text: Peace Operations: Update on the Situation in the Former Yugoslavia (Briefing Report, 05/08/95, GAO/NSIAD-95-148BR). Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, focusing on: (1) progress in resolving the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia; and (2) the United Nations' effectiveness in carrying out Security Council mandates in these countries. GAO found that: (1) little progress has been made in resolving the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia; (2) the Croatian Serbs still demand an independent state within Croatia, and the recognized Croatian government demands control of its occupied territory; (3) in Bosnia, the Serbs control 70 percent of the territory and no territory has been returned to the Bosnian government as proposed in the international peace plan; (4) thousands of Bosnians have been killed since the conflict began, widespread human rights violations have been committed, guilty parties have not answered for their crimes, and fighting continues; (5) the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) has effectively carried out mandates leading to lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia, however UNPROFOR lost some credibility as a peacekeeping force after attacks occurred there in April and December 1994; (6) UNPROFOR ineffectiveness in deterring attacks nearly prevented Croatia from agreeing to United Nations (UN) mandates and was due to its dependence on the cooperation of warring parties and unwillingness to request air support; and (7) some UN actions have been more effective, but if UNPROFOR withdraws from the former Yugoslavia, many humanitarian efforts will be curtailed or halted. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: NSIAD-95-148BR TITLE: Peace Operations: Update on the Situation in the Former Yugoslavia DATE: 05/08/95 SUBJECT: International organizations International relations Military intervention Warfare United Nations Federal aid to foreign countries International cooperation Political rights Logistics IDENTIFIER: Yugoslavia Croatia Bihac (Bosnia) Bosnia Gorazde (Bosnia) Sarajevo (Bosnia) Slovenia Serbia ************************************************************************** * This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO * * report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, * * headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions * * of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are * * identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end * * of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the * * document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page * * numbers of the printed product. * * * * No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure * * captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble * * those in the printed version. * * * * A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document * * Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your * * request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, * * Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders * * for printed documents at this time. * ************************************************************************** Cover ================================================================ COVER Briefing Report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate May 1995 PEACE OPERATIONS - UPDATE ON THE SITUATION IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA GAO/NSIAD-95-148BR Peace Operations Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV CAS - Close air support CSCE - Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe ECOSOC - Economic and Social Council JNA - Yugoslav National Army KSA - Krajina Serb Army NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization PVO - Private Vountary Organizations UNCRO - United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia UNPREDEP - United Nations Preventive Deployment Force UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNPA - United Nations Protected Area UNPROFOR - United Nations Protection Force Letter =============================================================== LETTER B-261202 May 8, 1995 The Honorable Robert Dole Majority Leader United States Senate Dear Senator Dole: As requested, we are providing you an update on the situation in the former Yugoslavia.\1 Specifically, you asked us to assess (1) progress in resolving the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia- Herzegovina (hereafter referred to as Bosnia) and (2) the United Nation's effectiveness in carrying out Security Council mandates in these countries. On April 3, 1995, we briefed your staff on the results of our work. This report presents the information provided at that briefing. -------------------- \1 This report follows up on some issues discussed in our 1994 report, Humanitarian Intervention: Effectiveness of U.N. Operations in Bosnia (GAO/NSIAD-94-13BR, Apr. 13, 1994). BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1 War began in the former Yugoslavia in June 1991, after two of its republics--Slovenia and Croatia--declared their independence. Serbia, the largest republic of the former Yugoslavia and in control of the Yugoslav National Army (JNA), forcibly tried to prevent the other republics from becoming independent. The JNA assisted the Croatian Serbs and fought against the new Croatian government. After fierce fighting, Serbia and Croatia signed an unconditional cease-fire in November 1991. In February 1992, the U.N. Security Council established the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and mandated it to help (1) supervise the withdrawal of the JNA and demilitarize the areas in Croatia occupied by the Croatian Serbs, (2) return the displaced who fled from their homes in these areas, and (3) monitor human rights in these areas. UNPROFOR in Croatia was authorized primarily under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which allows only peaceful means to carry out mandates. In March 1992, the Bosnians voted for independence, and fighting broke out among the new Bosnian government and Bosnian Serbs who were opposed to independence. Bosnian Serbs quickly captured most of the territory. In June 1992, the United Nations and the United States recognized Croatia and Bosnia as independent states. The U.N. Security Council then extended UNPROFOR's mission to Bosnia, and over the past 3 years has mandated UNPROFOR to (1) facilitate and protect the delivery of humanitarian aid; (2) use necessary means, including air power from regional organizations, to deter attacks against six safe areas (i.e., areas, such as Sarajevo to be protected against armed attacks and any other hostile actions); and (3) other actions to support an environment leading to peace. Most of UNPROFOR's activities in Bosnia, such as deterring attacks on safe areas, are authorized under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows forceful means to carry out mandates. RESULTS IN BRIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2 Little progress has been made in resolving the major issues of conflict in Croatia and Bosnia. In Croatia, fundamental differences divide the warring parties. The Croatian Serbs still demand an independent state within Croatia, and the internationally recognized Croatian government demands control of its occupied territory. The Croatian Serbs still maintain an army with heavy weapons and fighter planes and face the Croatian government along confrontation lines. In Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs control 70 percent of the territory and no territory has been returned to the Bosnian government, as proposed in the international peace plan.\2 Moreover, many thousands of Bosnians have been killed since the beginning of the conflict;\3 widespread human rights violations have been committed; and the guilty parties have not answered for their crimes. As of May 1995, fighting continues in Bosnia. UNPROFOR has been ineffective in carrying out mandates leading to lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia. In Croatia, UNPROFOR was unable to demilitarize the territory controlled by the Croatian Serbs, return displaced persons to their homes, or prevent the use of Croatian territory for attacks on Bosnia. In Bosnia, UNPROFOR made an assertive stand with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to protect Sarajevo in February 1994. However, UNPROFOR lost credibility as a peacekeeping force when it requested little NATO air support after Gorazde was attacked in April 1994, and Bosnian Serbs killed civilians, shelled the hospital, and took peacekeepers hostage and failed to deter attacks on the Bihac area in December 1994, when Bosnian and Croatian Serbs launched air and missile attacks on the area, wounded several U.N. peacekeepers, and killed one. As a result of UNPROFOR's ineffectiveness, Croatia announced in January 1995 that it would not agree to a renewal of UNPROFOR's mandate. Croatia only recently agreed to a new U.N. mandate that authorizes peacekeepers to monitor Croatia's international borders and internal confrontation lines. UNPROFOR's limited effectiveness to deter attacks and provide protection stems from an approach to peacekeeping that is dependent on the consent and cooperation of the warring parties. Although UNPROFOR has authority to use force, it tries to negotiate when attacked, and has called sparingly for NATO air support. UNPROFOR has requested NATO close air support five times for limited purposes during attacks on U.N. personnel and safe areas. The effectiveness of this approach has been minimal and the lack of consistent assertive response to aggression has left UNPROFOR little credibility. In some areas, U.N. actions have been more effective. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in coordination with UNPROFOR, international humanitarian organizations, and allied operations, has provided food for thousands living in the region over the past several winters. For its part, UNPROFOR monitors the situation on the ground, maintains roads, and escorts convoys to the safe areas. UNPROFOR previously escorted many aid convoys, but U.S. diplomatic initiatives helped bring about a Bosnian federation of Muslims and Croats, which allows convoy deliveries to many parts of Bosnia without protection. UNPROFOR also operates Sarajevo airport and undertakes confidence-building measures, such as joint patrols and monitoring of cease-fires. If UNPROFOR withdraws, UNHCR and some other humanitarian organizations plan to continue providing aid, but believe some activities will be curtailed if not halted. -------------------- \2 The plan was proposed by the Contact Group, which is composed of the United States, Russia, Germany, France, and England. The plan calls for 51 percent of Bosnia to be controlled by the Bosnian Muslims and Croats and 49 percent controlled by the Bosnian Serbs. The Bosnian government has accepted the plan; the Bosnian Serbs have not. \3 Estimates of those killed in Bosnia range from 250,000 (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1994, report submitted to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on International Relations by the Department of State in February 1995) to 167,000 (Bosnian Institute of Public Health). Other experts estimate a lower number. AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3 We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Mission to NATO, the U.N. Secretariat, and UNPROFOR. The Department of State commented that UNPROFOR would be more effective if member states provided more resources for the operation. UNPROFOR commented that it has proposed actions that could improve its performance in safe areas. These include providing more troops for UNPROFOR to deter attacks, better defining safe areas, and demilitarizing all warring parties in and around the safe areas. Given the U.N.'s approach to peacekeeping--to fully rely on the consent and cooperation of the parties--it is questionable that further resources or a better definition of safe areas would improve UNPROFOR's performance. Moreover, there are many crises in the world that compete for finite peacekeeping resources and UNPROFOR is the largest peacekeeping operation in U.N. history. Member states have thus far paid more than $3 billion in assessments for UNPROFOR, provided billions more in voluntary contributions, provided 40,000 U.N. troops, and committed NATO air power to the operation. Under current conditions and given UNPROFOR's lack of credible deterrent to attacks, demilitarizing the safe areas does not seem to be practical. We have incorporated other comments in the report, as appropriate. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4 We had the full cooperation of the U.N. Secretariat, UNPROFOR, and UNHCR and were assisted by the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, the U.S. Missions to the United Nations and NATO, and the U.S. Agency for International Development's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. To review the status of peace efforts in the former Yugoslavia, we conducted fieldwork in Bosnia and Croatia. During our visit, we met with senior officials of UNPROFOR and UNHCR and visited several UNPROFOR troop contingents. We also interviewed U.S. officials in both countries, including the U.S. Ambassadors, the Commander of the Joint Task Force Forward, and members of the U.S. Agency for International Development's Disaster Assistance Response Team. We also met with senior officials of both the Croatian and Bosnian governments. On three separate occasions we tried to interview Bosnian and Croatian Serb officials but were unsuccessful. To analyze U.N. operations, we obtained Security Council resolutions and reports and documents from the U.N. Secretariat, UNHCR, and UNPROFOR. We analyzed data from UNHCR's convoy database and reviewed UNHCR situation reports. To analyze air operations in the former Yugoslavia, we analyzed data on air sorties and air strikes. We also discussed air operations and NATO decisions with the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, members of his senior staff, and other national representatives to NATO in Brussels, Belgium. In Naples, Italy, we met with the Commander in Chief, Allied Forces South and his senior staff and the Commander of the Joint Task Force, Provide Promise. Further information regarding U.N. activities in the former Yugoslavia and this report is in appendixes I-III. Appendix I lists all U.N. Security Resolutions on the former Yugoslavia, as of April 15, 1995. Appendix II provides information on peacekeeping contingents; appendix III provides selected sources of information used for this report. We conducted our work from December 1994 to May 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1 We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate congressional committees; the U.N. Secretariat; the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the Former Yugoslavia; the Permanent Representative to NATO; the Secretaries of State and Defense; and the Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Joseph E. Kelley, Director-in-Charge, International Affairs Issues, who can be reached at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors to this report were Tet Miyabara, John E. Tschirhart, and Barry J. Deewse. Sincerely yours, Henry L. Hinton, Jr. Assistant Comptroller General BACKGROUND ============================================================ Chapter I Figure 1: Factional Control in the Former Yugoslavia (See figure in printed edition.) Little change has taken place in the factional control of Bosnian and Croatian territory since 1993. Croatia remains divided between the government and Croatian Serbs in the former U.N. Protected Areas (UNPA).\1 Croatia recently agreed to a new U.N. operation, the U.N. Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (UNCRO). However, the Croatian Serbs have not agreed to the terms and remain mobilized. In Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs still control about 70 percent of the territory and the Bosnian government enclaves of Bihac, Gorazde, Srebrenica, and Sarajevo are still isolated and cut off from Central Bosnia. Bosnian Muslims and Croats agreed to form a federation, following diplomatic initiatives by the United States in March 1994. Although there has not been full cooperation within the federation, it has allowed the relatively unobstructed delivery of humanitarian assistance to Central Bosnia and other locations. (We will discuss the federation later.) In December 1994, the Bosnian government and Bosnian Serbs agreed to a cessation of hostilities but an extension was not agreed to. As of May 1995, conflict in Bihac, increasing violations in Sarajevo, new offensives around Tuzla, and shelling in the other safe areas were taking place. -------------------- \1 The term UNPA was dropped in the new U.N. mandate for Croatia because it implied a special status for this part of Croatia. U.N. MANDATES--CROATIA ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter I:1 (See figure in printed edition.) As of mid-April 1995, 12 U.N. Security Council Resolutions focussed on Croatia. These mandates are authorized primarily under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, although the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) received Chapter VII authority to protect itself and ensure its own freedom of movement. The mandates were primarily to implement a U.N. peace plan designed to end the conflict in Croatia. Under this peace plan, UNPROFOR's mandate was to verify the withdrawal of the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) from Croatia, ensure the demilitarization of the UNPAs and protect persons in them from fear of armed attack, help ensure respect by the local police for the human rights of UNPA residents, and facilitate the safe and secure return of displaced persons to their homes in the UNPAs. UNPROFOR was also to monitor and verify compliance with the March 29, 1994, cease-fire agreement between the government and Croatian Serb forces. On March 31, 1995, the U.N. Security Council replaced UNPROFOR with a new mission, UNCRO. Under the mandate, UNCRO forces will be deployed to monitor Croatia's international borders with Bosnia and the former Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); UNCRO will also monitor the cease-fire within Croatia. U.N. MANDATES--BOSNIA ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter I:2 (See figure in printed edition.) Overall, 20 Security Council Resolutions focus on Bosnia and 11 are authorized under Chapter VII. In November 1991, the U.N. Secretary-General designated UNHCR the lead agency for humanitarian relief in the former Yugoslavia. One of UNHCR's major responsibilities is to manage an extensive logistics and distribution network to move food and other relief supplies to persons affected by the conflict. UNHCR maintains large warehouses and arranges convoys to transport aid to those in need. As fighting shifted from Croatia to Bosnia in early 1992, the Security Council extended UNPROFOR's mandate to Bosnia. The first task given UNPROFOR in that country was to ensure the security of the Sarajevo airport. UNPROFOR was to help unload humanitarian cargo at the airport and to ensure the safe movement of aid and relief workers. UNPROFOR's humanitarian role in Bosnia was expanded in late summer 1992 when it was mandated to protect UNHCR convoys. UNPROFOR was explicitly authorized to use force in situations where armed people attempted to prevent the U.N. from carrying out its mandates. In June 1993, UNPROFOR was mandated to deter attacks against six safe areas in Bosnia--Sarajevo, Bihac, Gorazde, Tuzla, Srebrenica, and Zepa. These enclaves were surrounded by Bosnian Serb forces. The safe areas were to be "free from armed attacks" and UNPROFOR was authorized under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter to take necessary measures to ensure this, including the use of air power provided by regional organizations or member states. U.N. OPERATIONS IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter I:3 (See figure in printed edition.) \a Total assessments for UNPROFOR thru March 31, 1995. \b Total estimated U.S. assessments fiscal years 1992-1995. \c Estimated U.S. assessment for fiscal year 1995. \d Includes U.N. troops civilian police and UNPROFOR civilians. This total does not include all U.N. workers, such as UNCR staff. The U.N.'s mission in the former Yugoslavia is by far the largest in its history, authorized in 70 Security Council resolutions, of which 38 are authorized under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Thirty-five resolutions apply generally to the former Yugoslavia, 20 focus primarily on Bosnia, 12 focus on Croatia, and 3 apply to Macedonia. The 44,000 staff in UNPROFOR exceeds that of any other U.N. peace operation. UNPROFOR has about 37,000 troops, 4,600 civilians, and 1,500 civilian police and military observers. U.N. member states have been assessed more than $3.3 billion for UNPROFOR as of March 31, 1995. Separate budget estimates for UNCRO and UNPROFOR were not available at the time of our review. Total U.S. government costs for operations in the former Yugoslavia are estimated to be $2.5 billion for fiscal years 1992 through 1995. Assessments for UNPROFOR were about $1.1 billion and the costs of humanitarian assistance and air operations such as enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia were an additional $1.4 billion. The estimated U.S. assessment for UNPROFOR for fiscal year 1995 is $506 million. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) activities in the former Yugoslavia have also been unparalleled in U.N. history in terms of size, breadth, and hazards encountered. It has spent over $1.0 billion in the former Yugoslavia. At the end of 1994, about 740 of its staff or about 15 percent were working in this region. At the start of 1995, it was providing food aid for over 2.2 million people in all parts of the former Yugoslavia. By April 1995, UNPROFOR forces had suffered 1,382 casualties, 155 of them fatal. Over 560 of the casualties were war-related, with mines, shelling, and direct fire each accounting for about one-third of this number. Thirteen UNHCR staff have been killed, including several convoy drivers. EFFECTIVENESS OF U.N. OPERATIONS =========================================================== Chapter II MANDATES WERE NOT CARRIED OUT IN CROATIA (THROUGH MAR. 1995) --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:1 (See figure in printed edition.) The JNA officially withdrew from Croatia in 1991. But according to the Croatian government, the JNA only partially withdrew. In a December 1994 report, the U.N. Commission of Experts on the former Yugoslavia found that the JNA transferred massive amounts of weapons to Croatian Serbs to help them form an army. Also, many JNA soldiers remained in the former UNPAs and reconstituted themselves as part of the new Croatian Serb army--formally called the Krajina Serb Army (KSA). Although given mandates to help demilitarize the UNPAs and return displaced persons to them, UNPROFOR was not able to disarm the KSA. The KSA initially placed heavy weapons in UNPROFOR storage depots, but the KSA later broke into these sites and reclaimed their weapons, partially in response to Croatian government initiatives in January 1993. As of May 1995, troop movements by both the KSA and the Croatian government were occurring in the former UNPAs. Because of potential fighting, UNPROFOR has returned very few of the estimated 360,000 to 450,000 refugees and displaced persons. According to the U.N. Secretary-General, present conditions do not permit voluntary return of displaced persons. In 1994, UNPROFOR in Croatia emphasized monitoring the cease-fire agreement. To accomplish this, it interposed its forces between the KSA and the Croatian government in a 2-kilometerwide, 740- kilometer long buffer zone and established about 300 observation and control posts. However, the number of cease-fire violations steadily increased from 70 on October 1, 1994, to 212 on March 1, 1995. UNPROFOR was especially concerned about the number of serious violations by Croatian Serbs involving the use of heavy weapons. In addition, a growing number of UNPROFOR vehicles were hijacked at gunpoint within the UNPAs. The Croatian government and the Croatian Serbs reached an economic agreement in December 1994 and it has produced tangible results. The Zagreb-Belgrade highway was opened on December 21, 1994, in two sectors of the former UNPAs, with UNPROFOR forces providing security along part of the route. Traffic quickly rose from under 1,000 vehicles per day in late December to over 5,000 by mid-January 1995. However, progress to implement the agreement slowed after Croatia announced it would no longer accept UNPROFOR's mandate. CROATIA REJECTS UNPROFOR; ACCEPTS NEW U.N. MANDATE --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:2 (See figure in printed edition.) The failure to achieve the goals of the original peace plan led the President of Croatia to announce the termination of UNPROFOR's presence in Croatia as of March 31, 1995. According to Croatia's Foreign Ministry, UNPROFOR's presence was a buffer that effectively established a sovereign state in the UNPAs for the Croatian Serbs. Moreover, since sections of the UNPAs are adjacent to the highway along Croatia's Dalmatian coast, Croatian Serbs could close the highway and cut Croatia off from its coast. Croatia also acted to terminate UNPROFOR's presence because UNPROFOR did not stop violations of Croatia's international borders from the UNPAs. For example, in November 1994, Croatian Serbs launched air, missile, and ground attacks from the UNPAs into Bihac in Bosnia. On March 10 and 11, 1995, Croatian Serbs removed heavy weapons from a storage site in the sector east UNPA, crossed into Serbia with the weapons, and then reentered the UNPA farther north. According to the U.N. Under Secretary- General for Peacekeeping Operations, this was a violation of Croatia's international borders and was reported to the Security Council. Overall, UNPROFOR has not emphasized control of Croatia's international borders. Most UNPROFOR troops in Croatia are deployed well within Croatia as a buffer between Croatian government and Croatian Serb forces. U.N. reports further show that the UNPROFOR observers are frequently denied access to the international borders and cannot monitor them. After considerable pressure from U.S. officials, who were concerned that a termination of UNPROFOR would lead to war, the Croatian government agreed to permit U.N. forces in Croatia under a new mandate. On March 31, 1995, the U.N. Security Council approved a new mandate for Croatia and a new mission, UNCRO. UNCRO will monitor Croatia's international borders with Bosnia and the former Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) as well as continue monitoring the internal cease-fire line. The concept of U.N. Protected Areas has been dropped from the new mandate. UNCRO forces will monitor and report on the crossing of military personnel, equipment, supplies, and weapons at 25 border posts. In addition, it will continue to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid through Croatia into Bosnia. Overall force levels for UNCRO will be reduced from the roughly 12,000 troops currently deployed to about 8,750. However, as of early May 1995, neither the Croatian government nor the Croatian Serbs had agreed to specific terms of UNCRO's deployment. U.N. RESPONSE IN SAFE AREAS: INITIAL ASSERTIVE STAND IN SARAJEVO --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:3 (See figure in printed edition.) Since April 1992, an estimated 10,000 residents of Sarajevo have been killed and nearly 60,000 wounded. This total includes over 1,500 children killed and nearly 15,000 wounded according to a report by the U.N. Commission of Experts on the former Yugoslavia. Because of attacks on civilians, the U.N. Security Council designated Sarajevo and five other locations safe areas, "free from armed attacks and any other hostile acts." On February 5, 1994, 68 civilians were killed and 142 wounded by a mortar round fired at the central market in Sarajevo. This followed a similar attack a day earlier in the suburbs of Sarajevo where 10 people were killed and 18 injured. Responding to these attacks, the U.N. Secretary-General asked the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for air strikes to lift the siege of Sarajevo. On February 9, NATO issued an ultimatum to Bosnian Serb forces to withdraw their heavy weapons 20 kilometers from the center of Sarajevo or place them under UNPROFOR control within 10 days, or they would be subject to air strikes. The Security Council broadly supported the ultimatum as a key effort to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict. In the face of NATO's threat, the Bosnian Serbs agreed to withdraw their heavy weapons within 2 days. By the evening of the deadline set by NATO, the United Nations reported that the Bosnian Serbs had substantially complied with the ultimatum. Some heavy weapons had not been withdrawn beyond the 20-kilometer zone, but UNPROFOR planned to monitor them in place. As a result of these actions, no air strikes were carried out. Following the assertive response by NATO and UNPROFOR, the siege of Sarajevo was lifted, and the United States was able to initiate discussions for a federation of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. A framework for the federation was signed in Washington in March 1994 and constitutional arrangements were agreed to in May 1994. The agreement called for federal units with equal rights and responsibilities, and also envisioned that areas with a majority of Serb residents would ultimately join the federation after peaceful negotiations. Although the federation has not yet resulted in the political reintegration of all communities, humanitarian aid passes relatively unobstructed through territory under federation control. U.N. RESPONSE IN SAFE AREAS: MINIMAL PROTECTION IN GORAZDE --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:4 (See figure in printed edition.) At the end of March 1994, Bosnian Serb forces launched an infantry and artillery offensive against the Gorazde enclave. The city of Gorazde was subject to intermittent shelling and sniper fire by the Bosnian Serb Army, resulting in a steady stream of casualties and injuries. Attacks became more serious with the Serb offensive of March 28 and 29, which involved artillery, tanks, and infantry. No distinction was made between military and civilian targets. Serb shelling also caused damage to the U.N. refugee center and U.N. equipment. The Bosnian Serb Army steadily invaded the safe area from all sides; numerous villages were destroyed and burned and their inhabitants killed or driven out. The city's hospital was reported to be overcrowded, understaffed, unsanitary, and the frequent target