OSCE, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 36: 1st Committee - Report for the General Committee on Political Affairs and Security.

Last year, Kazakhstan held the Chairmanship of the OSCE. For the first time, the OSCEwas led by a country which was once a part of the former Soviet Union. This in itself wasa major development in the Organization’s history, as was the fact that Kazakhstan hostedthe first OSCE Summit since 1999.Although the Astana Summit opened a window of opportunity for the renewedcommitment to our Organization, its basic problems and challenges remain resistant togood will or true political aims. It would be excellent if a list of these problems could beaccompanied by a list of solutions. That would make a significant difference in the regionwhich aspires to create a security community.The OSCE is the world’s most unique security organization, founded on the platform ofthe Soviet and Western détente in the 1970’s in an environment of growing awareness thatarmed conflict on the European continent would inevitably lead to a highly hazardousglobal conflict.With its unique composition and comprehensive security concept as well as its crisisprevention and management capacities, the OSCE still has great potential and a relevantrole to play in the region from Vancouver to Vladivostok facing new security challenges.Our Organization is well placed as a forum for discussions on a new European SecurityArchitecture or a common security community. The political commitments made in theHelsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris as well as in other CSCE/OSCE documents areof great value, and the fact that participating States reconfirmed these at the AstanaSummit is crucial. Now is the time yet again to deliver at a more practical level and topromote implementation of our decisions.Since the founding of the Organization, the security environment has radically changedand improved. As a unique security organization, the OSCE should continue in a moredecisive manner with the development of the concept of comprehensive security that canbe reached exclusively through dialogue and cooperation among the participating States,and not through hegemony or through a balance of power.It is evident already that the uneven pace of inclusion and disparities in economic growthand democratic development has led to the emergence of new problems in achievingcomprehensive security. The OSCE’s goal is to prevent the emergence of new dividinglines and to promote concepts which bring the nations and countries together.The OSCE’s definition of security is broader than the political and military aspects,because the Organization believes that potential causes of instability and insecurity lie alsoin the disruption of interethnic, economic and ecological relations.An organization has to confirm its identity through initiating and bonding the activitiesagainst the new multidimensional threats to security, not only to European security, but to

the security of a significantly broadened, transcontinental union of 56 States and theneighbouring areas.The recent financial crisis has confirmed the interdependence of all parts of the world.Although it is not correct to say that there are no local or regional crises any more, thesecrises are having an increasing impact on the global situation. The crises are less and lessconnected to isolated incidents, but are more symptomatic of the weaknesses of the globalsystem. Security today is more important because of its social, economic, energy andecological dimension. For example, in the past three years, unrest caused by food scarcityhas broken out in more than 60 countries. The United Nations estimates that the worldpopulation could grow from today’s seven to over nine billion by 2050. This couldincrease today’s level of demand for food production by 70 per cent.Global food prices continue to rise. The World Bank’s food price index increased by 15per cent between October 2010 and January 2011, and is only 3 per cent below its 2008peak. As a result of price increases since June 2010, estimates show that there is a netincrease in extreme poverty of about 44 million people in low- and middle-incomecountries.In many countries, the global price increase on wheat has been transferred to domesticwheat-related products. For instance, between June 2010 and December 2010, the price ofwheat increased by large amounts in Kyrgyzstan (54 per cent), Tajikistan (37 per cent),Azerbaijan (24 per cent) and Afghanistan (19 per cent).All these forecasts should motivate us for joint action, as their consequences certainlywould not spare our area.The OSCE needs a new strategic approach (that will not be limited to conflict preventionor mediation in conflicts, but) which will also assist participating States in living togetherin a world with an understanding that having stable, democratic neighbors helps security.The goal should be to create a multilateral and not multipolar space from Vancouver toVladivostok.After the end of the current economic crisis, the international order will be much morefragmented with greater potential for conflict. The OSCE must develop its response to thissituation: in Astana the participating States have committed themselves to work for thecreation of a security community, free of dividing lines and threat of force. This goal iscertainly shared by all, but it must be created by ideas and substance. The state of play inthe context of the evolving Euro-Asian security landscape confirms both the limits to andabsolute need for the OSCE.But unlike some other security organizations, the OSCE does not have armed forces ormeans of its own to directly pursue peace. For the most part, the OSCE uses preventivediplomacy. This includes arms control, building trust and confidence between countries,monitoring the state of human rights, observing, organizing and conducting elections, aswell as monitoring economic and ecological relations.Many would say that the OSCE is in a crisis: In transitioning from a conference to anorganization, the OSCE has struggled to find its place in the context of other internationalorganizations such as NATO, Council of Europe and the UN. In addition to this, the

