“1. New relationships between the republics will be based on:
a) the sovereignty and independence of the republics with internationally recognized character and status for those republics which wish it;
b) the free association of republics with internationally recognized character and status, as provided for by this Convention;
c) comprehensive arrangements that include a mechanism for the supervision and protection of human rights and the special status of particular groups and regions; d) a common state consisting of republics with equal rights for those republics which wish to remain within a single common state;
e) the involvement of European institutions, where this seems appropriate;
f) the recognition of the independence of those republics which wish it, within their present frontiers, unless otherwise agreed”. The second Chapter called for a guarantee of civil rights and the rights of particular ethnic groups.
Croatia was interested in every respect in the first alternative – a sovereign and independent state with internationally recognized character and status within its existing frontiers. In an opinion handed down by the arbitration commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991 it was stated that the republics had expressed a wish for independence. Croatia and Slovenia had confirmed this by referendum on 25 June 1991 and had passed legislation abrogating their political and legal links with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Macedonia had done the same on 8 September 1991, while Bosnia and Herzegovina’s parliament had passed a resolution on the republic’s sovereignty on 4 October 1991 which had been opposed by the Serbian representatives. It was further stated that the federal institutions of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not meet the requirements of representation in a proper federal state, that recourse to force had brought about armed clashes between different parts of the federation, and that the federation itself had proved incapable of taking any steps whatsoever to prevent such clashes, since it was the federal government itself which had provoked them. “The arbitration commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia considered that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was in process of disintegration; that the republics were obliged to solve the problems of successor states which might arise from this process, in conformity with the principles and rules of international law and with special concern for human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities; that those republics which wished to do so might form new associations which would have democratic institutions of their own choice”.
Seeing that the arbitration commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia had observed that “the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia is in process of dissolution”, and since similar developments were taking place in Central Europe, particularly in the Soviet Union, at the request of the Council of Europe “ministers had assessed the, situation in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union with the object of working out a new approach to relations with the new states”. In that sense leading European politicians agreed on “a common policy in regard to the procedure for recognizing these new states”, on condition that they adhered to the charters of the United Nations, the Conference on European Security and Co-operation and the Paris Charter guaranteeing human and ethnic rights of minorities, the inviolability of frontiers, international agreements and international arbitration. The European Community then discussed international recognition of the new states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In a Declaration on Yugoslavia issued on 16 December 1991 the Community invited all the Yugoslav republics to declare whether they wished to be recognized as independent states; did they accept the obligations contained in the afore- mentioned guidelines, did they accept the stipulations in the draft convention, particularly those in Chapter II on human rights and the rights of national and ethnic groups discussed by the Conference on Yugoslavia, did they mean to go on supporting the efforts of the General Secretary and the Security Council of the United Nations and the continuation of the Conference on Yugoslavia. Applications from those republics which returned an affirmative answer would be submitted by the Chairman of the Conference to the arbitration commission for their view before the date on which a decision on recognition of the republics would come into force. A questionnaire was also compiled stating the criteria for international recognition. The Republic of Croatia completed the questionnaire, stating that it fulfilled all the conditions for international recognition that had been laid down by the European Community.
Croatia unconditionally accepted all the “criteria” for the independence of the new states in Eastern Europe, as well as a declaration on Yugoslavia agreed by a meeting of the council of ministers of the EC in Brussels. The “criteria” were accepted by the parliament of the Republic of Croatia, along with all relevant obligations, i.e. the Charters of the United Nations, the Conference on European Security and Co-operation and the Paris Charter. Human rights were guaranteed by the 1990 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, while Paragraph 3 of the motion of 8 October 1991 specifically guaranteed the rights of minorities and ethnic communities. These were once more confirmed on 4 December 1991 in a Bill of Rights which laid down the rights and liberties of individuals and the rights of communities and ethnic and national minorities in the Republic of Croatia. All these rights were further guaranteed and confirmed by articles of the Constitution, particularly Article 12(2), 15 (cultural autonomy) and Article 83, a charter of the rights of Serbs and other minorities in the Republic of Croatia, which had been adopted by parliament on 25 June 1991.
On the basis of the EC documents, the independence of the Republic of Croatia was recognized on 15 January 1992.
Establishment of Peace and Security in the Republic of Croatia
The Vance Plan
When the Republic of Croatia was internationally recognized more than a quarter of its territory was occupied by the Yugoslav National Army and Serbian paramilitary formations. These forces immediately began the brutal expulsion of all the remaining Croatian and other non-Serbian inhabitants of the occupied territory, simultaneously destroying all cultural and religious evidence of the existence of the Croatian people in these areas. They threatened a further escalation of hostilities, with even greater loss of life and destruction of property.