of shelling. Evacuation of urgent medical cases was rarely permitted. During this time period, the local population staged a protest against UNPROFOR's inaction UNHCR communications staff were concerned that reports did not portray the seriousness of the situation. On April 6, 1994, the Security Council demanded that the Bosnian Serbs cease their attack. Subsequently, UNPROFOR asked NATO for air support to protect several endangered U.N. military observers in Gorazde. In response, NATO aircraft bombed Serb positions on April 10 and 11 and destroyed a tank shelling Gorazde. However, heavy shelling of Gorazde continued. Over the next few days, Bosnian Serbs tested UNPROFOR's will by taking hostages--at one point removing 16 peacekeepers from their posts--targeting the city, wounding several U.N. personnel, and killing two. Further air support was not requested until April 22. On that date, the North Atlantic Council of NATO authorized air strikes against Bosnian Serb targets and issued an ultimatum establishing (1) a 3-kilometer exclusion zone from which Bosnian Serb military forces were to pull back and (2) a 20-kilometer zone from which Bosnian Serb heavy weapons were to be withdrawn. Air strikes did not take place because UNPROFOR reported that Serb forces had withdrawn their heavy weapons from the 20-kilometer zone. However, some Serb soldiers with small arms remained within the 3-kilometer zone after the date of the ultimatum. During the next few weeks, these forces harassed and obstructed UNPROFOR convoys and humanitarian aid deliveries, detained UNPROFOR forces, and stole UNPROFOR weapons and equipment. U.S. Agency for International Development officials visiting the enclave in July noted that the Serbs still maintained a presence within the 3 kilometer zone, having simply changed their military uniforms for police or civilian attire. U.N. RESPONSE IN SAFE AREAS: LOSS OF CREDIBLE DETERRENT IN BIHAC --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:5 (See figure in printed edition.) The northwest Bosnian enclave of Bihac was declared a safe area by the Security Council in May 1993. In October 1993 an opposition Bosnian Muslim leader declared Bihac to be autonomous from the Sarajevo government. Fighting broke out between forces loyal to the Bihac leader and the Bosnian government, with the rebel forces finally defeated in August 1994. Government forces then began an offensive against Bosnian Serb forces surrounding Bihac, but were forced back into Bihac in September 1994. In early November 1994, Serbs from within Croatia launched missile and air strikes on the Bihac pocket. Bosnian Serbs and the rebel Muslim forces attacked the Bihac pocket from Croatia. During an attack on November 18, these forces used napalm and cluster bombs, which the Security Council noted was "in clear violation of Bihac's status as a safe area." The air attacks from Croatia led the Security Council to authorize the use of NATO air power on targets in Croatia. Shortly thereafter, NATO aircraft struck Ubdina airfield in Croatia, damaging only the runway at UNPROFOR's request. However, the military advance of the Bosnian Serbs continued, with the assistance of the Croatian Serbs. NATO informed UNPROFOR it was prepared to use wider air strikes upon request, but UNPROFOR did not request them, choosing instead to negotiate a possible cease-fire. During this period, UNPROFOR personnel throughout Bosnia were being taken hostage. On successive days in early December, Bosnian Serb forces detained or held hostage between 316 and 439 UNPROFOR personnel. By early December the borders of the enclave had been infiltrated everywhere, and the towns surrounding Bihac had fallen to the Bosnian Serb Army. Shelling of the center of Bihac occurred daily and by mid-December, a large part of Bihac lacked water. Access for humanitarian convoys was almost impossible. The UNPROFOR troop contingent in the Bihac pocket lacked food and did not have fuel to fully move around the area. On December 12, 1994, some of the contingent was attacked; five peacekeepers were wounded and one was killed. This contingent had deployed to Bihac in June as a replacement for another contingent and was not fully equipped. According to UNPROFOR's Deputy Operations Commander, only about one-quarter of the unit had rifles. UNPROFOR had planned to send the remaining weapons and equipment by convoy. But Bosnian Serbs obstructed UNPROFOR convoys and would not allow the equipment to be delivered. On December 16, UNHCR reports characterized the situation in Bihac as a siege, with UNHCR and UNPROFOR officials virtual hostages. The city of Bihac did not fall, however, and in late December 1994, a cease-fire agreement was signed for all of Bosnia. Nonetheless, UNPROFOR and humanitarian aid convoys were still obstructed. According to U.N. reports, fighting continues in Bihac as of May 1995. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:6 (See figure in printed edition.) The full magnitude of human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia from 1991-94 is unknown because the United Nations and other organizations do not have access to all areas. However, the Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, testified that "Despite the absence of a smoking gun, like the files left by the Nazis documenting the Holocaust, what has happened in Bosnia is genocide."\2 He also provided some indication of the magnitude of violations in Bosnia and Croatia--151 mass graves with 5 to 3,000 bodies in each, over 20,000 rape victims, and over 50,000 torture victims. During our work, we saw destroyed hospitals and schools in Bihac and bombed residences and buildings in Sarajevo. We also saw extensive tracts of burned and bombed housing in the protected areas in Croatia. According to victims and U.N. officials, many Croatians living in the former protected areas were killed and others had their homes destroyed. In November 1994, the United Nations reported that widespread violations of human rights in areas controlled by Bosnian Serb authorities continued. These violations included the displacement, murder, beating, torture, and rape of Bosnian Muslim and Croats in areas such as Banja Luka, Prijedor, and Bijeljina. A Human Rights Watch report documented similar violations in other locations in Northern Bosnia and said that "non-Serbs have been murdered with impunity." Witnesses to the crimes stated that those committing the crimes were often dressed in uniforms belonging to the Bosnian Serb army, military police, or civilian police. In December 1994, the U.N. Commission of Experts on the former Yugoslavia reported on the killing of civilians, mass gravesites, rapes, torture, ethnic cleansing, and prison camps. The Commission concluded that all parties had committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. But most violations were committed by Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. Croats were the second largest group of victims. Serbs were also victims, but to a much lesser extent than the others. The Commission also said the chain of command in committing the crimes was blurred, but "the absence of preventive action by military commanders and other purposeful omissions . . . creates a clear basis for command responsibility."\3 In February 1995, the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia issued its first three indictments naming 22 people for genocide in death camps run by Bosnian Serbs. In April 1995, the Special Prosecutor named Bosnian Serb leaders as suspects in an investigation of war crime. -------------------- \2 "Statement of the Honorable Christopher H. Smith," Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe," at the Hearing on the UN, NATO, and the Former Yugoslavia, April 6, 1995. \3 Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (U.N. Security Council, S/1994/674/Add.2, Vol I, December 28, 1994). U.N. PROVIDES IMPORTANT HUMANITARIAN AID --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:7 (See figure in printed edition.) Although unable to bring lasting peace to Bosnia and Croatia, U.N. actions have provided vital humanitarian assistance. Over the past three winters, UNHCR has led efforts by national governments, other U.N. agencies, and nongovernmental humanitarian organizations to deliver vital food aid, particularly in Bosnia. In 1994, about 356,000 metric tons of food, or about 85 percent of their estimated food requirements, were delivered to Bosnians. However, the success rate was not uniform to all parts of the country or at all times of the year. For example, Bihac received only 33 percent of its estimated food requirements in 1994, with no food delivered in November 1994. Bihac has an estimated population of 180,000 to 205,000. The eastern enclaves (Gorazde, Zepa, and Srebrenica), received 65 percent of food requirements; these safe areas have an estimated population of 104,000. UNPROFOR has an important role in ensuring the delivery of aid, but the overall benefit provided by UNPROFOR varies. In 1994, about 77 percent of the aid convoys in Bosnia were successful. However, on routes where UNPROFOR escorts were needed and provided, such as the safe areas, the success rate was much lower. For example, in 1994, the convoy success rate to Bihac was 44 percent and to the eastern enclaves it was 62 percent. Overall, 59 percent of convoys to the safe areas were successful. Although UNPROFOR escorts do not ensure successful aid deliveries, UNHCR officials said escorts to Bihac, Sarajevo, and the enclaves are essential. Without UNPROFOR escorts, convoy drivers would refuse to deliver aid to safe areas. By contrast, some local UNHCR officials noted that UNPROFOR escorts are considered by Bosnian Serbs to be a provocation. UNPROFOR contributes to humanitarian aid efforts in other ways. In many parts of Bosnia, UNPROFOR provides engineering assistance, such as opening up new routes, maintaining existing roads in the harsh climate, and repairing bridges. In some cases, UNPROFOR has loaned fuel to UNHCR when there were fuel delivery problems in Bosnia. UNPROFOR also provides information to UNHCR on route conditions and potential fighting. Finally, UNPROFOR operates and provides security at Sarajevo airport. Over 55,000 metric tons of aid were delivered there in 1994, more than twice the amount coming into the city by land routes. According to the chief of UNHCR's Sarajevo office, it would be virtually impossible to provide aid to Sarajevo without UNPROFOR's services. UNHCR has indicated that despite UNPROFOR's importance to its humanitarian mission, it intends to continue operations in Bosnia if UNPROFOR withdraws. At the same time, it recognizes that the level of fighting and tension could jeopardize or halt the delivery of aid to Sarajevo, Bihac, and the eastern enclaves. UNPROFOR UNDERTAKES OTHER ACTIVITIES --------------------------------------------------------- Chapter II:8 (See figure in printed edition.) In Bosnia and Croatia, UNPROFOR has undertaken specific measures to build confidence among the parties. It monitored the cease-fire between Bosnian Muslim and Croat forces and participated in local security monitoring when requested by the parties, such as 24-hour patrols in a Croat community in Zenica and joint patrols with local Croat and Bosnian police to deter banditry on roads near Vitez. Throughout the two countries, UNPROFOR also monitors fragile cease-fires and observes movements of forces. UNPROFOR has also fostered discussions among local political leaders, some of which have led to agreements to allow greater freedom of movement for people and goods or to permit improvements to local water, telephone, sewer, gas, and power utilities. Some meetings of local civil and military leaders are chaired by UNPROFOR and allow these officials to discuss matters of mutual concern. Public transport through the region has improved as UNPROFOR provides security to rail passengers and a new public bus system that is operating in most of the Federation territory. UNPROFOR has also been involved in infrastructure improvements, such as repairing numerous damaged and destroyed bridges, with a focus on routes used by aid convoys or which link the two communities. OBSERVATIONS ON UNPROFOR AND U.N. PEACEKEEPING ========================================================== Chapter III U.N. APPROACH TO PEACEKEEPING UNDERCUTS ABILITY TO PROTECT -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter III:1 (See figure in printed edition.) According to U.N. Secretary-General reports, UNPROFOR has been guided by the U.N. doctrine of peacekeeping, which relies on all parties' consent and cooperation to implement Security Council resolutions. This approach has limited UNPROFOR's effectiveness. For example, although UNPROFOR has Chapter VII authority to ensure its freedom of movement, all vehicles obtain movement clearance from the warring factions before driving from one area to another. Also, UNPROFOR does not challenge roadblocks that prevent the delivery of aid or even the resupply of its own troops, as in Bihac. Relying on the parties' consent has also hampered deployment. For example, Bosnian Serbs have influenced which troop contingents are stationed along confrontation lines. According to the former U.N. Commander in Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs clearly stated which national troop contingents were acceptable, and which were not. UNPROFOR's Bosnia Chief of Operations said these views, as well as the preferences of the other warring parties, must be considered in UNPROFOR deployment and, as a result, the force is not as effectively used as it could be. According to the Secretary-General, UNPROFOR must also remain strictly neutral in carrying out its mandate. UNPROFOR's interpretation of neutrality has led it to restrict air power in response to attacks on peacekeepers and on safe areas. The UNPROFOR Commander in Bosnia said more assertive action to protect and deter attacks would make UNPROFOR appear to take the side of the party under attack. This has led to relatively ineffectual use of air power. Air support in Gorazde and Bihac was minimal even when civilians living in safe areas were being killed. After attacks on U.N. peacekeepers in Gorazde, Bihac, and Sarajevo, UNPROFOR sparingly called for air support and only against the specific violating weapon. Finally, UNPROFOR's staff structure reflects the doctrine of peacekeeping. The staff consists of 37,000 troops. But UNPROFOR also consists of 2,600 local civilian staff, 2,000 international staff such as public affairs and information officers, 800 civilian police, and 700 military observers. These personnel are unarmed, many work throughout Croatia and Bosnia, and many are periodically taken hostage. The Secretary-General cites the vulnerability of these personnel as a reason to act only with the consent of the warring parties. He said UNPROFOR's mandate is peacekeeping; aggressive action would be a fundamental shift from the logic of peacekeeping and would entail unacceptable risks to the mission. NATO AIR POWER USED SPARINGLY -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter III:2 (See figure in printed edition.) NATO operates three air missions in Bosnia. In April 1993, NATO began to independently enforce a "no-fly" zone over Bosnian airspace, under U.N. Security Council Resolution 843. In August 1993, NATO agreed to provide close air support (CAS) for UNPROFOR. NATO provides CAS only at U.N. request and targets specific military weapons attacking UNPROFOR personnel. In August 1993, NATO also agreed to support UNPROFOR with air strikes to deter attacks on safe areas. Unlike CAS, air strikes could be used more broadly as a deterrent. Authorization for air strikes is dual-key--requiring both NATO and U.N. approval.\4 As of March 1995, NATO had conducted over 17,000 sorties related to air strikes or CAS. However, only four air strikes had been formally authorized and five CAS operations requested.\5 According to NATO officials, the 17,000 sorties did not necessarily respond to formal UNPROFOR requests, but were flown under NATO initiatives. In this regard, NATO has encouraged more assertive use of air power. For example, NATO typically has aircraft patrolling on a regular basis so it can respond quickly to formal U.N. requests. In November 1994, NATO urged a more assertive use of air power to deter attacks on Bihac. After NATO aircraft were targeted by Croatian Serb missiles, NATO began reconnaissance for expanded operations. UNPROFOR, however, requested NATO to cease reconnaissance, temporarily halt the air interdiction over much of Bosnia, and halt further air strikes. The limited use of air power stems from a difference in mission between the United Nations and NATO. According to NATO and U.N. documents and officials, the U.N. believes that the robust use of air power is inconsistent with ensuring the cooperation of all parties. NATO believes sufficient air power should be used to accomplish the mission of deterring attacks on U.N. personnel and safe areas. Thus NATO has insisted that UNPROFOR provide pilots with several targets of military significance, whereas UNPROFOR insists on symbolic targets to send a political message. NATO has also disagreed with UNPROFOR on policy regarding tactical warning. NATO insists that tactical warnings of air strikes should not be provided because it endangers pilots and compromises the mission. UNPROFOR insists on having contact with all parties and believes that general warnings of air strikes must be given. Based on these different approaches, NATO military officials think air strikes in the former Yugoslavia lack credible deterrent. -------------------- \4 Once air strikes are approved, the operational keys are delegated to the Secretary- General's Special Representative for the former Yugoslavia, and the Commander in Chief, NATO's Southern Command. \5 Air strikes were against Serbian targets near Sarajevo, and against a Croatian Serb airfield that was use to launch against attacks the Bihac pocket in late 1994. OPERATIONAL LIMITS OF UNPROFOR AND U.N. PEACEKEEPING -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter III:3 (See figure in printed edition.) As with other peacekeeping missions, UNPROFOR's command and control hampers operations.\6 For example, in 1994, a troop contingent was requested to deploy to Mostar where intense fighting was taking place. According to the troop contingent, it had discretion in carrying out this order and decided not to deploy immediately. The issue was not resolved and the Security Council and the troop contingent's government exchanged letters over the issue. According to the Chief of Operations in the Bosnia Command, the inability to effectively deploy and move troops poses a problem in a war environment. Currently, UNPROFOR informally asks troop contingent commanders their views on redeploying or changing the contingent's operation. The contingent commander will then contact his capital and ask for advice. If the response is positive, the U.N. Commander, Bosnia, will formally order the redeployment. As of April 1995, 28 nations contributed U.N. troop contingents for the former Yugoslavia; and differences in their readiness posed a problem. Some contingents, for example, arrived without needed equipment, supplies, or maintenance capabilities. According to UNPROFOR officials, one contingent initially arrived without sleeping bags, flak jackets, or winter clothing. Others arrived without vehicles and armored personnel carriers. These troops could not be deployed in Bosnia without transport equipment and had to remain in Croatia while awaiting donated equipment. The troop contingent in Bihac in December 1994, deployed without weapons and basic equipment for each soldier. When Bihac came under siege, U.N. convoys could not deliver the equipment to the contingent. UNPROFOR's troop strength is less than that authorized by the Security Council. As of April 1995, its actual strength of nearly 39,000 was almost 6,000 short of authorized levels. Most of this shortfall is in logistics and support troops. According to the UNPROFOR Commander, even authorized troop levels are insufficient to carry out UNPROFOR's mandate. However, given the peacekeeping approach underlying U.N. operations in the former Yugoslavia, the U.N. belief that assertive action could compromise its neutrality, and a desire to negotiate a solution, it is an open question how greater troop strength would change UNPROFOR's approach. -------------------- \6 For a discussion of weaknesses in command and control, see Peace Operations: Information on U.S. and U.N. Activities (GAO/NSIAD-95-102BR, February 1995); U.N. Peacekeeping: Lessons Learned in Recent Missions (GAO/NSIAD-94-9, Dec. 1993). UNPROFOR WITHDRAWAL ISSUES -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter III:4 (See figure in printed edition.) Both UNPROFOR and NATO have begun to plan for a possible withdrawal of UNPROFOR forces from all or parts of the former Yugoslavia. Initial withdrawal plans centered on Bosnia, reflecting intensified fighting and frustration with the lack of progress on a peace agreement. Planning also focussed on a possible UNPROFOR withdrawal from Croatia. Most planning was based on a contingency of a hostile withdrawal, since UNPROFOR personnel had periodically been taken hostage during air strikes. Moreover, UNPROFOR weapons and equipment would be valuable to all sides, and during withdrawal, the parties might try to seize the equipment. Although not finalized or approved, draft NATO withdrawal plans have been completed. NATO involvement would only occur at the request of the United Nations. Estimates are that NATO would have to provide seven to nine brigades. But major issues remain undecided. For example, decisions about the command and control of a U.N.-NATO withdrawal above theater level, have not been fully agreed upon. This issue is complicated by the presence of non-NATO forces in UNPROFOR, and humanitarian workers, U.N. military observers, and civilian police throughout Croatia and Bosnia. In addition, various NATO nations have differing views on the mix of NATO-U.N. funding that would finance the withdrawal. The cost and duration of a withdrawal would be strongly influenced by whether its nature is benign or hostile and how much equipment is withdrawn. The United States has agreed in principle to assist NATO in an UNPROFOR withdrawal, pending congressional consultation. U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA =========================================================== Appendix I Resoluti U.N. on Charte number Date Area Purpose r -------- -------- ------ -------------------------------------------- ------ 713 9/25/91 FY Weapons embargo against all former VII Yugoslavia 721 11/27/ FY Preliminaries to establishing UNPROFOR VI 91 724 12/15/ FY Establishes sanctions Committee VII 91 727 1/8/92 C Deployment of 50 liaison officers VI 740 2/7/92 C Increases in liaison officers VI 743 2/21/92 C Establishes UNPROFOR VI 749 4/7/92 C Authorizes full deployment of UNPROFOR VI 752 5/15/92 B Demands all cease fighting in Bosnia VI 753 5/18/92 C Admits Croatia to the U.N. VI 754 5/18/92 FY Admits Slovenia to the U.N. VI 755 5/20/92 B Admits Bosnia to the U.N. VI 757 5/30/92 FY Imposes sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro VII 758 6/8/92 B Authorizes UNPROFOR deployment to Sarajevo VI 760 6/18/92 FY Exempts humanitarian aid from sanctions VII 761 6/29/92 B Additional UNPROFOR deployment to Sarajevo; VI mandate to ensure security of airport 762 6/30/92 C Additional UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia "pink VI zones" 764 7/13/92 B UNPROFOR reinforcements in Sarajevo VI 769 8/7/92 C Enlarges UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia to VI perform customs functions 770 8/13/92 B Asks member states to facilitate delivery of VII humanitarian aid in Bosnia 771 8/13/92 B Demands unimpeded access for humanitarian VII organizations 776 9/14/92 B Enlarges UNPROFOR mandate to protect VI humanitarian convoys in Bosnia 777 9/19/92 FY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer VI U.N. member 779 10/6/92 C Enlarges UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia -- VI Prevlaka peninsula 780 10/6/92 FY Establishes war crimes commission VI 781 10/9/92 B Bosnia no-fly zone VI 786 11/10/ B Enlarges UNPROFOR mandate to authorize and VI 92 monitor flights into Bosnia 787 11/16/ FY Restricts transshipments VII 92 795 12/11/ M UNPROFOR deployment to Macedonia VI 92 798 12/18/ B Condemnation of war crimes VI 92 802 1/25/93 C Demands cessation of attacks on UNPROFOR and VI end of cease-fire violations 807 2/19/93 FY Demands respect for UNPROFOR's security and VII extends mandate until 3/3/93 808 2/22/93 FY Establishes war crimes tribunal VI 815 3/30/93 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 6/30/93 VII 816 3/31/93 B Authorization to enforce no-fly zone VII 817 4/7/93 M Admits Macedonia to the U.N. VI 819 4/16/93 B Designates Srebrenica as safe area VII 820 4/17/93 FY Strengthens embargo on Serbia and Montenegro VII 821 4/28/93 FY Excludes Serbia and Montenegro from ECOSOC VI 824 5/6/93 B Designates six safe areas in Bosnia VII 827 5/25/93 FY Establishes International War Crimes VII Tribunal 836 6/4/93 B Enlarges UNPROFOR mandate to deter attacks VII on safe areas 838 6/10/93 B Requests report on deploying monitors on VII Bosnia's borders 842 6/18/93 M Authorizes U.S. to deploy in Macedonia VI 843 6/18/93 FY Requests to examine financial impact of VI sanctions 844 6/18/93 FY Authorizes reinforcement of UNPROFOR VII 845 6/18/93 M Urges Greece and Macedonia reach settlement VI 847 6/30/93 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 9/30/93 VII 855 8/9/93 FY Calls for continuation of CSCE missions in VI Serbia and Montenegro 857 8/20/93 FY Candidates for judges of War Crimes Tribunal VI 859 8/24/93 B Calls for cease-fire VII 869 9/30/93 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 10/1/93 VII 870 10/1/93 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 10/5/93 VII 871 10/5/93 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 3/31/94 VII 877 10/21/ FY Appoints international tribunal prosecutor VI 93 900 3/4/94 B Appoints Special Coordinator for Sarajevo VII 908 3/31/94 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 9/30/94 VII 913 4/22/94 FY Demands immediate release of U.N. personnel VII 914 4/27/94 FY Increases UNPROFOR personnel by 6,550 VII 936 7/8/94 FY Appoints prosecutor of international VII tribunal 941 9/23/94 B Condemns Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansing VII 942 9/23/94 B Imposes economic sanctions on Bosnian Serbs VII 943 9/29/94 FY Lifts some sanctions against Serbia and VII Montenegro 947 9/30/94 FY Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 3/31/95 VII 958 11/19/ C Extends air strike authority to Croatia VII 94 959 11/19/ C Clarifies safe area regime VII 94 967 12/14/ FY Permits Serbs to export diphtheria serum VII 94 970 1/12/95 FY Continues suspensions of some sanctions VII against Serbia and Montenegro 981 3/31/95 C Establishes UNCRO mission for Croatia VII 982 3/31/95 B Extends UNPROFOR mandate until 11/30/95 but VII only for Bosnia 983 3/31/95 M Establishes UNPREDEP mission for Macedonia VI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legend B = Bosnia C = Croatia M = Macedonia FY = Former Yugoslavia Areas UNPROFOR TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTING COUNTRIES (AS OF MARCH 1995) ========================================================== Appendix II Macedoni Country Croatia Bosnia a Total -------------------- -------- -------- -------- ======== France 843 3,781 4,624 Jordan 3,283 100 3,383 United Kingdom 3,155 3,155 Pakistan 2,983 2,983 Canada 1,218 820 2,038 Netherlands 148 1,482 1,630 Malaysia 1,545 1,545 Turkey 1,469 1,469 Spain 1,372 1,372 Russia 856 472 1,328 Bangladesh 1,238 1,238 Denmark 953 280 1,233 Sweden 128 1,030 1,158 Poland 1,141 1,141 Ukraine 555 460 1,015 Kenya 974 974 Czech Republic 957 957 Nepal 898 898 Belgium 769 100 869 Argentina 862 862 United States 299 540 839 Norway 111 636 747 Slovakia 567 567 Nordic 556 556 Egypt 418 418 New Zealand 249 249 Indonesia 220 220 Finland 43 43 ============================================================ Subtotal 14,825 21,590 1,096 37,511 Hdqs. units 404 ============================================================ Total troop strength 37,915 ------------------------------------------------------------ SELECTED SOURCES ========================================================= Appendix III 1. U.N. Headquarters Documents: Security Council resolutions, Secretary-General Reports, International Conference on Former Yugoslavia reports, Commission on Human Rights reports Officials: Special Assistant to the Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping; Director and military briefers, U.N. Situation Center 2. UNPROFOR Documents: Situation reports, U.N. military observer reports Officials: Special Representative of the Secretary-General Force Commanders, UNPROFOR and B-H Command U.N. Special Coordinator for Sarajevo Chief, Civilian Affairs Deputy Chief Inspector, Civilian Police Chief Military Observer Chief of Staff, Logistics Other military and civilian officers at UNPROFOR Headquarters, B-H Command, Sarajevo, Sector North, and troop contingents 3. UNHCR Documents: Field situation reports, field office responses of UNPROFOR services Officials: Chief of Mission, Bosnia Head of Office, Sarajevo Field staff in various locations 4. NATO Officials: U.S. Ambassador to NATO Deputy Permanent Representatives to NATO of Turkey, United Kingdom, and France Commander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe Senior and other staff, Allied Forces, Southern Europe 5. Department of Defense Officials: Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe Commander, Allied Air Forces Southern Europe Deputy Commander in Charge, United States European Command Commander, Joint Task Force, Provide Promise Commander, Joint Task Force Forward Documents: Briefing slides on U.S. and U.N. operations in the former Yugoslavia Reports and studies on peace operations 6. Department of State, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and Agency for International Development Documents: Cables, reports Officials: U.S. Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission to Bosnia U.S. Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission to Croatia Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, International Organization Affairs Director, Office of Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement 7. Statistical Information Budget data on U.S., UNPROFOR, and UNHCR actions in the former Yugoslavia UNPROFOR casualities and causes Cease-fire violation analyses Chronolonogy of CAS and air strikes Convoy success rates Days Sarajevo airport closed UNPROFOR deployment and troop numbers Monthly food distribution reports Sorties flown related to Deny Flight Sorties flown related to CAS and air strikes U.N. personnel detained during selected time periods


