Rot Feld


14 pages

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
   Adam Daniel Rotfeld For a New Partnership in the New Century: The Relationship between the OSCE, NATO and the EU  Introduction What is the role of the OSCE in relation to the major security-related organi-zations in Europe? Relations between international organizations are, as a rule, based on both co-operation and competition. This is the case particularly when the mandate and tasks of organizations encompass the same or similar spheres of activity. Co-operation finds its expression in official documents, agreements and declarations, and competition is reflected in day-to-day  praxis, particularly at medium and lower levels. Occasionally it takes the shape of overtly critical positions addressed by one institution to the other; more common, however, is to mutually diminish the role and importance of rival organizations or merely ignore one another. Among the existing multi-lateral institutions and structures in Europe, the OSCE can be singled out by three major elements. First, it is a universal, pan-European organization, embracing all states of Europe, Central Asia (former Soviet republics) and North America. In total, it includes 55 participating States. In that sense, it is the only security-related institution in Europe based on the principle of inclusiveness. Second, all substantial OSCE decisions are adopted by consensus. Third, the OSCE is the most comprehensive security structure in existence: its activity covers virtually all aspects of the international life - political rela-tions, security issues including CSBMs and conventional arms reductions, human rights problems, humanitarian matters, economic issues, protection of the environment, transportation, tourism, people-to-people contacts, informa-tion, culture and education. In the view of numerous commentators, because of these features, the OSCE has a weak image or some would label it a fair-weather organization. This conclusion stems from the argument that strong organizations should not be universal and inclusive. They should not cover too many dimensions and their decisions should not rest on consensus. Therefore, one of the main ar-guments of the opponents of extending NATO and the European Union to the east is that enlargement of both structures would lead to their inevitable po-litical weakening and organizational erosion. Consensus, in turn, would ham-string their strategic decision-making processes, as is the case of the UN Se-curity Council. The starting point of the discussion presented below is an assumption that what is blamed as factors causing the weakness of the OSCE are in fact its strength, quality and importance in the shaping of the European security sys- 377  tem. The OSCE is part of the process initiated 25 years ago with the aim of carrying out peaceful transformation. CSCE/OSCE decisions and activities were an answer to the question: How can the change be managed? Indeed, one can give credit to the Helsinki process for the fact that the complex  problems of domestic system transformation in the states of the former East-ern bloc were managed peacefully and that Central and Eastern Europe was able to release itself from the subjugation to the Soviet Union. The imple-mentation of the right of nations to self-determination and the achievement of independence by the former Soviet republics as well the whole process of armaments reductions in Europe did not slip out of control thanks to the ef-fectiveness of the procedures and mechanisms agreed upon in the 1975 CSCE Final Act and the 1990 Paris Charter for A New Europe. In 1992 in Helsinki, these procedures and mechanisms were addressed with the aim of reassessing their role and adequacy in response to new risks and challenges. 1    New Tasks The decisions of the July 1992 Helsinki Summit Meeting were of crucial im- portance for institutionalizing the CSCE process and mapping out a strategy for mutually reinforcing institutions for security in Europe. In Berlin, the for-eign ministers had encouraged the exchange of information and relevant documents between the CSCE and other main European and transatlantic in-stitutions. 2  In Prague, the list of CSCE relationships with international or-ganizations had been expanded to embrace the Council of Europe, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), NATO, the WEU, the Organiza-tion for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Invest-ment Bank (EIB) and other European and transatlantic organizations which may be agreed upon with the aim of inviting them to make contr i butions to specialized CSCE meetings for which they have relevant expertise. 3 At the Summit Meeting, the leaders of the participating States welcomed the rapid adaptation of European and transatlantic institutions which were in-creasingly working together to face up to the challenges before them and to 1 See more on this in: Adam Daniel Rotfeld, The CSCE: towards a security organization, in: SIPRI Yearbook 1993, Oxford et al. 1993, pp. 171-189. 2 In the Summary of Conclusions of the Berlin Meeting of the CSCE Council in June 1991, the following organizations were mentioned: the EC, the Council of Europe, the ECE,  NATO and the WEU. Cf. Berlin Meeting of the CSCE Council, 19-20 June 1991, in: Arie Bloed (Ed.), The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Analysis and Basic Documents, 1972-1993, Dordrecht/Boston/London 1993, pp. 807-818, here: p. 808. 3 In the Prague Document, the Ministers requested that these organizations inform the CSCE Secretariat annually of their current work programme and of the facilities available for work relevant to the CSCE. See Prague Meeting of the CSCE Council, 30-31 January 1992, in: Bloed (Ed.), cited above (Note 2), pp. 820-839, here: p. 837. 378  provide a solid foundation for peace and prosperity . 4  The Meeting laid down guidelines for CSCE co-operation with individual organizations. The Helsinki Document stated that the European Community, fulfilling its im- portant role in the political and economic development in Europe (…) is closely involved in CSCE activities . NATO, through NACC, has estab-lished patterns of co-operation with new partners in harmony with the proc-ess of the CSCE. It has also offered practical support for the work of the CSCE . 5  The WEU, stated the Helsinki Document, as an integral part of the development of the European Union, is opening itself to additional co-op-eration with new partners and has offered to provide resources in support of the CSCE . 