In order to create conditions for the peace and security essential for discussions on Croatia, but also for solving the Yugoslav crisis, the idea of a UN peace-keeping operation in Yugoslavia was suggested. Cyrus Vance, the special envoy of the Secretary General of the United Nations, discussed the proposal with the Yugoslav leadership. The plan envisaged that the UN peace-keeping force would be under the command of the Secretary General of the United Nations. The continued presence of the peace- keeping force in Yugoslavia would depend on the situation on the ground “until discussions brought about a total cessation of hostilities”. The idea of a peace-keeping plan, “which would not prejudice the outcome of the discussions”, depended essentially on the designation of zones under the protection of the United Nations (UNPA). These were intended to be demilitarized zones, and demilitarization was to be ensured by UN units. The zones in Croatia under UN protection were meant to be the areas “for which the Secretary General believed that special arrangements were necessary to maintain a cease-fire. They would be those areas where the Serbs constituted a majority or a sizeable minority of the local population”. The plan provided for three UNPA sectors: Eastern Slavonia (Beli Manastir, the area east of the city of Osijek, Vukovar, a number of villages in the furthest eastern parts of Vinkovci); Western Slavonia (Grubisno Polje, Daruvar, Pakrac, the western parts of Nova Gradiska, the eastern parts of Novska); the “Krajina” (Kostajnica, Petrinja, Dvor, Glina, Vrgin Most, Vojnic, Slunj, Titova Korenica, Donji Lapac, Gracac, Obrovac, Benkovac and Knin). The plan provided protection for all the inhabitants of the UNPA zoncs, and was meant to ensure the return to their homes of all those who had been driven out by force.
Not one of these undertakings has been fulfilled to date. On the contrary: the murder and expulsion of Croats from UNPA zones has continued unabated under the eyes of the United Nations forces. Under the “protection” of UNPROFOR the entire Croatian population of the town of Ilok (7000 people) was expelled, while terrorist attacks with artillery and rockets on Croatian towns and the civilian population have continued unabated.
Attempt at a Final Peaceful Solution of the Crisis on the Territory of Former Yugoslavia
The London Conference on Yugoslavia
Under the auspices of the British Prime Minister, John Major, who was at the time Chairman of the European Community, and the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Ghali, a conference on Yugoslavia was held in London between 26 and 28 August 1992. Representatives of four former Yugoslav republics and the Federal government of Yugoslavia, of twelve EC countries, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, neighbouring countries, Canada, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others took part. The London Conference was designed as a permanent consultative body “until a final solution to the problem of former Yugoslavia was found”. There were special groups (for Bosnia and Herzegovina, humanitarian questions, minorities, the successor states, economic relations, the establishing of confidence and security). The Conference stressed a number of principles: 1. the solving of problems by agreement; 2. the cessation of hostilities; 3. no recognition of territory seized by force; 4. respect for human rights; 5. respect for the rights of ethnic groups and minorities; 6. condemnation of “ethnic cleansing” and the alteration by force of the existing ethnic balance of populations; 7. adherence to the terms of the 1949 Geneva Convention; 8. respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the states in the region; 9. reciprocal recognition; 10. a guarantee of humanitarian aid. The London Conference also adopted certain resolutions relating to the cessation of the use of force, the delivery of humanitarian aid, the abolition of concentration camps, the introduction of sanctions, offences against international humanitarian conventions. In addition, there was an important declaration on Bosnia (cessation of hostilities, recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the inviolability of frontiers, the rights of all members of ethnic roups and minorities in line with the UN Charter and the statutes of the Conference on European Security and Co- operation, the return of refugees and displaced persons, the establishment of democratic structures, etc.), Serbia and Montenegro undertook to put an end to their intervention in Croatia and Bosnia and to do everything in their power to stop Bosnian Serbs seizing territory by force of arms and expelling the local non-Serbian population. They undertook to respect the rights of citizens of Vojvodina, Kosovo and Sandjak, to guarantee the security and inviolability of frontiers, to normalize relations with Croatia, to do away with concentration camps, etc.
The London Conference, with all its principles and resolutions, however, remained no more than a dead letter. From the holding of the Conference, right down to the end of August 1993, the majority of its principles, recommendations and binding clauses have been infringed countless times without the international community making any effective response.
The London Conference was no more than a vain attempt to solve the crisis in Yugoslavia. As mediator in London and The Hague, Lord Carrington proceeded on the assumption that the aggressor and the victim (Serbia and Croatia respectively) should be treated on an equal footing, and that Yugoslavia could be preserved. He utterly failed to grasp the significance of a conflict between two irreconcilable political stances: the aggressive Greater Serbian attitude and the defensive role of Croatia. One of the major mistakes of this attempt at mediation was the failure to place the weapons of the Yugoslav National Army in Slovenia and Croatia under effective control.
Wrong assessments, indecision, false optimism instead of effective pacification led to an escalation of hostilities. Carrington’s mission made it possible for the Serbs to “buy time”, which they used to seize even more territory. This process continued under Carrington’s successor, Lord Owen, practically to the point where the Serbs had occupied all those areas they thought indispensable for the establishment and consolidation of Greater Serbia. The Croats and Moslems in Bosnia and Herzegovina, once they at last understood that the international community, in spite of all its declarations to the contrary, intended to recognize the results of the Serbian occupation, themselves became involved in a battle to secure a modicum of living space for themselves from what was left of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The international community could breathe more easily, because, after failing to act, it had now found its alibi in this “war of all against all”.