text:
#neverliberal #nevermarxist
People are saying the artist painted six fingers on his left hand.
I will defend the artist....slightlyI am sure he developed several leaf templates to create the background for the initial sketch that he made on the canvase to simplify the process. I am sure all the leaves are individually painted.....but your just asking for someone to notice it, it is lazy and why you would paint the background in focus with your subject is beyond me.
I heard that as well, but I can't see it.
The last time this Marxist will rip off the American Taxpayer.
I was under the impression that all portraits were paintings.
Well, that's how "Real Artists" do it.
This is so many levels past lame yet so very fitting for him. The "artist" is as fake as Obama himself.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I am really excited to introduce you to (or maybe, get you better aquatinted with?) oogaa! Started by mama Sam Skolnik, oogaa is an innovative company bringing better meal time tools with fun designs and kiddos in mind. Their products feature teethers, spoons, plates, bowls and placemats made from high quality silicone and even new onesies made from a bamboo cotton blend. It's all cute, it's all smartly, thoughtfully made...and you're gonna want one of everything.
Let's start with the plates and bowls. They come in a variety of bright colors and are made from high quality silicone. They're flexible, yet sturdy and serve sooooooo many purposes. These are AWESOME for toddlers. Perhaps one of my favorite features of them though, is how you can prepare food in them. Because the plates and bowls are such good quality silicone, they're microwave safe and...wait for it...OVEN SAFE. Correct, my friends, you can bake in these beauties! It makes them perfect for a quick toddler meal...or a single serving of cake for mama (with wine, may I suggest?). And they're dishwasher safe. I've found that they hold up wayyyyyyyy better in the dishwasher than any of the plastic kid plates and bowls we have! In fact, our oogaa plate and bowl look brand new after tons of washes whereas our plastics are...sad...and being phased out.
Another one of oogaa's products that we can't get enough of over here is their teether. oogaa has two options: an elephant or a frog, and we've got the orange elephant teether :) Like the plates and bowls, it's high quality silicone and flexible. It's got a super smart design with lots of textures (great for sensory development!) for sore gums, and it's got perfectly placed and sized handles which are genius for little hands! If you can believe it, this teether has beat out a "will-remain-nameless" giraffe that was a previous crowd pleaser in this house! I also love that, once again, because it's silicone you can toss it in the dishwasher (I top rack this one) after a particularly drooley day!
Now that Jackson is on solids, we've also really enjoyed using oogaa's baby spoons. These are, hands down, a game changer when introducing solids (if you're doing cereal and/or purées). SUPER smartly designed with little nubs on the bottom (again, great for sensory development!), these spoons help baby focus their tongue on the spoon. This means less mess and a better feeding, starting from the first one! I can tell you without reservation that spoon feeding with Jackson, using the oogaa spoons, has been a much different experience than it was with Conner. Conner's first feedings were quite messy, with not much really making it in his mouth. Jackson has figured out the mechanics of eating from a spoon much quicker! And let me tell you...once he started there was no stopping him.
Quite possibly one of my favorite oogaa products, and one which I am SOOOOO excited to try, are their rad plane, train, boat and truck spoons. Literally, these spoons are designed with a vehicle molded on them...look!!
{photo credit: oogaa.com}
HOW RAD ARE THEY?!? Literally, you can say "here comes the choo choo!!" and mean it :)
You can check out oogaa on Facebook, via their website and make sure you follow them on Instagram. If you have any questions, post em in the comments below!