6  A framework of co-operation was also established linking the CSCE with the Council of Europe, the Group of Seven (G7) and the Group of Twenty-Four as well as with the OECD, the ECE and the EBRD. The Helsinki Document also indicated possibilities for such regional and sub-regional organizations as the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Višegrád Triangle, the Black Sea Economic Co-operation, the Central European Initia-tive and the Commonwealth of Independent States to co-operate with and as-sist the CSCE. This list of diverse organizations reflected the excessive bu-reaucratization of multilateral relations among European, North American and Central Asian states; the duplication of the functions and tasks of these institutions and structures gave rise to the threat they would become more competitive and less compatible, more inter-blocking and less interlocking and more likely to weaken than to reinforce one another. Later developments showed that such fears were unfounded. 4 CSCE Helsinki Document 1992: The Challenges of Change, Helsinki, 10 July 1992, in: Bloed (Ed.), cited above (Note 2), pp. 701-710, here: p. 702. 5 Ibid. Proposed by the NATO Rome Summit Meeting on 7-8 November 1991, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was called into being on 20 December 1991 to es-tablish a liaison between the Alliance and the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Its declared goal is consultation and co-operation (but not guarantees) on security and related issues, such as defence planning, conceptual approaches to arms con-trol, democratic concepts of civilian-military relations, civilian-military co-ordination of air traffic management and the conversion of defence production to civilian purposes. Apart from the institutional structure (meetings at foreign minister, ambassadorial and other levels), an informal High-Level Working Group was established to redistribute the TLE ceilings in the CFE Treaty among the CIS states. This contributed to its successful conclusion. On 1 April 1992, the first meeting of NACC defence ministers took place; at this meeting it was agreed that a programme for further co-operation would be imple-mented on such defence-related matters as military strategies, defence management, the legal framework for military forces, harmonization of defence planning and arms control, exercises and training, defence education, reserve forces, environmental protection, air traffic control, search and rescue, military contribution to humanitarian aid and military medicine. As of 31 December 1992 there were 37 NACC member states (16 NATO, five CEE, 15 former Soviet republics plus Albania). The division of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic brought the number of member states to 38 on 1 January 1993. Finland attended the Oslo NACC meeting on 5 June 1992 as an observer. 6 Ibid. See also the Petersberg Declaration (19 June 1992) adopted at the WEU Council of Ministers Meeting. The Petersberg Declaration structures the WEU-Central European states' dialogue, consultations and co-operation with regard to the European security ar-chitecture and stability. See 379  Finally the Heads of State or Government of the participating States declared their understanding that the CSCE is a regional arrangement in the sense of chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations . No enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements without the authorization of the UN Security Council. The Helsinki Document reaffirmed that the rights and responsibilities of the Security Council remain unaffected in their entirety . 7  For the first time an important link was established between the CSCE and the United Nations or, more broadly, between European and global security.  Managing the Change in the New Century In 1999 European security developments were dominated by the NATO in-tervention in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and the war waged by Russian federal forces in Chechnya, part of the Russian Federation. In both cases the OSCE played an essential role in seeking ways of, first, preventing the use of force, and when this failed, settling the conflict situation peace-fully. The decisions adopted in 1999 at the NATO summit in Washington and the EU summits in Cologne and Helsinki are of a special importance for the recognition of the new role of the OSCE in shaping a European security sys-tem. In 1999 the OSCE expanded its operations considerably and strengthened its role as a primary instrument for early warning, conflict prevention, conflict management and post-conflict rehabilitation. New tasks were assumed in Central Asia, the Caucasus and South-eastern Europe. In total, OSCE long-term missions and other forms of field activities encompassed 25 different operations, 8  supplemented by the work of such OSCE institutions as the High 7 Helsinki Document 1992, cited above (Note 4), p. 707. Chapter VIII of the UN Charter deals with regional arrangements (articles 52, 53 and 54). Article 52, para. 2, reads as follows: The members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or consti-tuting such agencies shall value every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council. UN Office of Public Information, Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, New York 1963, p. 28. 8 The OSCE missions and other field activities were developed in different forms and ways: the OSCE Presence in Albania; two Missions to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Croa-tia; Missions of Long Duration in Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina; the Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje (Macedonia); two Missions to Estonia and Latvia; the Advisory and Monitoring Group in Belarus; the Assistance Group to Chechnya (Russia); the Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office on the conflict dealt with by the Minsk Confer-ence (Nagorno-Karabakh); the OSCE Offices in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Missions to Georgia, Moldova and Tajikistan; the OSCE Liaison Office in Central Asia (Uzbekistan); the OSCE Centres in Almaty (Kazakhstan), Ashgabad (Turkmenistan) and Bishkek (Kyr-gyzstan); the OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine; three types of activities in Kosovo - the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), the OSCE Task Force for Kosovo and the OSCE Mission in Kosovo; and two specific activities in Estonia and Latvia - on Mili-tary Pensioners and the Joint Committee on the Skrunda Radar Station. For more detail, see OSCE, Secretary General, Annual Report 1999 on OSCE Activities (1 December 1998-31 October 1999), Vienna, 1999. 380
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!