp:1708600002:000:16050
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pnmideast    Oct 14 23:39:00 1992


From: <pnmideast>
Subject: UN RESOLUTION

/* Written 11:05 pm  Sep 21, 1992 by pnmideast in cdp:yugo.antiwar */
/* ---------- "'SC ON YUGOSLAVIA'" ---------- */
From: <pnmideast>
Subject: 'SC ON YUGOSLAVIA'

/* Written 12:12 pm  Sep 21, 1992 by peg:unic in cdp:unic.news */
/* ---------- "SC ON UY[D[DYUGOSLAVIA" ---------- */
This information is provided by the United Nations Information
Centre in Sydney for Australia, New Zealand and the South
Pacific.

For further information, please call 283 1144.

Security Council
SC/5471
3116th Meeting 19 September 1992
PM SUMMARY


 SECURITY COUNCIL SAYS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SERBIA AND
 MONTENEGRO)

     CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY HOLD UN MEMBERSHIP OF FORMER SOCIALIST
     REPUBLIC


	       Recommends General Assembly Deny Federal Republic
	 Participation in its Work, Require Application for
	 Membership


     The Security Council recommended this afternoon that the
General Assembly decide that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) shall not participate in the work of the
Assembly and should apply for membership to the United Nations.
It considered that the Federal Republic could not automatically
continue the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia in the Organization.

     The Council took that action by adopting resolution 777
(1992) by a vote of 13 in favour to none against, with 3
abstentions (China, India and Zimbabwe).  Also by that resolution,
the Council decided to consider the matter before the end of the
main part of the current session of the Assembly.

     Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of
Zimbabwe said that the Charter did not stipulate resolving matters
of succession as a precondition for membership, and that the
Charter's provisions were consistently ignored or selectively
applied by the Council.  The representative of India said the
Assembly was under no legal obligation to act on any
recommendation of the Council, just as the Council had no
obligation to act on the recommendations of the Assembly.  The
resolution was flawed since it did not conform to those provisions
of the Charter that dealt with the membership.

     The representative of China said that the resolution did not
mean that the Federal Republic would no longer participate in the
activities of the United Nations.  This was only a transitional
arrangement and affected only its participation in the work of the
General Assembly.

     Statements in explanation of vote were also made by the
representatives of the Russian Federation, France, the United
States, Venezuela, Austria and Hungary.

 (A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING APPEARS IN TAKES 1-5 OF
 THIS RELEASE)


Security Council                                      Press
Release SC/5471 3116th Meeting (PM)
19 September 1992

			  SECURITY COUNCIL -- TAKE 1


     The Security Council meets this afternoon to consider a draft
resolution concerning Yugoslavia's membership in the United
Nations.

     The Council has before it the following draft resolution
(document S/24570), sponsored by Belgium, France, Morocco, the
United Kingdom and the United States, which reads as follows:

     "The Security Council,

     "Reaffirming its resolution 713 (1991) of 25 September 1991
     and all
subsequent relevant resolutions,

     "Considering that the State formerly known as the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist,

     "Recalling in particular resolution 757 (1992) which notes
that 'the claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) to continue automatically the membership of the former
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations has
not been generally accepted',

     "1.  Considers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the
membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
in the United Nations; and therefore recommends to the General
Assembly that it decide that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for membership in the United
Nations and that it shall not participate in the work of the
General Assembly;

     "2.  Decides to consider the matter again before the end of
the main part of the forty-seventh session of the General
Assembly."

				(END OF TAKE 1)


Security Council                                      Press
Release SC/5471 3116th Meeting (PM)
19 September 1992

			  SECURITY COUNCIL -- TAKE 2


     The President of the Council, JOSE AYALA LASSO (Ecuador),
called the meeting to order at 12:55 p.m.

     The Council then turned to consideration of the draft
resolution (document S/24570).

     Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, YULIY M.
VORONTSOV (Russian Federation) said his country would support the
draft resolution based on the understanding that the international
community recognized that none of the republics of the former
Yugoslavia could claim automatic membership in the United Nations.
Russia would support their application for membership, and could
not support excluding former Yugoslavia from the United Nations as
that would hamper the peace process by impeding communication with
Belgrade.  The London Conference would also be negatively
affected.

