Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OSCE could play key role in Kosovo's standards review process

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OSCE could play key role in Kosovo's standards review process

    ReliefWeb, Switzerland
    March 4 2005

    Source: United Nations Security Council

    OSCE could play key role in Kosovo's standards review process,
    Security council told SC/8328

    Chairman Briefs Council on Organization's Expertise In Minority
    Issues, Policing, Institution-Building, Conflict Resolution

    As an integral part of the structure of the United Nations Interim
    Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the Organization for
    Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could play a key role in
    the province's standards review process while remaining part of the
    international presence there, the regional body's Chairman-in-Office
    told the Security Council this morning.

    Dimitrij Rupel, who is also Slovenia'a Minister for Foreign Affairs,
    said in an open briefing to the Council that the OSCE had
    considerable expertise in national minority issues, policing and in
    building the effective public institutions that were so essential for
    Kosovo's peaceful and sustainable development. In many tense
    situations, effective policing was needed rather than blue helmets.
    The OSCE ran police development units in the western Balkans, and no
    other international organization currently possessed the potential to
    strengthen long-term law enforcement capacity- and
    institution-building in the States most susceptible to crime,
    corruption and human rights violations.

    The case of Kosovo highlighted the question of reconciling the desire
    for self-determination with the issue of preserving the territorial
    integrity of States, he said. And in parts of the Republic of
    Moldova, Georgia and in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh,
    the OSCE was actively trying to resolve conflicts that were sometimes
    referred to as frozen, but which lately had started to thaw. The slow
    but steady progress being made in the dialogue between Armenia and
    Azerbaijan was encouraging, and it was to be hoped that recent
    changes in Ukraine and a new post-election environment in the
    Republic of Moldova would enable a new attempt to resolve the
    Transdniestrian conflict. The OSCE was also working with parties to
    reduce tensions in South Ossetia, Georgia, and to promote
    demilitarization, build confidence and achieve a lasting settlement
    there.

    Urging the Security Council to support OSCE efforts in all those
    cases, particularly those Council members who were mediators in the
    conflicts or had influence over the parties, he pointed out that it
    was difficult for inter-State organizations to deal with non-State
    actors, even when they were de facto authorities, and that,
    sometimes, the leverage of powerful States, including permanent
    members of the Council, could be crucial. The OSCE was a regional
    arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the United Nations
    Charter and it was to be hoped that bold decisions would be taken to
    enhance further the cooperation between the United Nations and
    regional organizations.

    He said the Security Council's ability to more proactively prevent
    and respond to threats could be strengthened by making fuller and
    more productive use of regional organizations. The OSCE was
    well-positioned and well-equipped to do so with its well-earned
    reputation in early warning, early action and conflict prevention.
    There were areas, such as preventing ethnic conflict and regulating
    the marking and tracing, as well as the brokering and transfer of
    small arms and light weapons, where the organization was even more
    progressive than United Nations standards.

    Regarding the clash between the concept of `responsibility to
    protect' and the principle of non-intervention in the internal
    affairs of a State, he said the OSCE was very clear and progressive
    when it came to human rights. Commitments undertaken in the
    organization's human dimension were of direct and legitimate concern
    to all participating States and did not belong exclusively to the
    internal affairs of the State concerned. That legitimate
    intrusiveness was the basis on which participating States held each
    other accountable for the implementation of their commonly agreed
    commitments.

    Others who spoke during the meeting included the representatives of
    Romania, United States, Russian Federation and the United Kingdom.

    This morning's meeting began at 10:20 a.m. and adjourned at 11:10
    a.m.

    Statement by Chairman-in-Office of OSCE

    DIMITRIJ RUPEL, Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security
    and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Minister for Foreign Affairs of
    Slovenia, noted that there was a lively discussion about the future
    of the OSCE, which, unfortunately, was reflective of the emergence of
    new East-West fault lines. Some debates were reminiscent of the cold
    war. The discussion had come during a year when the organization was
    supposed to be celebrating its contribution to promoting security and
    cooperation in Europe -- reflecting on 30 years since the signing of
    the Helsinki Final Act and 15 years since the Charter of Paris set
    out a vision for a Europe whole and free.

