Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What future for the OSCE?

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

  • What future for the OSCE?

    EurasiaNet, NY
    Feb 14 2008


    WHAT FUTURE FOR THE OSCE?
    Jean-Christophe Peuch 2/14/08


    Finland's Foreign minister Ilkka Kanerva, who took the helm of the
    Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on January
    1, believes the time has come to build what he calls "a new spirit of
    Helsinki."

    "We cannot afford to let this organization, with its more than 30
    years of history, fade away," Kanerva told reporters in Vienna in
    January, shortly after briefing the OSCE's Permanent Council on the
    priorities of his 12 month-chairmanship.

    In other words, the world's largest regional security organization
    must reverse to the fundamental principles of the Helsinki Final Act,
    which, at the height of the Cold War, gave birth to the Conference on
    Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

    For nearly 15 years, the CSCE served as an important multilateral
    forum for dialog and cooperation between East and West during the
    last years of the Cold War. When it became the OSCE three years after
    the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were widespread expectations
    that the European continent would soon become "whole and free."

    Yet, this dream never came true and a number of OSCE participating
    states are still ruled by authoritarian or semi-authoritarian
    regimes. In addition, old divisions are now re-emerging, raising the
    specter of renewed confrontation between the former Cold War enemies
    and threatening the very foundations of the OSCE.

    Mounting disagreements among the organization's 56 participating
    states have made it impossible for OSCE annual ministerial councils
    to adopt final declarations since 2002. Last year saw those
    divergences further deepen and, despite a last-minute agreement to
    give Kazakhstan the chairmanship of the organization in 2010, all
    other divisive issues remain.

    In Kanerva's view, what the OSCE needs most at the moment is "a new
    injection of optimism and positive spirit."

    Indeed, one would hardly find reasons to be optimistic in the working
    paper the Hamburg-based Center for OSCE Research (CORE) released in
    mid-January.

    Called "Identifying the Cutting Edge: The Future Impact of the OSCE,"
    this report -- which was commissioned by the Finnish Foreign Ministry
    in anticipation of its upcoming chairmanship -- says the organization
    is experiencing "a crisis of both political substance and moral
    legitimacy" that may take years to rectify.

    "The best that can be hoped for the OSCE in 2008 is that the damage
    resulting from current and forthcoming disputes will be minimized,
    while, at the same time, conditions for a more ambitious effort to
    reframe the basic consensus among the participating states are
    fostered," the report says.

    In the view of European, American and Russian experts who helped
    draft this 38-page document, the OSCE's core values -- common and
    cooperative security, shared norms and commitments, and inclusive
    dialog -- are "in acute danger."

    "When key norms such as cooperative security and democracy and human
    rights are ignored or challenged, the OSCE's legitimacy is in
    danger," those experts say.

    Among factors that are undermining the organization is what the
    report identifies as "the re-emergence of a political East and West"
    and "the resurgence of unilateral military thinking" in both the
    United States and Russia.

    Citing the potential danger posed by Iran and other so-called rogue
    states suspected of seeking to develop nuclear arsenals, the United
    States has been pressing plans to deploy missile-defense systems in
    Poland and the Czech Republic. In parallel, it is considering
    establishing military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, while mulling
    further eastward expansion by NATO.

    Russia, which believes those US initiatives represent a threat to its
    security and a violation of international disarmament pacts, in
    December suspended its participation to the 1990 Conventional Forces
    in Europe (CFE) Treaty. OSCE officials are now concerned other CFE
    states -- Armenia and Azerbaijan, in particular -- might follow suit
    and in turn freeze their treaty commitments. [For background see the
    Eurasia Insight archive].

    In recent days, Russian leader Vladimir Putin indulged in some
    neo-Cold War behavior, threatening to aim Russian nuclear-armed
    missiles at Ukraine and other Central European nations if they
    embrace NATO too tightly. Appearing at a US Congressional hearing, US
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Putin's rhetoric
    "reprehensible."

