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.