UN mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina extended for 3 days; US vetoes longer term

After the United States had vetoed a move to extend the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) until the end of this year, the Security Council this evening approved a three-day extension of the Mission's mandate, which was due to expire at midnight on 30 June.

Acting unanimously to adopt resolution 1420, the Council decided that the provisions of its resolution 1357 should continue to be in force until 3 July, 2002. That resolution, adopted in June 2001, extended UNMIBH's mandate and authorized the continuation of the multinational stabilization force (SFOR) until 21 June 2002. On that date, the Council adopted a technical resolution 1418, extending the provision through 30 June.

The adopted resolution was sponsored by France, United Kingdom, Ireland and Norway.

Earlier today, the United States had rejected a draft resolution extending the mandate of UNMIBH, including the International Police Task Force (IPTF), until 31 December. The three-part text was defeated by a vote of 13 in favour, 1 against (United States) and 1 abstention (Bulgaria).

Addressing the Council before the vote, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said UNMIBH's mandate had come to an abrupt end for reasons that were unrelated to the vitally important work it was performing to implement the Dayton Peace Agreement. Unless an agreement could be reached on an orderly wind-down of the Mission, he stressed, the police in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be left unmonitored, unguided and unassisted, and the long-planned handover to the European Union Police Mission, scheduled for the year's end, would be severely compromised.

He noted that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina were beginning to reap the fruits of the international community's assistance. The premature termination of UNMIBH's mandate would be perceived throughout the Balkans as a diminishing of the international community's commitment to stability in the region.

Appealing to Council members to intensify the recent high-level negotiations held in capitals, Mr. Annan called for a solution that was acceptable to all concerned and that respected the principles of the UN Charter as well as treaty obligations of Member States. The world could not afford a situation in which the Council was deeply divided on such an important issue, which might have implications for all UN peace operations, he warned.

Speaking in explanation of his country's position before the vote, Ambassador John Negroponte of the United States said his delegation would vote against the resolution with great reluctance, and that the decision was not directed at the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He stressed that by vetoing the resolution in the face of its commitment to peace and stability in that country, the US was indicating the seriousness of its concerns about risks to its peacekeepers.

Ambassador Negroponte noted that his country would not expose its personnel serving under dangerous situations to promote peace to the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction over its people the Government of the United States did not accept.

With the Court coming into effect on 1 July, he said, two hard facts must be taken into account: the United States wanted to participate in peacekeeping, but as a major guarantor of peace and security around the globe it did not and would not accept the jurisdiction of the ICC over the peacekeepers that the country contributed to UN-authorized operations.