     The former Yugoslavia was already experiencing the world's
isolation in the form of economic sanctions, he said.  The Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia must do its utmost to end the fratricidal
conflict in the region.  The draft resolution affected the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia only as regarded its work in the General
Assembly; that country could still participate in the work of the
Security Council and other organs and agencies of the United
Nations, could still maintain a Mission, and could still receive
documents and keep a nameplate in relevant meeting rooms.

     CHINMAYA R. GAREKHAN (India) said he had two concerns
regarding the draft, one substantive and the other
constitutional.

     Firstly, he was seriously concerned about the functioning and
fate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) if the
draft were adopted.  The operation, meticulously crafted by the
Secretary-General and in which the international community had
invested vast financial and human resources, was likely to be
jeopardized.  The Secretary-General had emphasized that the
cooperation of all parties to the conflict was critical to the
success of the operation.

     The impact of the draft resolution on the attitude of at
least one of the parties to the conflict towards UNPROFOR was not
likely to be helpful since UNPROFOR was not a Chapter VII
operation in Croatia.

				(END OF TAKE 2)


Security Council                                      Press
Release SC/5471 3116th Meeting (PM)
19 September 1992

			  SECURITY COUNCIL -- TAKE 3


     Mr. GAREKHAN (India) went on to say that, secondly, any
action by the Security Council should be in strict conformity with
the Charter.  There were specific provisions in the Charter
regarding membership in the Organization.

     The draft resolution being considered was flawed, he said,
and did not conform to Articles 5 or 6 of the Charter that dealt
with the issue.

     Nowhere in the Charter had the Security Council been given
the authority to recommend to the General Assembly that membership
of any country be suspended or withdrawn.

     That authority lay with the General Assembly alone and that
body did not require any recommendation of the Security Council to
act on the issue.  Indeed, the Assembly was under no legal
obligation to act on any such recommendation, just as the Council
was under no legal obligation to comply with General Assembly
recommendations.

     For those reasons, he would not support the draft.

     SIMBARASHE S. MUMBENGEGWI (Zimbabwe) said the principles
     governing the
admission to, and suspension or expulsion of States from
membership to the United Nations were clearly and unambiguously
set out in Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Charter.  His country had
always held that where membership of, and participation in the
Organization were concerned, those principles should be uniformly
applied in the quest for universality that the founding fathers of
the United Nations had in mind when they formulated those
provisions.  A number of Member States in the United Nations were
the products of peaceful or sometimes violent disintegration of
their previous configurations, but never before had the question
of succession been a subject raised in the Council.  The Charter
did not stipulate the resolution of succession matters as a
condition for membership.

     All republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia should share the membership of this universal body by
each having a seat in the General Assembly, he continued.
Zimbabwe regretted that the draft resolution before the Council
would deprive two republics of the former Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, which now constituted the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, of their right to participate in the work of the
General Assembly.  That State should at least be afforded the
opportunity to state its case before the Council.  Although the
draft purported to invite the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to
apply for membership, there did not seem to be the intention to
admit it on the same basis that the other republics had been
admitted to the United Nations.

     Noting that the draft resolution did not refer to the
Charter, he said strict adherence to the provisions of the Charter
had always been the source of protection for small States, and the
increasing disregard or mutation of the Charter caused great
concern.  "The Charter's provisions are consistently ignored or
applied selectively in the deliberations of our Council", he said.
Zimbabwe would not support the draft.

				(END OF TAKE 3)


Security Council                                      Press
Release SC/5471 3116th Meeting (PM)
19 September 1992

			  SECURITY COUNCIL -- TAKE 4


     The Council then adopted the resolution, as resolution 777
(1992), by a recorded vote of 12 in favour to none against, with 3
abstentions (China, India and Zimbabwe).