    As to whether the OSCE was in crisis, he said it was certainly in
    transition. Some participating States had complained of double
    standards and called for a review of how it monitored elections.
    There was no agreement on extending the mandate of the Border
    Monitoring Operation in Georgia, and there had been no consensus
    among OSCE Foreign Ministers at the conclusion of the last two
    Ministerial Council meetings. In answer to calls for reform, a Panel
    of Eminent Persons had been appointed to make recommendations on
    strengthening the organization's effectiveness. That would be
    followed by high-level consultations and then a Ministerial Council
    in Ljubljana. The OSCE was also looking at how to strengthen its
    field operations. That process was more of an opportunity than a
    crisis.

    The challenge to the organization's relevance and strategic direction
    had shaken some States out of their complacency and brought into the
    open some issues that had been festering below the surface for some
    time, he said. One of the OSCE's strengths was its ability to adapt
    to the challenges of the day. Changes in the European Union, the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Council of Europe
    reflected a Europe in transition, partly as a result of European
    Union and NATO expansion, but also because of coping with new threats
    to security. Organizations must remain dynamic to remain relevant,
    and the OSCE was no exception.

    Noting that the OSCE was a regional arrangement in the sense of
    Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, he said that the report
    of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change had been
    read with interest and expressed the hope that bold decisions would
    be taken to make greater use of Chapter VIII and enhance further the
    cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations.
    The Security Council's ability to more proactively prevent and
    respond to threats could be strengthened by making fuller and more
    productive use of regional organizations. The OSCE was
    well-positioned and well-equipped to do so.

    Pointing out that the OSCE had a well-earned reputation in early
    warning, early action and conflict prevention, he said there were
    areas, such as preventing ethnic conflict and regulating the marking
    and tracing, as well as the brokering and transfer of small arms and
    light weapons, where the organization was even more progressive than
    United Nations standards. The OSCE also coordinated assistance on the
    ratification and implementation of 12 United Nations anti-terrorism
    conventions and protocols. It worked with the Economic Commission for
    Europe (ECE) on addressing economic and environmental threats to
    security.

    In Kosovo, he said, the OSCE was an integral part of the structure of
    the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK),
    and in the present important year it could play a key role in the
    standards-review process and remain part of the international
    presence there. The OSCE had considerable expertise in national
    minority issues, policing and building effective public institutions
    that were so essential for the peaceful and sustainable development
    of Kosovo. The case of Kosovo highlighted the issue of reconciling
    the desire for self-determination with the preservation of the
    territorial integrity of States. In parts of the Republic of Moldova
    and Georgia, and in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, the
    OSCE was actively trying to resolve conflicts that were sometimes
    referred to as frozen, but which lately had started to thaw. In those
    cases, the organization had clear mandates and was one of the lead
    agencies on the ground.

    The OSCE was encouraged by the slow but steady progress being made in
    the dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan, he said. It was to be
    hoped that recent changes in Ukraine and that a new post-election
    environment in the Republic of Moldova would enable a new attempt to
    resolve the Transdniestrian conflict. The OSCE was also working with
    parties to reduce tensions in South Ossetia, Georgia, and to promote
    demilitarization, build confidence and achieve a lasting settlement.
    In all of those cases, the OSCE urged the Security Council to support
    its efforts, particularly those Council members who were mediators in
    the conflicts or had influence over the parties. It was difficult for
    inter-State organizations to deal with non-State actors, even if --
    as in some cases -- they were de facto authorities. Sometimes the
    leverage of powerful States, including permanent members of the
    Council, could be crucial.

    Another important issue in the Panel's report was the clash between
    the concept of `responsibility to protect' and the principle of
    non-intervention in the internal affairs of a State, he said. The
    OSCE was very clear and progressive when it came to human rights.
    Commitments undertaken in the human dimension of the OSCE were
    matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States
    and did not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State
    concerned. That legitimate intrusiveness was the basis on which
    participating States held each other accountable for the
    implementation of their commonly agreed commitments. It was the
    justification for having OSCE missions in participating States,
    helping the host States to deal with specific challenges, and it was
    the reason why the organization's High Commissioner on National
    Minorities or Representative on Freedom of the Media could,
    respectively, go to any State throughout the OSCE region to prevent
    inter-ethnic conflict and ensure respect for free media.

    Regarding the need for a comprehensive, multilateral approach, he
    noted the Panel's highlighting of threats to global security from
    which no State or region was immune. In an interconnected world,
    security was indivisible. Multifaceted challenges required a
    multilateral response that took a comprehensive view of security. The
    OSCE was doing its part and had a proven track record in
    post-conflict rehabilitation or peace-building. Its 18 field missions
    represented an invaluable on-the-ground presence that offered
    concrete assistance to participating States, and it had quickly
    developed capabilities to deal with new threats to security,
    including in anti-trafficking, counter-terrorism, border management
    and policing.

