Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of Serbia to the United Nations (UN) Sasa Mart wrote yet another letter to the UN, regarding the Resolution on Srebrenica. This time it was addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly and all state missions in the UN.
He stated that he wants to once again look back on the entire process of launching and implementing this initiative, which, he said, relates to the sensitive issue of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and requires consultations at all levels of government in the country. In this regard, in the letter, he points out that he wants to inform the UN members of several issues. The first of them is that there was no consultation on the text of the Resolution at the BiH level.
“There were no consultations or agreement on the text of the draft resolution at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is Unacceptable. There is no decision of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina on this issue, as provided for by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There were no consultations in the region either, which is worrying. especially considering that the process of dealing with the difficult legacy of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, aimed at reconciling and building trust, concerns the region first and foremost. The text of the draft resolution was negotiated within the core group of States in secrecy, while the very negotiation process with the wider UN membership was not an expression of the sponsors’ sincere intention to negotiate on the text, but was foiced upon by the reactions of the States. In this regard, let me remind you that, at the presentation of the draft resolution on 17 April, the main sponsor initially announced that there would be no consultation on the text.,” he wrote.
He then claims that the fact that the submitted proposals were decided on exclusively within the core group and that the reasons were not explained on the basis of which some paragraphs were deleted, some amendments accepted and some rejected, contradicts the ” inclusiveness and transparency” that the sponsors refer to in the letter of 3 May.
The chargé d'affaires then noted that Serbia never received an answer to the question of why his country was not invited to the core group!
“On behalf of my Government, I have to point out that, since first learning of the plan to submit the afore-mentioned draft resolution, only in April this year, the Republic of Serbia sought to present to the co-sponsors and the Member States all the reasons why the draft resolution proposed in such a way causes tensions in the region and divisions among the UN membership. We called for the withdrawal of the draft and returning the whole process to the beginning in order to reach a consensus on the draft resolution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as an agreement in the region.”
Bearing in mind all of the above, Mart wrote, the sentence ‘Serbia was repeatedly and expressly invited to engage; any proposals of Serbia to amend the text of the draft resolution would have been taken very seriously’ is misleading and ignores completely the fact that on several occasions during the consultations, they explained very clearly and in writing that Serbia is not in a position to comment on the substance of the proposed text which is not the “ownership” of the State it refers to.
“I regret to say that the Member States of the UN have been put in this way in a situation in which, by casting their votes, they will take a position on the issue of commemorating the victims of a tragic war, an issue which requires consensus.
Re regrettably. I have to note that this is an initiative with undoubted political goals as this very turbulent moment in which the world finds itself has been chosen for its adoption. Finally, and most importantly, an initiative carried out in this way and without an agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region, will not only not strengthen peace and heal the wounds from the past, but will further deepen the gap between the peoples and jeopardize the process of reconciliation,” Mart asserted.
He concluded by saying that he hoped the Member States would take into consideration everything he wrote and that they would oppose the Resolution whose goal, he baselessly claimed, is to divide rather than to unite.
Kakvo je tvoje mišljenje o ovome?
Budi prvi koji će ostaviti komentar!