     JEAN-BERNARD MERIMEE (France), speaking after the vote, said
he welcomed the adoption of the resolution, whose provisions were
in keeping with the Charter and the needs of the moment.  It
adopted a pragmatic approach and translated into reality the
rejection by the international community of the automatic
succession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the seat of
the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

     However, he said the non-participation in the work of the
General Assembly by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not
call into question the necessity for continuing the dialogue,
begun at the London Conference, to resolve the crisis.  The
presence of the Yugoslav delegation would be an asset and would
contribute to the search for a political solution, particularly
when the issue was discussed by the Council.

     ALEXANDER F. WATSON (United States) said the current
situation was unprecedented.  For the first time, the United
Nations was facing the dissolution of one of its members without
agreement by the successor States on the status of the original
United Nations seat.  None of the former republics of the former
Yugoslavia was so clearly a predominant portion of the original
State so as to be entitled to be treated as the continuation of
that State.  For those reasons, and in the absence of agreement
among the former republics on the issue, the United States could
not accept Serbia/Montenegro's claim to the former Yugoslavia's
seat.

     The draft resolution's provision that Serbia/Montenegro shall
not participate in the work of the General Assembly flowed
inevitably from the determination by the Council and the General
Assembly that Serbia/Montenegro was not the continuation of the
former Yugoslavia and must apply for membership in the United
Nations, he said.  A country which was not a Member of the
Organization could not participate in the work of the General
Assembly.

     He said the resolution's call to have the Security Council
review the matter once again before the end of the fall session of
the General Assembly "simply refers to a willingness on the part
of the Council to consider an expected application from
Serbia/Montenegro".  Serbia/Montenegro, like any other new State,
must apply for membership in the United Nations and should be held
to the criteria in the Charter that the applicant be both willing
and able to fulfil United Nations obligations, including
compliance with Chapter VII Security Council resolutions.  Other
bodies in the United Nations system should be guided by the
actions of the Security Council and the General Assembly on the
matter.

				(END OF TAKE 4)


Security Council                                      Press
Release SC/5471 3116th Meeting (PM)
19 September 1992

			  SECURITY COUNCIL -- TAKE 5


     LI DAOYU (China) said it was his country's consistent
position that the issue of succession should be settled through
consultations and negotiations among all the new republics of the
former Yugoslavia.  He believed that those republics should be
Members of the United Nations.

     The Organization had done a great deal to promote a peaceful
and just settlement of the crisis and it should now endeavour to
maintain that momentum.  To isolate any of the parties concerned
would not serve to promote a resolution of the crisis.  That was
why his country had abstained in the vote on the resolution.

     Further, he said, the adoption of the resolution did not mean
that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would no longer
participate in the activities of the United Nations.  It was only
a transitional arrangement, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
would participate in all other bodies, except the General
Assembly.  He hoped the issue could be settled by negotiation and
dialogue.

     CARLOS A. BIVERO (Venezuela) said his country had supported
the resolution, based on the understanding that it did not affect
bilateral diplomatic relations between Member States and the
republics of former Yugoslavia, including the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.

     PETER HOHENFELLNER (Austria) said there was no legal basis
for an automatic continuation of the legal existence of the
former, "now defunct" Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by
the new Federation of Serbia and Montenegro, which therefore could
not be considered to continue the Yugoslav membership in the
United Nations.  For an eventual international recognition of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the criteria contained in the
guidelines on the recognition of new States adopted by the Council
of the European Communities on 16 December 1991 should be applied,
especially the requirements of the protection of human rights and
the rights of ethnic groups.  It was hoped that the General
Assembly would take action on the matter shortly.

     ANDRE ERDOS (Hungary) said he concurred with the provision of
the resolution that the succession of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to the seat of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was not automatic.  Hungary was not the only country
that held that position.  The resolution called on the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia to apply for membership in the United
Nations, and the criteria used for the admission of all the other
successor States of the former Yugoslavia should be applied to the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as well.  He hoped the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia would act in accordance with the principles
flowing from the London Conference such as respect for human
rights and protection of the rights of minorities, respect for
national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

     The PRESIDENT said the Council would remain seized of the
     matter.

     The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.

		   (END OF TAKE 5 AND PRESS RELEASE SC/5471)