    When addressing the new threats to security, the bottom line for the
    OSCE was upholding the rule of law, he stressed. For example, the
    organization had to ensure that efforts to combat terrorism were not
    undertaken in a way that violated human rights, that border guards
    learned sophisticated techniques and a proper code of conduct or that
    human trafficking was tackled by effective investigation, law
    enforcement and prosecution. Policing was a classic example. In many
    tense situations, effective policing, rather than blue helmets, was
    needed. The OSCE ran police development units in the western Balkans
    and had launched a police development programme in Kyrgyzstan. Others
    were being prepared in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. No other
    international organization currently possessed the potential to
    strengthen long-term law enforcement capacity- and
    institution-building in the OSCE region in the States most
    susceptible to crime, corruption and human rights violations.

    States should not underestimate or take for granted the quiet but
    useful work done by organizations like the OSCE to make the world
    safer, he emphasized. The organization should also be more open to
    sharing its experience and expertise with others. In 2004, the OSCE
    had sent an election support team to Afghanistan and, earlier this
    year, it had sent a needs-assessment team to the Palestinian
    territories to see what help it could offer on elections. In
    addition, Mongolia was now an OSCE Partner for Cooperation. The
    organization had an impact beyond its vast region and could develop
    such relations even further.

    MIHNEA IOAN MOTOC (Romania) welcomed an insightful and direct
    briefing given to the Council and noted Mr. Rupel's energetic and
    straightforward approach to the activities of the organization he
    chaired. In particular, he appreciated the attention paid to the
    Kosovo issue.

    Turning to the effectiveness of the multilateral handling of frozen
    conflicts, he said that protracted conflicts were a great challenge.
    Looking at the issue from a `half-full glass approach', one could say
    that it was important that fighting had stopped. However, the
    international community was still facing constantly growing threats
    in that regard, for such conflicts became the areas of smuggling,
    arms proliferation and terrorism. The Security Council and regional
    organizations like the OSCE should do more to advance the settlement
    of such situations. He asked Mr. Rupel to elaborate on the objectives
    of the OSCE Chairmanship in that regard and to assess the possibility
    of cooperation with the United Nations in that area. He also asked
    about the Transdniestrian conflict in the Republic of Moldova.

    REED JACKSON FENDRICK (United States) thanked Mr. Rupel for clearly
    outlining the capabilities of the OSCE, particularly in the area of
    international peace and security. He wanted to know how the two
    organizations could, in practical terms, improve their cooperation in
    response to threats. He also asked questions about the OSCE election
    teams sent to Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority and OSCE
    activities outside of its immediate area of responsibility.

    ALEXANDER V. KONUZIN (Russian Federation) said that his country
    supported the basic priorities proposed by the current Chairmanship
    of the OSCE, which were directed at the reform and revitalization of
    that organization, as well as the restoration of balance among its
    security, economic and humanitarian activities. He took particular
    note of the need to further develop the OSCE activities in the
    security sphere. Indeed, for the OSCE to be able to fully implement
    its original objective of being a forum for a wide dialogue on the
    most important issues, it was necessary to overcome artificially
    formed functional and territorial imbalances in its activities. His
    delegation supported a comprehensive development and improvement of
    cooperation of the United Nations and its Security Council with
    regional and subregional arrangements on the basis of the United
    Nations Charter, in particular its Chapter VIII, duly taking into
    account their existing comparative advantages.

    He welcomed a close and fruitful interaction between the OSCE as a
    regional organization, and the United Nations in a number of key
    areas, first and foremost linked to security and resolution of
    regional conflicts. Among the examples in that connection, he
    mentioned Abkhazia (Georgia) and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The OSCE's
    contribution to the implementation of Security Council resolution
    1244 (1999) on Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) deserved particular
    note. As part of United Nations Interim Administration Mission in
    Kosovo (UNMIK), the OSCE played an important role there.

    In that context, he asked what additional steps must be taken to
    ensure equal implementation of the human rights of all inhabitants of
    Kosovo, particularly those belonging to non-Albanian minorities. He
    also wanted to know what the OSCE was planning to undertake in the
    light of the negative experience of March 2004, in order to prevent
    future extremist manifestations in the mass media and organizations
    of civil society.

    PAUL JOHNSTON (United Kingdom) said his country was a strong
    supporter of the organization and wished to see an active and
    effective OSCE covering the whole range of its mandate. The
    organization had made a very important contribution to the building
    of democracy in Kosovo and across the region.

