Informal Consultations of the Security Council

— 322 —

LETTRE DE M. KOFI ANNAN À M. YASUSHI AKASHI RENDANT COMPTE DES ENTRETIENS INFORMELS DU CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ LE 10 JUILLET 1995

(source : MSF)

[6] OUTGOING CODE CABLE IMMEDIATE [9.] SSN-87[illegible]

TO: AKASHI, UNPF, ZAGREB / Attn. SRSO\TEC INFO: STOLTENBERG, ICFY, GENEVA FROM: ANNAN, UNATIONS, NEW YORK [signature] DATE: 10 JULY 1995 NUMBER: MSC- 2271 SUBJECT: Informal Consultations of the Security Council

1. In light of developments on the ground and the attached letter by the Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the better part of this mornings informal consultations of the Security Council was devoted to the situation in Srebrenica. The representative of the Secretary-General briefed the Council on developments based on paras 2 (a) - (c) of your Z-1127 and the SITREP. He, in particular, explained the sequence of events during which three Dutchbat APCs were fired at by the BiH with small arms, grenades and an anti-tank missile at a time when the BSA was paying heed to UNPROFOR's strong warning that any further advance would be met with the use of force.

2. In response to various queries, Mr. Gharekhan explained that yesterday CAS authority had been delegated to the military chain of command of UNPF and UNPROFOR and that there had been no CAS request on Saturday and, thus, no request was turned down by Zagreb. He emphasized that no United Nations official had given any assurances to the Bosnian Serbs concerning the abolishment of air strikes. The Multinational Brigade of the RRF was expected to be operational later this months, however, the deployment of the 24 Airmobile Brigade was encountering difficulties imposed by the Government of Croatia with regard to the use of Ploce, and by the Federation with regard to deployment and freedom of movement in HVO controlled areas. While the United Nations did not consider the Federation a formal entity with an international personality, practical considerations required that consultations be held with President Zubak. It was hoped that the obstacles could be overcome shortly.

SREEG/FC/D-OSRSG/DOA/HCA/D1/DFC/CCS/ICFY [10 JUL 95 10 P 8:50] [D.R. TRANS]

CNC 370 OVC 507 72/5

3. At the suggestion of the United Kingdom, France and Argentina, the Council discussed elements to be included in remarks of the Council President to the media. All three emphasized the need for the Council to express its support for the Dutch Battalion and the civilian and military leadership of UNPF and UNPROFOR for the assertive position they have taken in regard to the BSA advance into Srebrenica. The Council could not remain silent in light of the serious developments in Srebrenica.

4. The United States emphasized that the Council should not lose sight of the serious breach of the safe area regime by the BSA and that, before blaming the BiH for firing on the Dutch APCs, the circumstances should be thoroughly investigated. According to one theory, the BiH had assumed the APCs concerned had been forcibly taken from UNPROFOR by the BSA, a theory which could not be discarded out of hand given the fact that the BSA in the past had not shied away from dressing in UN uniforms and attacking UNPROFOR positions in Sarajevo.

5. The Russian federation suggested that events in Srebrenica should be put in context, i.e. that raids had been staged by the BiH against Serb villages outside the safe area. With reference to the contention in Foreign Minister Sacirbey's letter that UNPROFOR had disarmed the BiH on 8 May 1993, the Russian Federation wondered why the BiH was able to fire grenades and anti-tank missiles at the Dutch APCs. A proposal to include in the President's remarks to the press a reminder to all parties of the request in SCR 998 (1995) to demilitarize the safe areas did not meet the consensus of other Council members.

6. Attached please find the points the Council members agreed the President should make to the press. A transcript of his remarks will be dispatched separately by the Office of the Spokesman.

7. For tomorrow's Council meeting, we would appreciate, in addition to the regular update, your further clarifying the circumstances concerning the BiH fire on the Dutch APCs.

best regards.

[UNPROFOR COMMUNICATIONS 12 Jul 95 JUL 11 - 1:33]

Revised

Srebrenica: elements

• Concern at deterioration in the situation in and around Srebrenica, and in particular at the suffering of the civilian population
• Demand that the parties respect fully the status of the safe area
• Condemn all attacks on UNPROFOR personnel
• Condemn the detention by the Bosnian Serb party of members of the Dutch contingent
• Demand that the Bosnian Serb forces release immediately the detained personnel, and that all parties respect UNPROFOR's safety and freedom of movement
• Support for the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the Force Commander
• Condolences to the Dutch Government and the family of the Dutch peacekeeper who gave his life

21-JUL-1995 00:18 CNS 576 043 587 P4/5

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sarajevo

9 July, 1995

H.E. Sr. Gerardo MARTINEZ BLANCO President of the Security Council United Nations New York

Excellency:

I am instructed by my Government to request an emergency session of the Security Council to address the situation in the UN designated safe area of Srebrenica, due to the following:

1. There has been an attack on the safe area in Srebrenica, combining tanks, artillery and infantry forces. Yesterday, more than one thousand shells hit the center of the enclave.

2. The United Nations observation posts surrounding Srebrenica have been attacked, some have been besieged, and others have been abandoned;

3. In some places, Serb forces have gone as deep as 5 kilometers into the enclave.

This attack and incursion into the UN designated safe area is purely aimed at the civilian population, also endangering United Nations troops. We must here remind all that on May 8, 1993, the Bosnian defense units protecting the population and territory of Srebrenica were disarmed by UNPROFOR, in exchange for UN and NATO assumption of the responsibility for defending Srebrenica.

In this context, I would like to recall Security Council Resolutions 819 (1993), 824 (1993) and 836 (1993), and relevant paragraphs of the NATO decision dated 22 April, 1994 on the protection of safe areas, namely, paragraph 8. in which it was agreed that:

"if the safe areas of Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla, or Zepa are attacked by heavy weapons from any range or if, in the common judgment of the NATO Military Commanders and UN Military Commanders, there is a concentration of movement of heavy weapons within a radius of 20 kilometers of these areas (within the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina) which threatens those areas they will, for the purpose of this decision and without further action of the Council, be designated, individually or collectively, military exclusion zones, and due public notice to governments and to the parties will be given if and when this happens. The exact line of the perimeter of these areas will be established jointly by UNPROFOR and CINCSOUTH.".

and paragraph 9, which states, inter alia:

S/RES/976 25/5

in pursuit of these objectives, and in response to the request of the UN Secretary General of 18th April, 1994 agreed: (a) that, with immediate effect, if any Bosnian Serb attacks involving heavy weapons are carried out on the UN designated safe areas of Gorazde, Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla, and Zepa, these weapons and other Bosnian Serb military assets, as well as their direct and essential military support facilities, including but not limited to fuel installations and munitions sites, will be subject to NATO air strikes, in accordance with the procedural arrangements worked out between NATO and UNPROFOR following the Council's decisions of 2nd and 9th August 1993;

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Sincerely,

[Signature] Muhamed Sacirbey Foreign Minister

TOTAL P.