Organization has been unable to reach consensus on important decisions, which hasseriously hampered its ability to take action on important matters particularly on conflictresolution. The failure to extend the mandate of the OSCE Missions in Georgia in 2008-2009 and now most recently in Belarus, due to the use of the one-country veto, is one ofthe recent proofs of this problem. In addition, the late adoption of a decision to introducea civil police mechanism in Kyrgyzstan is proof that improvements and reforms are stillneeded.The suspension of the implementation of the CFE Treaty, the unresolved protractedconflicts and 2008 war in Georgia are some examples and a reminder of the challengesthat the OSCE has to deal with within its security dimension. So are new threats liketerrorism, threats of ecological disasters and insecure border areas, such as those withAfghanistan. Each of these issues is problematic on its own, but the inter-linkage betweenthem complicates matters enormously and affects the overall ability of our Organization toact.To be more precise the crisis of the OSCE is first and foremost political. It is clear thatstructural reforms will not solve the main political problems that only participating Statescan address. The Organization’s capacity is only as strong as the collective political will ofits 56 participating States. However, structural reforms could help promote willingnessand overcome stalemates where they are most needed.The informal discussions in the so-called Corfu Process served the OSCE well, and manyvery good ideas were presented. It is important to continue this dialogue under the directpolitical leadership of the actual Chairmanship with the assistance of the Secretariat andpolitical backing of the Troika. Lithuania deserves our support and appreciation for thework it is launching until the Vilnius Ministerial Conference. The OSCE made politicalprogress; it is now important to keep the momentum going and not close this window ofopportunity without fully benefitting from it.Dialogue should continue in the following areas:The OSCE needs to strengthen its activities in the field of security; however, this cannotbe done at the expense of the human dimension or to the detriment of basic OSCE valuesand principles. Human rights need to be like the force of gravity; they have to be validuniversally in every corner of the globe.The comprehensive security concept is the main strength of the OSCE, and it should makebetter use of this. The OSCE could benefit from offering to share its values andexperience beyond the OSCE area to neighbouring areas that influence security in theOSCE area. Security in the OSCE area is indivisibly linked to the stability and security ofthe neighbouring regions: Afghanistan, Middle East, and South Mediterranean. The OSCEshould remain prepared to consider invitations to contribute as appropriate to thedevelopment of security and democracy, particularly in Partners for Co-operation andneighboring States, and in special case outside the OSCE area. The recent expression ofinterest by Tunisia and Egypt is an encouraging sign. This should be done whilereinforcing the OSCE’s strategic cooperation with the EU, NATO, and the UN.Besides the OSCE there are many other international organizations dealing with globalcooperation, and they often duplicate each other's work. It would be productive to examine

how to eliminate overlap, and enhance co-ordination, because duplication often createsconfusion, delay and enormous waste.The security dimension should be expanded by further elaborating the Code of Conduct onPolitico-Military Aspects of Security, increasing the role of the Forum for Security Co-operation and updating the Vienna Document.Although the CFE Treaty negotiations take place outside of the OSCE, arms control issuesremain vital for the Organization. A new impetus is needed in the ongoing negotiations ona framework for future negotiations in order to strengthen and modernize the conventionalarms control regime in Europe.The OSCE can claim a lead role in addressing issues within the four phases of the 'conflictcycle': early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflictrehabilitation. In this field, all political efforts should be made within the OSCE to settlethe unresolved conflicts in Nagorno Karabakh, as well as in Moldova and Georgia. Theleaders of the countries directly involved in these conflicts have a special responsibility inthe respective peace processes, but they clearly need continuous support and assistancefrom the international community; the OSCE is the place for this. The OSCE PA also hasa role to play through Working Groups and Special Representatives in keeping theseconflicts high on the agenda, fostering dialogue and their resolution. Each of theprotracted conflicts deserves our full engagement, but especially worrying are increasedtensions around the Nagorno Karabakh.With regard to the structural questions within the OSCE:The role of the OSCE Secretary General should be strengthened. The Secretary Generalshould be able to speak for the Organization and to make policy pronouncements, as wellas appropriate criticisms when OSCE commitments are not observed. In this respect, apolitical figure would be best suited for the post of Secretary General.The OSCE should improve its rapid reaction capability to be able to live up to its mandatein situations, like the recent crisis in Kyrgyzstan.The OSCE should improve its ability to make timely decisions through adjusting itsdecision-making procedure. The consensus rules need to be modified at least for decisionsrelated to personnel, budget and administration.The budget must be adopted in a timely fashion every year, and in addition, a multi-yearfinancial plan would help the OSCE pursue longer term strategies.Transparency and accountability can be improved by requiring that a country whichblocks or holds up consensus must do so openly and be prepared to defend their positionpublicly.The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should play a more active role and be better utilizedby the governmental branch. Our mutual relations and co-operation should be reinforcedin a period ahead of us, benefiting also from new appointments in key positions of theSecretariat.

REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON

POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND SECURITY

Rapporteur: Mr. Tonino Picula (Croatia)