    He asked how the Chairman-in-Office saw the OSCE's ability to take on
    new areas of activity while remaining as effective in those areas
    where it had specialized up to the present time. Given the expansion
    of the European Union, how could the OSCE achieve a complementary and
    effective relationship with the European Union?

    Response by OSCE

    Responding to comments and questions, Mr. RUPEL said that, in
    general, the OSCE was strongest at conflict prevention, but also had
    a role in conflict settlement. Obvious destinations of its activities
    included South Ossetia, Transdniestria and Nagorno-Karabakh. As for
    the cooperation between the United Nations and the OSCE, it was less
    a case of what the United Nations could do for the OSCE, and more of
    what the OSCE could do for the United Nations. That had been his
    motive for coming to the United Nations today.

    Effective settlement of conflicts should be attempted first at the
    regional level, without `burdening' the United Nations, he said. The
    OSCE could do more to increase information sharing on early warning,
    followed by early action. Regarding further steps to achieve synergy
    between the OSCE and the United Nations, he said that his
    organization attached great importance to such links. As a regional
    organization, the OSCE contributed substantially to the maintenance
    of peace and security in its area of responsibility, implementing
    United Nations documents and principles. The connection between the
    two organizations was close and continued to strengthen in many
    areas, including the fight against terrorism. He hoped it would be
    reflected in the General Assembly resolution on the cooperation
    between the United Nations and the OSCE, which could not be agreed
    upon at the fifty-ninth session. He was happy with the initiatives to
    deepen such cooperation and noted the recommendation of the Panel on
    Threats, Challenges and Change to deepen contacts with regional
    organizations.

    Turning to the Transdniestrian conflict, he said that it had to be
    addressed in the near future, for it was a dangerous source of
    instability for the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. He hoped that
    recent changes in Ukraine and a new post-election environment in the
    Republic of Moldova would have a positive effect on the situation. It
    was important to convince Tiraspol that the current situation was not
    sustainable. Decentralization and strong self-government would offer
    a chance for Transdniestria to solve many of its problems.

    He agreed with the representative of the Russian Federation regarding
    the issue of balancing the activities of the OSCE. The Slovenian
    Chairmanship believed that the organization needed reform,
    revitalization and rebalancing between the three components of its
    activities: economy and ecology, the human dimension and the military
    aspects. In that regard, he had already proposed some steps,
    including holding conferences and workshops. Among the possibilities,
    were regional conferences on energy security and military doctrines.

    `We should pause and try to see what is in the interest of the
    majority', he said. He hoped the OSCE could resolve its differences
    on contributions, for it should not be conceived as an organization
    that was mainly preoccupied with its own internal problems.

    He also agreed with what had been said on the protection of human
    rights in Kosovo. He had visited the area several times, including
    after the events in March 2004 and several weeks ago. He was
    impressed by the progress he had seen regarding the attitudes of the
    provisional leadership of Kosovo. His interlocutors there realized
    that there was no good solution without taking everybody on board,
    including Serbian and other minorities, as well as international
    community partners. It was important to prevent the events of March
    2004 from being repeated or even attempted. The United Nations was
    doing good work in that regard.

    He had his worries, as everybody else, regarding possible
    consequences of the indictment of the prime minister of the
    Provisional Government in Kosovo, he continued. He hoped that would
    not result in mass protests. It was not in the interest of the people
    of Kosovo to go in that direction. He hoped a tense situation would
    not be used for provocation. The situation in Kosovo should not be
    dramatized. The status quo did not suit anybody in Kosovo, but there
    were some radical elements in the region and criminal structures in
    Kosovo itself that would like to keep it. It was necessary to
    deliberate on the issue carefully. The role of the United Nations was
    key, and a new resolution by the Council would be needed. There were
    plenty of good ideas and concepts around.

    Responding to a question by the United Kingdom representative, he
    said that it was necessary to develop synergies not only between the
    OSCE and the United Nations, but also between the OSCE and the
    European Union. As far as conflict prevention was concerned, there
    were many similar concepts. For instance, in the area of conflict
    prevention, the two organizations could address the situation in
    Georgia, where a border-monitoring project had been stopped for the
    lack of a new mandate. The issue of border guards' training was being
    discussed in Vienna, and the European Union could help with some
    ideas of its own. If the Union could step in that situation, that
    would be of great importance to Georgia, and there would be no
    jealousy as far as the OSCE was concerned.
    From: Baghdasarian
Working...
X