text:
Happy Beds is the UK's fastest-growing bed and mattress retailer.
Our company ethos can be distilled in one sentence:
"Because everybody needs a good night's sleep"
Born from humble beginnings in Northern England, Happy Beds was created to ensure that everyone can have a great night's sleep without breaking the bank.
Since starting in 2010, we've grown into one of the country's best-loved bed, mattress and bedroom furniture retailers.
We are a member of the National Bed Federation. Due to our excellent customer service and product rating we won the Feefo Trusted Merchant 2016 Award and Feefo Trusted Service 2017 Award.
Whatever your taste, lifestyle or sleeping style, we'll be able to pair you with made-to-order beds and mattresses that suit you down to a T.
We know how important it is to support the local economy. All of our products are made right here in the UK, and our team, transport, raw materials and manufacturing are all based in Britain.
Everything we make goes through strict quality checks to comply with all Furniture Standards of the British Standards Institute, including Fire Regulation Standards.
We'll always give you the best prices on beds and mattresses of all shapes, sizes and styles. We're dedicated to ensuring you don't pay over the odds for a quality night's sleep. Here's how we keep your costs down:
We know that sometimes people change their minds. With so many things to consider, it's only human to miss the mark sometimes.
And if does happen, no problem! We've got your back. Our customer service teams are available 7 days a week to assist you, and our 30-day money back guarantee means that you have the wiggle room you need.
Alongside this, if you love it but something goes wrong on our end, we have a 5-year manufacturer's guarantee on everything. Don't sweat the small stuff – just let us give you the rest you deserve.
Get the night's sleep your body deserves. Shop Happy Beds online today.


