By Youssef M. Ibrahim
New York Times
October 25, 1998
United Nations, October 24 - The United Nations Security Council today adopted a finely tuned resolution skirting an, outright threat to use force against President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia if he fails to remove forces from Kosovo. After a week of intense negotiations, the resolution merely hints at such a possibility by NATO forces if the safety of hundreds of unarmed observers who are to monitor a cease-fire in the southern Serbian province is imperiled.
American officials said, however, that the resolution was all NATO needed to punish Mr. Milosevic if he stepped out of line. Even so, both Russia and China abstained. In remarks after the vote, representative of both countries differed sharply with the United States' and Britain's interpretation of the resolution, saying it expressly stops short of using force.
Russia and China had threatened to veto a resolution that permits military action by NATO or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe whose 54 members are supplying the monitors in Kosovo. The monitors are to oversee both a cease-fire and distribution of aid to tens of thousands of ethnic Albanian retugees displaced by fighting between rebel forces seeking autonomy and the Begrade Government.
Today representatives of Russia and China insisted that they would not accept unilateral Western military action against Yugoslavia, making it clear that such a move must first be authorized by the Security Council on which they are permanent members with the right to veto it.
"As it stands now, this resolution could not be considered in whatever sense as an authorization of use of force," said Chen Ranfend, spokesman for the Chinese mission to the United Nations.
Speaking after he cast the abstention vote, the Chinese delegate, Qin Huasun, stressed that in China's view the resolution "does not entail any authorization of using force or threatening to use force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
The United States, Britain and France said they viewed the resolution differently, as endorsing the enforcement of a cease-fire and opposing all acts of aggression in Kosovo against unarmed observers or innocent civilians.
A senior official in Washington said the resolution endorsed "a very intrusive operation by NATO and the O.S.C.E.," adding that the United States believes it leaves these Western military powers free to use force if Mr. Milosevic fails to pull out his troops from Kosovo. The official suggested that next Tuesday Washington would undertake a new evaluation of Serbian compliance. The official, who asked not to be identified, said the Chinese and Russian abstentions did not constitute an obstacle to that or to unilateral Western military action. Britain took a seemingly tough line. "No one should have any doubt: Britain will not stand by and watch a humanitarian disaster unfold in Kosovo," said Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's delegate.
Several diplomats here , noted, however, that similar Western threats against Mr. Milosevic had often been issued without consequences. A senior European diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity wondered why the resolution was necessary if Western powers considered that they had the right to act militarily anyway. "If anything, it may have diluted the ability to move forcefully," he said The Western-sponsored resolution, drafted by France and Britain, had the support of the United States and seven other permanent and rotating members of the Council including Japan, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Portugal.
But in a last-minute effort to avoid Russian and Chinese vetoes, negotiators took much of bite out of the resolution when they dropped a phrase stating the Security Council's, right to take all "appropriate steps" if Yugoslavia violated its pledges. Instead the Council settled for a phrase demanding "the full and prompt implementation" of Belgrade's pledges to pull its troops, from Kosovo and allow ethnic Albanian refugees chased out of their villages by Serbian troops to return.
In a further dilution of what was supposed to be a stern warning of military action, it stated that "action may be needed" to insure the safety, of the unarmed observers, which the Russians and Chinese interpreted as meaning a return to the Council for permission to take such action.
The resolution is intended to support an Oct. 13 agreement reached by the American special envoy, Richard C. Holbrooke, with Mr. Milosevic to monitor Yugoslavia's compliance with an accord to observe a ceasefire and withdraw Serbian forces from Kosovo. Thousands of Serbian troops are still roaming about Kosovo outside their military bases.
The Western diplomacy here, however, was backed by a measure of brinkmanship as two of NATO's top, two military commanders arrived in Belgrade today to warn Mr. Milosevic that he will face air strikes if he fails to comply.
The two are NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, General Wesley K. Clark, an American, and the chairman of the alliance's military committee, General Klaus Naumann of Germany. The American Embassy in Belgrade said the pair would hold talks with the Yugoslav Army's Chief of Staff, General Momcilo Perisic.
