Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Is the OSCE Really Necessary?"

February 10, 2011 | 2 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

Is the OSCE Really Necessary?

Andrey Konstantinovich Nikitin: The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe incorporates 56 different countries in the Northern Hemisphere from “Vancouver to Vladivostok” and seeks to foster democracy, human rights and end conflicts in this region. But is it really necessary?

Results of the OSCE Summit in Astana have again prompted discussion in Russia about the necessity of the organization. The outlook is pessimistic considering the fact that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov left the Summit, without waiting for it to end.

The approach by the Russian political elite to the OSCE is a mistake, as they consider the organization mainly from the point of view of strengthening Russia's geopolitical influence in the post-Soviet area. Thus, the role of OSCE and potential of this organization as an important factor of stability, distribution of European values and standards and control over migration must not be underestimated. In present conditions, the OSCE has an effective role to play in questions of maintenance of human rights and progress in democracy.

It is especially important that other member countries of the OSCE attach value to the organization, including the former republics of the USSR. The OSCE of today has 56 member States and is a new reality which is to be respected. It also seems to be developing in the direction of another Eurasian organization which it could have something in common with – the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

At the same time, problems with the OSCE in my opinion are derivative of an international security system at global and regional levels which retains its archaic character from the Cold War era. It doesn't reflect well on our present stage of civilizational development, including the epoch of globalization and its associated new forms of threats and opportunities.

The same problems in the OSCE, including a lack of coordination, are evident in the United Nations and European Union too.

The improvement of the global and regional security system is tied up in the destiny of the OSCE, but it depends profoundly on the ability of the States who signed the original Helsinki Act in 1975 to achieve political and military consensus. For today, the greatest consensus required is between the USA, NATO, the EU and Russia. Deficiency in this respect manifested itself in the Astana summit.

It is obvious that any improvement in the situation will occur extremely slowly. It is already well known that Russian President Medvedev has proposed great changes to the European security architecture. At the same time, the Western partners are suggesting that the existing system be improved. What needs to be done in this case seems to be not a change in direction, but moving forward and leaving historical baggage behind.

Unfortunately, the temptation is great to search for approaches to difficult new problems using the means of diplomacy and policy from 20th century. It complicated and complicates the search for an exit from crisis situations which have developed in places such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Kosovo.

The unique opportunities which have been opened by a globalized world should not be squandered by failing to learn from mistakes of the past.

Dr. Nikitin is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Read related material from atlantic-community.org members:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

February 10, 2011

Michael Schuster, University of Vienna, Silver Contributor (69)

I like this comment! What's this?

In theory, the OSCE is great and much needed for enhancing mutual understanding and building confidence across greater Europe, especially since the EU and NATO are not inclusive of all Eastern European countries.

Whatever hard feelings NATO and EU enlargement have caused, could me limited by a functioning OSCE.

Reality, however, is different. Unfortunately.

Still, the OSCE is envied by all those people concerned with current troubles in North Africa.

If North Africa and Europe were connected in something similar, the West would be less afraid regarding political developments. Prof Goldgeier in The New Republic: "The West has not promoted a Helsinki-type process in the Middle East that might have built ties with opposition forces, nor fostered a broader regional security framework that could promote peace."
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/83093/Egypt-democracy-Mubarak-p...

February 12, 2011

Aigerim Shilibekova, Academia, Silver Contributor (45)

I like this comment! What's this?

Problems highlighted in the article reveal the acute need for efficient security management on transregional level.
Indeed, all states in Eurasia of the post-Cold War period were challenged by a number of threats to their security and stability, and it revealed commonality of concerns and challenges.
However, such commonality would be still insufficient for development of a common vision of Eurasian security in the new decade of the 21st century. In my view, these concerns can be addressed through cooperative means and views supported by ALL members, which could pave the path to establishing grounds for the future Eurasian security architecture. Probably it is time to develop OSCE into Organization for Security and Cooperation in Eurasia?!