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