Fighting escalates, UN role in question.

• Position: United Nations role in Bosnia-Herzegovina

With escalation of bitter and bloody fighting and ensuing deterioration of the situation throughout the former Yugoslavia, UN peace-keepers have found themselves in a predicament that is "no longer tolerable", Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali declared at the end of May.

The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina remained in a "war situation" where, after more than three years, there was "still no peace to keep", he said. UN troops were being continuously obstructed, targeted by warring sides, denied resupply, restricted in movements, and subjected to constant criticism.

Following two air strikes on 24 and 25 May against a Bosnian Serb ammunition dump near Pale, conducted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), some 400 UN personnel were detained by the Bosnian Serb forces, many "in humiliating circumstances and in violation of international norms of military conduct", the Secretary-General stated in his 30 May report (S/1995/444). Moreover, some had been used as "human shields to deter further air attacks on potential targets".

The Bosnian Serbs' violation of the Sarajevo exclusion zone, their "criminal shelling of civilian targets in Tuzla and elsewhere", and their inexcusable retaliation" against UN personnel had violently highlighted" the conditions in which UNPROFOR had to operate and the "dangers inherent in the inconsistencies of its present mandate", he stated.

For example, the Force's original peace-keeping authority, which could not be implemented without the cooperation of the parties, had gradually been "enlarged to include elements of enforcement". That had caused UNPROFOR to be "seen as a party to the conflict".

Also, the safe-area mandate required the Force to "cooperate and negotiate daily" with a party upon whom it was expected to "call air strikes in certain circumstances" and upon which sanctions had been imposed by the UN.

As a result, the Secretary-General continued, Bosnian Serbs had "now largely withdrawn their consent and cooperation from UNPROFOR", declaring in response their own "sanctions" to the UN.

Since neither side appeared to have reached a firm conclusion that it had a "better chance of achieving its objectives at the negotiating table than on the battlefield", all efforts to reduce the intensity of the conflict might be seen by the parties as "more of a hindrance than a help", he observed.

Also, UNPROFOR was not, as many of its critics seemed to believe, deployed to end the war in Bosnia, he stressed. Nor was it an army sent out to "fight on one side in the war". its objectives were: to assist in providing humanitarian aid; contain the conflict by imposing constraints on the belligerents through safe areas and exclusion and "no-fly" zones; and negotiate local cease-fires and other measures aimed at achieving an overall political settlement.

In view of the "untenability" of UNPROFOR's current situation, there was a "need to clarify whether its role is peace-keeping or enforcement", Mr. Boutros-Ghali stated. In that regard, four options for UNPROFOR might be considered: withdraw the Force, leaving a "small political mission, if that was the wish of the parties"; retain its present form; permit "greater use of force"; and revise the mandate to include "only those tasks that a peace-keeping operation can realistically be expected to perform".

The Secretary-General believed that a "realistic mandate" would enable UNPROFOR to help contain the situation in Bosnia "without creating expectations that it could either enforce an end to the war or join it to fight on the side of one of the parties".

Resolution 998:

'Rapid reaction capacity'

The Security Council on 16 June authorized an increase of up to 12,500 additional troops for UN forces in Bosnia, in order to establish a "rapid reaction capacity" to enable UNPROFOR to carry out its mandate.

In adopting resolution 998 (1995) by a vote of 13 to none with 2 abstentions (China, Russian Federation), the Council also demanded that the Bosnian Serb forces release immediately and unconditionally" all remaining detained UNPROFOR personnel. it called upon the parties to agree without further delay to a cease-fire and a complete cessation of hostilities.

Stressing that there could be "no military solution to the conflict", the Council reiterated its demand that the Bosnian Serb party accept the peace plan prepared by the Contact Group-France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States - as as a "starting point".

All parties were told to fully respect the safety of UNPROFOR personnel and others engaged in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, ensure their complete freedom of movement, and allow unimpeded access for such assistance to all parts of Bosnia, particularly the safe areas.

The Council authorized the Secretary-General to carry forward the implementation of its decision and encouraged him to "intensify efforts aimed at reaching agreement with the parties on the modalities for demilitarization, taking particular account of the need to ensure the safety of the civilian population". The parties were also called upon to cooperate fully with those efforts.

Explaining its abstention, the Russian Federation said the resolution left the impression that the rapid reaction force was "intended to operate against one of the Bosnian parties". China said it believed that such a force would "bring about a de facto change to the peace-keeping status" of UNPROFOR, which would then be "bound to become a party to the conflict".

In April, May and June, the Security Council met formally on 12 occasions to consider the situation in the former Yugoslavia, adopting six resolutions and issuing seven statements.

Also, from I April through 30 June, some 1,437 violations of the ban on military flights, imposed under Council resolution 816 (1993), were reported - 597 more than in the previous three months, bringing to 5,71 i the total...