Page:United Nations Security Council Meeting 3988 1010.3370v1.pdf/12

Security Council

Fifty-fourth year

further 25,000 people have been forced to flee their homes in the face of pre-planned military action by the Yugoslav army.

In defiance of the international community, President Milosevic has refused to accept the interim political settlement negotiated at Rambouillet, to observe the limits on security-force levels agreed on 25 October, and to end the excessive and disproportionate use of force in Kosovo. Because of his failure to meet these demands, we face a humanitarian catastrophe. NATO has been forced to take military action because all other means of preventing a humanitarian catastrophe have been frustrated by Serb behaviour.

We have taken this action with regret, in order to save lives. It will be directed towards disrupting the violent attacks being perpetrated by the Serb security forces and towards weakening their ability to create a humanitarian catastrophe. In the longer term, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, whose mandate extends to Kosovo, will hold those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law accountable for their actions.

The action being taken is legal. It is justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Under present circumstances in Kosovo, there is convincing evidence that such a catastrophe is imminent. Renewed acts of repression by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would cause further loss of civilian life and would lead to displacement of the civilian population on a large scale and in hostile conditions.

Every means short of force has been tried to avert this situation. In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention is legally justifiable. The force now proposed is directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and is the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.

The focus of our discussion today is the crisis in Kosovo itself. But Belgrade should be under no illusion that we have taken our eye off the ball elsewhere in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We are watching Serb behaviour closely in relation to Montenegro. We have also noted with dismay that the Federal Telecommunications Ministry, backed by police officers, raided Radio B92 on 24 March, closed the station down and detained its editor-in-chief. We condemn this action aimed at further reducing the right of free speech in Serbia.

Allow me to close with the following appeals to the two sides in the dispute. To the Kosovo Albanians our appeal is that they should remain on the path of peace which they chose by signing the Rambouillet accords in their entirety on 18 March. The United Kingdom urges them to show the utmost restraint in the next crucial days. And to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia our appeal is that it is not too late to show at any time that they are ready to meet the demands of the international community. I strongly urge them to do so.

The President (spoke in Chinese): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of China.

Today, 24 March, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with the United States in the lead, mobilized its airborne military forces and launched military strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, seriously exacerbating the situation in the Balkan region. This act amounts to a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter and of the accepted norms of international law. The Chinese Government strongly opposes this act.

The question of Kosovo, as an internal matter of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, should be resolved among the parties concerned in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia themselves. Settlement of the Kosovo issue should be based on respect for the sovereignty an territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and on guaranteeing the legitimate rights and interests of all ethnic groups in the Kosovo region. Recently, the parties concerned have been working actively towards a political settlement of the crisis. We have always stood for the peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiations, and are opposed to the use or threat of use of force in international affairs and to power politics whereby the strong bully the weak. We oppose interference in the internal affairs of other States, under whatever pretext or in whatever form.

It has always been our position that under the Charter it is the Security Council that bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. And it is only the Security Council that can determine whether a given situation threatens international peace and security and can take appropriate action. We are firmly opposed to any act that violates this principle and that challenges the authority of the Security Council. 12