text:
North America Rentals Recreational Vehicles Automotive
This category is for sites that concern the rental of Recreational Vehicles (also known as motor homes or RVs) in North America. RVs are vehicles designed for recreational use in camping. They include pop-ups, truck campers, Class A motorhomes, Class B motorhomes (conversion vans), Class C motorhomes (mini motorhomes), travel trailers, 5th wheel travel trailers, and caravans.
Top: Business: Automotive: Recreational Vehicles: Rentals: North America
- Bates International Motorhome Rental System - Offers rentals in several locations throughout the western recreational vehicles United north america States and Canada.
- Canadian Adventures - Motorhome, campervan, truck and camper rentals and sales from Vancouver, Seattle, Calgary and Edmonton. Canada and USA.
- Can Am Recreational Vehicles - Offers rentals of motorhomes, travel trailers, RVs, and campers. Locations in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Seattle, Washington; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
- Canada and USA Motorhome Rental - Motorhome, RV and truck camper rental for Canada, Alaska and recreational vehicles the United States from Vancouver, Calgary, Whitehorse, Toronto, San Francisco, recreational vehicles Anchorage, and Montreal.
- Out 2 RV - Motor home rental referral service offering privately owned north america motorhomes north america and RVs for rent in Canada and north america the United north america States.
- CampUSA - RV and camper rental in the United States rentals and Canada. north america Based in Florida.
- Cruise America - RV rental and sales with over 160 locations rentals in the recreational vehicles United States and Canada.
MySQL - Cache Direct


