BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA: Akashi Resignation Shifts U.N. Posture

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11 1995 (IPS) - The resignation by the head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia is just the latest sign of the declining U.N. role in the Balkans.

Yasushi Akashi, who once described his job as “the punching bag” for Western powers haggling over Bosnia-Hercegovina, confirmed months of rumour by stepping down Tuesday as Secretary- General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s envoy to the region.

“After careful consideration, and taking into account the critical period ahead for United Nations operations in the area, I have decided to appoint temporarily Mr. Kofi Annan as my special envoy to the former Yugoslavia,” Boutros-Ghali wrote in a letter to the U.N. Security Council.

Annan will also serve as envoy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Boutros-Ghali added.

Akashi will continue as a U.N. Under-Secretary-General, working as a special advisor to Boutros-Ghali on Asian issues, starting Nov 1.

Annan, who currently heads U.N. peacekeeping affairs, will become special Balkans envoy on that date, although he may return to his peacekeeping chores in New York later, U.N. spokesman Joe Sills said Tuesday.

Akashi’s departure from Bosnia reflects the dramatic change in U.S. control of the West’s Balkans policy in recent months.

Washington has made no secret of its desire to replace Akashi, whom it has portrayed as a diplomat reluctant to use force to counter aggression, particularly by the Bosnian Serbs. Akashi, they claim, was the man most responsible for ensuring that NATO did not use its air power to strike at Bosnian Serb targets.

U.N. officials always contended those charges were unfair. Fred Eckhard, a U.N. spokesman, argued that there was no recorded instance in which Akashi refused a request from U.N. military commanders for air strikes. Instead, he said, Akashi and U.N. Balkans force commander Bernard Janvier often agreed that an air strike request from field commanders was not necessary.

Still, Akashi’s noted reluctance to use force and his constant reliance on often frustrating negotiations made him a symbol of the diplomatic stagnation of the four-year Bosnia war.

Bosnia’s Muslim-led government was so frustrated by Akashi that several ministers, including Hasan Muratovic, the main official dealing with the United Nations, often refused to meet him. Rumours that he would step down have persisted since last year.

As a result, when Akashi’s departure was announced Tuesday, Washington seemed happy. One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “Of course, we’re pleased”.

Other diplomats were more circumspect. Security Council President Ibrahim Gambari of Nigeria said only that the Council would ask Boutros-Ghali for some clarifications of what the changes in the U.N. posts would mNan.

One thing all sides took pains to deny was that Akashi was being moved because his diplomatic reticence had posed a problem.

“If there were the equivalent of a U.N. ‘purple heart’, it should be awarded to Mr. Akashi for his role in Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia,” U.N. spokesman Sills said. Akashi led peacekeeping missions to both countries.

“After nearly two years of service to the United nations in difficult conditions, Mr. Akashi deserves the sincere thanks and grateful recognition of the international community,” Boutros- Ghali added.

Akashi himself told reporters in New York that the situation had simply changed in recent months. He argued that the U.N. role is different following months in which Croatian offensives and NATO air strikes have redrawn the equation for peace.

Akashi confessed he was happy that NATO took the lead in pushing for a tougher line on Bosnia. “Both the secretary-general and myself, to be frank, were relieved and relaxed that we did not have that awesome responsibility of having our finger on the trigger for air strikes.”

Still, he noted, using force differs from the philosophy of strict impartiality which he believes U.N. peacekeepers must uphold.

“We cannot be morally neutral,” he argued. “But I believe U.N. peacekeepers have to be impartial. The party you bomb today is the party you have to negotiate with tomorrow for safe passage of a humanitarian convoy.”

But that approach, he conceded, changed rapidly once NATO took wider authority to bomb Bosnian Serbs.

Among other things, the NATO attacks — which came only after final approval for such strikes was taken out of Akashi’s hands and put in the hands of U.N. and NATO military commanders — decreased the United Nations’ claim to broker peace in the region.

Following the NATO assaults this summer and Croatia’s sudden conquest of the formerly Serb-held Krajina in August, the United States clearly took the reins over Bosnia.

One U.N. official, speaking to IPS on condition of anonymity, said last month that it would be surprising if Akashi stayed on once responsibility for the Bosnia peace process was taken from him.

Noting that U.N. forces in Bosnia were now going to be replaced by a multi-national, and possibly NATO-led, force, the official said, “He can’t stay on. You have to resign if they take all your authority away.”

Not only has Akashi not been able to stave off NATO air strikes or prevent covert Western support for Croatia’s attacks, the United States has also taken over the diplomatic process.

The recent fledgling agreements between the Balkans parties over Bosnia, including a cease-fire expected to take effect Wednesday, have all come out of talks brokered by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

Other negotiations over the daily squabbles for land in Bosnia and eastern Croatia have been handled by European Union envoy Carl Bildt and another U.N. envoy, Thorvald Stoltenberg.

Akashi’s departure is thus just the expected result of months of decline for the cautious U.N. approach he typified. Many diplomats here say that approach resulted from divisions between the United States, European powers, and Russia over Bosnia policy — not from Akashi’s own failings.

But with Europe in line with the U.S. initiative over Bosnia, those divisions no longer apply. As a result, the “punching bag” for the West will soon be in Bosnia no longer.