    In his recent address to the OSCE's Permanent Council, Kanerva vowed
    to help Russia and other CFE states resolve their differences through
    dialog in order to save what is commonly described as the cornerstone
    of European security. "The future of the [CFE] Treaty should be
    secured. An erosion of the Treaty regime should be avoided at all
    costs," he told reporters afterwards.

    The OSCE's politico-military dimension is not the only one that is
    being challenged. Its so-called human dimension is also under serious
    pressure.

    Moscow has been increasingly critical of the work of the OSCE's
    Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), which it
    accuses of political bias and holds responsible for ushering in new,
    Western-oriented governments in Georgia and Ukraine in the wake of
    disputed elections held in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

    ODIHR is an autonomous institution that reports directly to the
    OSCE's chairman-in-office. Russia and another six CIS countries last
    year drafted a series of proposals which seek to bring ODIHR under
    the control of participating states and reduce both the scope and
    size of its election-observation missions in former Soviet republics.


    The United States and Western European countries object to the
    proposed Russian-sponsored reform, saying it aims to weaken the
    OSCE's election-monitoring activities.

    The dispute culminated when ODIHR, citing delays in the issuing of
    Russian entry visas to its observers, refused to monitor the December
    2007 State Duma election. This, in turn, prompted the Kremlin to
    threaten to further cut its contribution to the OSCE budget. In yet
    another dramatic twist, ODIHR last week said restrictions imposed by
    the Kremlin would not allow it to observe the March 2 presidential
    ballot.

    At his annual news conference February 14, Putin had derisive words
    for ODIHR. "I don't think anyone is tempted to deliver any ultimatums
    to Russia today, especially an organization with an acronym sounding
    so bad to the Russian ear as ODIHR," Putin said.

    "We invited 100 people [OSCE monitors]... [They think] it's too few for
    them," Putin continued, referring to the March election
    monitor-dispute. In a departure from the infamous saying often
    attributed to Marie Antionette -- "Let them eat cake" -- Putin told
    ODIHR that instead of offering lessons in democratization, it should
    "teach [their] wives how to make shchi [the Russian word for barley
    soup]."

    The ODIHR controversy is just the tip of the iceberg. It stems from
    much deeper divergences among participating states about what the
    organization's agenda should be. Reconciling those conflicting
    visions is perhaps the greatest challenge that is awaiting Finland
    and its designated successors -- Greece, Kazakhstan, and Lithuania --
    in the years to come.

    While accusing the OSCE of neglecting arms control issues, Russia
    claims the United States and other Western countries are using the
    organization as a vehicle to promote their own pro-democracy agenda.
    Washington, in turn, believes issues related to Europe's security
    should be dealt with in forums where Russia has no say -- such as
    NATO -- and that the OSCE should focus more on the promotion of human
    rights and democracy.

    "For a number of Western states, the OSCE is primarily a human
    dimension organization that is expected to be active primarily South
    and East of Vienna, whereas arms control is seen as peripheral at
    best and dangerous at worst," the CORE report says. It adds: "The
    test for Western states, particularly for the [United States], will
    be whether their interest in the human dimension and ODIHR is greater
    than their current distaste for multilateral arms control."

    The CORE experts believe Moscow's intentions remain similarly
    ambiguous. "Does Russia's renewed interest in [the] field [of arms
    control] reflect genuine concerns? Or does it rather represent an
    effort to introduce a political currency more to Russia's liking than
    the human dimension? Or is it even an effort to divert attention from
    attempts to weaken ODIHR?" they ask.

    They further argue that only serious consultations among
    participating states can help answer those questions and find a "new
    basic consensus" on the substance of the OSCE's politico-military and
    human dimensions.

    They also recommend that, for the sake of preserving the unity of the
    OSCE "as a community of shared values, norms, and commitments,"
    high-level discussions be held within the organization on the meaning
    and different forms of democracy. This, they say, will help "keep the
    democratic option open for all participating states."

    While acknowledging that such an undertaking involves considerable
    political risks, the CORE experts argue that failure to address those
    issues "might involve even greater risks" for the OSCE.


    Editor's Note: Jean-Christophe Peuch is a Vienna-based freelance
    correspondent, who specializes in Caucasus- and Central Asia-related
    developments.
Working...
X