text:
April 14, 2001
Grief turns
to joy..."Mason."
I received the following letter , from a broken hearted
Subj: rescue
Date: 4/3/2001 9:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time
firstname.lastname@example.com (Steve & Sandra)
I just filled out your application form and
submitted. My husband Steve and I just lost our beloved Beaux, a beautiful
rescue Bichon, just 11 years old. We had hoped to have him much longer. He had
cancer, but did not suffer, and was really only sick for a few days. He lost all
his central nervous system functions. It absolutely broke our hearts to lose
him. We are very lonely and the house is so quiet, we want to rescue another
bichon if possible. I've never filled out an on-line form and was a little
nervous about it. I emailed one of your volunteers who lives here in Pasadena,
Rhonda Flowers. We spoke for probably over an hour and I told her our story of
Beaux and she told us about Sparky and Pearl, and we hope to meet eventually and
The Houston Bichon Club at the present time has no rescues. This is
where we got Beaux. We have been to every shelter in town. I've called Vet's
offices about their bulletin boards and I have emailed lots of shelters all over
south texas. One of those shelters gave me your webpage. I really hope that we
can find a wonderful bichon and perhaps you will be able to help us find that
special one!
Thank-you for your time and consideration,
Sandra M.
Well, you guys know
how we feel about broken hearts...so as soon as we received a 10 month old
Owner-turn-in Bichon pup, named Mason, we thought of Sandra and
These are the pictures of the "baby shower", given to Sandra, by
her co-workers.:) Enjoy!
He seems pretty happy..doncha think?:)
Poor dog. Never gets any
gets party treats too!
I think she sort of likes him.:)
Mom takes the picture, while a friend
walks Mason.
Mason sleeps in the middle of the bed, while Sandra and Steve sort
of cling to the edges, just like all good Bichon parents.:)
Sorry I haven't got you those pics yet.....oh man, what a
I took Mason to Janet's and she just loves him too! She said he is a
very nice doggie and he was so good for her. She gave him ANOTHER bath!! I
picked him up around 11:30am and tried to sneak him into school. The first
person I saw was our SECURITY GUARD! I said, "don't tell, please, my boss told
me I could bring him!" He didn't look happy about it, but he must not have said
anything because we stayed all afternoon.
I got him into the Media Center and
closed all the doors so he could run free. Everybody oohheed and aahhhed over
him. So many of them had never seen a Bichon before. Of course they thought he
was the most beautiful dog they had ever seen!
Then, guess what? They gave me
a doggie shower! We have pics I am sending!!! He got lots and lots of new toys
and dog biscuits (I only let him have one) And guess what? He pooped and peed on
the leash outside with Terri. Terri fell in love with him and I thought she was
not going to let me have him to go home!! I told her there were plenty more that
need to be rescued. He was so nice and on his best behavior. He didn't jump at
all or bark, he just walked up to people and let them pet him. The kids LOVED
him! We played and played and played and everybody decided that he just needs to
come up to work with Mommy at least once a week from here on out!
Steve and I
can never thank you, Lynda; and Robyn. You have made our fondest dreams come
true. You have given us a little bundle of love and we are going to take very,
very good care of little Mason. He is our little boy and we love him with all
our hearts.
I wish I could think of a better word than "Thank-you". It does
not say what I feel in my heart.
Daddy is outside with Mason right now and I
want to go out and play, so I will write more
P.S. Beaux, was
Sandra's first Bichon, who had cancer. His beautiful picture is on the Small Paws® Rescue: Memorials page.
Small Paws® Rescue Inc. is 501-C3 Tax exempt charitable organization. All donations are tax deductable.


text:
What's with the federal government blowing (you'll pardon the expression) all this money studying sex? $1.44 million to study male Vietnamese prostitutes, $26 million to study drunken Chinese hookers, and now this.
CNS reports the latest waste of your tax dollars:
The federal government has spent $550,496 on a project that involved conducting "focus groups and in-depth interviews" with American long-haul truck drivers to learn about their sex lives in order to assess their risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.
The project has failed to find any instances of HIV among the truck drivers studied.
The government may have worded some of the questions a bit too formally. We would suggest that they would get more honest answers in the future if they simply rephrase the questions by using terminology with which the truck drivers can identify. For example:
Question #1: Have you ever hooked your big rig up to a strange trailer Question #3: Have you ever been rear-ended at a truckstop? Question #7: Have you ever made a long haul delivery down the chocolate highway? Question #12: Have you ever gone the wrong way up a one-way street?
We're just sayin'.
Source: CNSnews.com


text:
Four Mexican tourists killed in Egypt bus accident
June 1 - Four Mexican tourists are killed and 17 injured, two of them critically, in a bus accident in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).
Four Mexican tourists are killed and 17 injured, two of them critically, in a bus accident on Friday in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, the governor of South Sinai said. The tourists were travelling on a bus owned by a local tour company near Saint Catherine's monastery in central Sinai when their bus overturned and caught fire, according to medical and security sources. At least 40 tourists, all from Mexico, were inside, the state news agency MENA reported. The injured tourists were transferred to three hospitals in the area, governor Khaled Fouda said. He said they had been travelling to the monastery, a popular tourist destination, from the town of Taba, which borders Israel. The 2011 uprising that ousted President Hosni Mubarak and the turmoil that followed has dented Egypt's tourism sector - a major employer and source of foreign currency which accounted for more than 10 percent of gross domestic product before 2011. The sector has been further damaged by kidnappings in Sinai and high-profile accidents, including a hot air balloon crash near Luxor in February that killed 19 tourists, most of them Asian and European.


text:
We hosted (our first annual) Girls Do Hack at the Adler Planetarium this past Saturday… and it was awesome. Fifty Chicago Public School high school girls came to the planetarium to participate in a full day of STEM-tech activities, like mobile phone app coding, detecting planets around other stars, designing low-cost water filtration systems with 3D printers, creating their own planetarium shows using World Wide Telescope, and much more.
While I could wax poetic about what I learned about successfully recruiting a diverse population of students, about leveraging community resources, etc., I thought it might be of particular interest to this audience to focus on the service that this event provided for the adults involved. A major goal for our event was to provide women in STEM role models for the girls. To this end, we partnered the girls with 25 women in STEM-tech professionals for the day (a 2:1 pairing)*. The women's jobs included software designers, financial analysts, data scientists, editors, people in marketing, web designers, academics in STEM/CS departments, etc.
The diversity of companies and backgrounds made for a fascinating and incredibly useful exchange of information, resources, best practices, and lessons learned. To facilitate those conversations, we hosted two events just for our women mentors. The first was an info/orientation session before the Saturday event. We held this at a bar downtown and most of the women stayed long after the orientation was done. We swapped stories, resources, and contact info over drinks. This past Saturday, those conversations continued. We started the day with a breakfast reception, just for the adults – our women mentors and special invited guests like the very cool Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, representatives from the Mayor's office, CEOs of companies (including our Keynote speaker and head of Femgineer), etc. This provided our women in STEM professionals an additional opportunity to network, learn about resources, and meet role models of their own. Throughout the day, as they interacted with their mentees, they continued to get to know one another and deepen the connections through a shared experience.
If you're planning an EPO event that could lend itself to including the time/space for networking amongst women in STEM professionals (who are also volunteering their time to help support your event), I strongly recommend it. It's a great service to your local community of women in STEM and it's a great service (let's call it a reward) for yourself as an organizer. Definitely one of the most rewarding, both personally and professionally, aspects of the event turned out to be having the opportunity to network with this amazing group of women in STEM. A happy surprise this time around, and one that I'll definitely try to build in to all my future EPO endeavors.
*While recruiting this many women for a Saturday event may seem like a large number, we had over double the number of mentor applicants as spots available. There is clearly an interest among the women in STEM professional population to help at events like this.


text:
2012 Atlas Copco 185 will run fine but not build any pressure, smells like rubber burning but all belts and pulleys are good.
Comments for Atlas Copco 185 pressure issue and smells like rubber burning
Click here to add your own comments
Add your own question or comment. It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Atlas Copco Compressor Issues.


text:
Websites directory: Real Estate
Category: All categories > Real Estate
This section is FREEADSAustralia free directory of websites in Shepparton, Australia. Youcan find below web sites in Real Estate Shepparton. You can search for more websites in our Shepparton link directory if you select another category above or change location to switch to another Australian websites directory on FREEADSAustralia.
Some tips we've found useful:
Australia free websites directory in Real Estate, Shepparton, Real Estate link directory in Shepparton, Real Estate online directory, Shepparton web directory and link directory, Shepparton directory.
Our button:
Button code


text:
Bay Area's Window Treatment SpecialistsSince 1965, Lawson Bros. Draperies has been servicing the Bay Area with full-service window coverings, including all types of blinds, curtains, draperies and shutters. We carry a variety of different styles, patterns, materials and functions that are suitable for your home or business.
Our window treatment professionals specialize in custom window designs for both residential and commercial properties. Before anything is installed, our expert team will take the appropriate time to measure and inspect the window space in order to make sure that you, our customer, get the best quality service for the most competitive price.
Our Services Include:
- Full-Service Window Coverings
- Window Treatments
- Window Curtains
- Custom Window Treatment Designs
- Window Blinds
- and More
The appropriate window treatment can transform the interior of a home and make it even more beautiful. The priority of every member in our team is to make your home more appealing and attractive while maintaining your privacy and security.
Your Satisfaction Is Guaranteed
We will help you select the perfect window trimmings, fabric, color, and functionality for a long-lasting result that will surely turn your room into a piece of art that is sure to compliment your home. We work with you and carefully note your needs and preferences, while providing our expertise to create a design that you will love.
At Lawson Bros. Draperies, we guarantee our customer's satisfaction or the job is not done until you're happy with the results. When it comes to custom designs, often times there are more things to consider. With us, we take everything into account in making sure that you are more than with the execution of the project.
Call Us Today at (650) 427-9982 for More Information on Our
Window Treatment Services.
Window Treatment Services.
Lawson Bros. Draperies
Business Hours
Appointments Available
Payment Types
Personal Checks, All Major Credit Cards, Debit


text:
Chelsea-Roma: Chelsea Get Champions League Blues in ItalyNovember 4, 2008
Without stalwart Ricardo Carvalho, Chelsea saw their defense and their matchday four clash with AS Roma fall apart on Tuesday.
After starting the game in commanding fashion it seemed that Chelsea had retained the dominance of the side that handed Sunderland a 5-0 thrashing on Saturday. However, after a clumsy give-away by Jon Obi Mikel and a card-warranting challenge from Deco, Chelsea seemed to pause while Christian Panucci ran past and easily flicked the ball behind Petr Cech into the net.
The goal was the first allowed by the West London side in all Champions League matches, and only their second in their last nine games in all competitions.
Prior to the foul Roma had only seen their end of the field, playing almost entirely in defense, not getting a chance to expose the glaring weakness in the Chelsea center defense.
The communication and teamwork were clearly an issue on the night, with Alex playing in the stead of the injured Carvalho. From the Panucci goal on it was clear that even Captain Fantastic, Terry, was out of sorts with his defensive partner.
As the game progressed Chelsea continued to press forward and command possession. However, with Roma content to sit back and wait on a counter attack and Chelsea failing to make any progress, things began to slip for the Blues.
The players who had stood out in the opening began to look bewildered and as the second half began Scolari decided a change was necessary. Felipe pulled his wingers and inserted Juliano Belletti and Didier Drogba.
Chelsea continued to press forward and keep the ball in the Roma half. However, when given an opportunity to move forward the Italian side moved fast and struck with frightening accuracy with Mirko Vucinic finding the net three minutes after the break and another 10 minutes after that.
Chelsea saw a glimpse of hope 15 minutes from time when Terry slotted home a rebound. Things seemed to fall apart five minutes later though, when Deco was given his second yellow card after taking a free kick too quickly.
Roma continued to press until the final whistle, giving Chelsea's back line trouble and Cech plenty to do. When the final whistle blew it seemed as though not a single man in Blue was not relieved.
Chelsea were out-classed by the Italians, who turned their defensive play into flowing counter attack and truly beautiful football. When Roma turned to the offensive they played much more like Chelsea than the London side did all evening.
Though the Blues were out-played, Scolari's handling of his side seemed very questionable. His moves after the break, opting to remove Cole and Malouda who had been playing well on the night while leaving defender Alex, who was clearly out of sorts, certainly did not work out according to his plan.
One suspicious omission is that of the Chelsea ghost man Branislav Ivanovic. Despite being available on the bench often in recent matches, he has remained absent from the side. The Brazilian will certainly bemoan the absence of Carvalho post-game and cast some blame upon the injury crisis, and not his own decision to sit the Serbian defender.
The Italians will certainly be pleased with their 3-1 victory, coming on the heels of five consecutive losses. The Blues, on the other hand, will be searching for answers on the practice field in Cobham and look to rebound against Blackburn on Sunday.


text:
Interior design is as important as laying the foundation of your home. The design is your presentation of your home and we understand why you'd want nothing but the best ideas and materials to complete it.
The good news is, we've been doing this for more than 30 years so whatever inspiration or motif you have in mind; we surely have great ideas to help you create your dream living space.
Our beautiful and top quality products wouldn't be used well if we can't help you with a keen eye in design. Carpet America can give you interior design consulting services every time you need inspiration. Call us now for an appointment or visit our showroom anytime you want.


text:
In these samples of white fat cell progenitors, certain long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been knocked down, which causes decreased lipid accumulation (red dots) compared to the control (Scramble). These results are similar to what is seen when the transcription factor, Ppar gamma, is knocked down. Ppar gamma is necessary for lipid accumulation in this type of cell.
Long noncoding RNAs control development of fat cells
February 13, 2013
Tags: Lodish LabGenetics + Genomics
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – Whitehead Institute researchers have identified a previously unrecognized layer of genetic regulation that is necessary for the generation of undesirable white fat cells. When this regulation is disrupted, white fat cells are unable to accumulate lipid droplets or mature from their precursors.
"We're trying to figure out what the mechanism is—what it takes to make fat cells," says Whitehead Founding Member Harvey Lodish, who is also a professor of biology and a professor of bioengineering at MIT. "The obvious reason we're interested in this is because a lot of people have too many of them."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity—having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher—is a serious healthcare and economic problem in the United States. More than one-third of American adults are obese, a condition that can lead to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and stroke. In 2008 obesity-related issues were estimated to cost $147 billion.
All of these problems are caused by an overabundance of white fat cells—adipose tissue cells that store excess energy as fat or lipid droplets. Unlike white fat cells, brown fat cells, which are most prevalent in babies and have a reduced presence in adults, use lipids as fuel to maintain a stable, warm body temperature. Understanding how both types of fat cells are formed and maintained may one day lead to anti-obesity therapies.
In the quest to understand fat-cell generation and maintenance, the Lodish lab scanned mouse fat cells to determine which of the cells' long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are active. Of the 175 identified, 10 lncRNAs were found to play significant roles in these cells.
Residing within what was once dubbed "junk DNA", lncRNAs have recently gained fame as important gene expression regulators that modify chromatin, enhance transcription, and promote messenger RNA (mRNA) degradation, as well as through other methods that have yet to be elucidated. Recently, the Lodish lab identified lncRNAs as playing a vital role in regulating programmed cell death during one of the final stages of red blood cell differentiation.
To determine the function of the identified active lncRNAs in fat cells, Lei Sun, a former postdoctoral researcher in the Lodish lab, and Loyal Goff from John Rinn's lab at Harvard University and the Broad Institute, knocked each lncRNA down individually in fat precursor cells and analyzed the results. When 10 of these lncRNAs had reduced expression, the cells did not turn on the genes that are usually expressed in mature white fat cells, and the cells had significantly smaller lipid droplets than white fat cells with normal lncRNA expression. Their work is reported in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
"This is the first study showing the importance of lncRNAs for the regulation of adipogeneis," says Sun, who is now an assistant professor at Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School. "Our understanding of lncRNA function in these cells is still incomplete, but in the future, this line of research may reveal new pathways that obesity drugs could target."
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (DK047618, DK068348, 5P01HL066105, and 1DP2OD00667), National Science Foundation, Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation, Agency of Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, Searle Scholars Program, Smith Family Awards Program, and Merkin Family Foundation.
Written by Nicole Giese Rura
* * *
Harvey Lodish's primary affiliation is with Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, where his laboratory is located and all his research is conducted. He is also a professor of biology and a professor of bioengineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* * *
Full Citation:
"Long noncoding RNAs regulate adipogenesis"
PNAS, online the week of February 11, 2013.
Lei Sun (a,1), Loyal A. Goff (b,c,d,1), Cole Trapnell (b,c,1), Ryan Alexander (a,d), Kinyui Alice Lo (a,d), Ezgi Hacisuleyman (b,e), Martin Sauvageau (b,c,e), Barbara Tazon-Vega (b,c), David R. Kelley (b,c), David G. Hendrickson (b,c), Bingbing Yuan (a), Manolis Kellis (c,d), Harvey F. Lodish (a,f,g), and John L. Rinn (b,c,e).
a. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA 02142
b. Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
c. The Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142
d. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
e. Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
f. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
g. Department of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
1. These authors contributed equally to this work.
Communications and Public Affairs
Phone: 617-258-6851
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Protein found to regulate red blood cell size and number
Long non-coding RNA prevents the death of maturing red blood cells
Emerging drug class may enhance red blood cell production in anemic patients


text:
Hi everyone! A big welcome to all of you.
While going through old children's books I stumbled upon the sweet little girl sitting on a key.
After finding the keys on a ring I knew I had a theme for a new post.
Hope they open your creative spirit and find their way onto your next project!
Thank you for all the wonderful comments you send me.
Much love to all of you, Louise
Images are from old books found at various online libraries including https://archive.org/ and http://cms.uflib.ufl.edu/baldwin/Index.aspx
They are posted here for your personal use and enjoyment.


text:
|A dull, grey but magnificently autumnal day in Derbyshire's Peak District. This is the river Derwent . . .
|. . . here running placidly by Chatsworth House, home to the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire. Chatsworth is one of England's finest stately homes. On the right you can see the Emperor Fountain, designed by Joseph Paxton in 1844. This was a massive construction project, and involved the creation of a lake on high ground behind the garden to supply the water pressure. It was finished in only six months. It was built for the impending visit of Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, but in the end he never came. In its day this was the world's highest fountain; in the photo it's only at minimal flow.
|Chatsworth House between two oak trees in seasonal foliage.
|Behind these splendid copper-leaved trees lies James Paine's Three Arch Bridge . . .
|. . . based on a Roman design.
|Looking back at the river Derwent and the Chatsworth estate . . .
|Leaving Chatsworth through Stand Wood, we approached a gate leading to a moorland access path . . .
|. . . from where we admired this superb view across the Derwent valley . . .