OSCEs parlamentariske Forsamling 2010-11 (1. samling)
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 41
Offentligt
AS (11) RP 2 EOriginal: RUSSIAN
REPORTFOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTStrengthening the OSCE’s Effectiveness and Efficiency –A New Start After the Astana SummitRAPPORTEURMr. Sergiy ShevchukUkraine
BELGRADE, 6–10 JULY 2011
REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Rapporteur: Mr. Sergiy Shevchuk (Ukraine)
I. Outcome of the 2010 OSCE Summit
The Astana Summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, held on 1and 2 December 2010, was a unique event.According to Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan, the country which chaired theOSCE in 2010, the initiative to convene the OSCE Summit in Astana was based on a numberof considerations.First was the deep conviction that, in the twenty-first century, the OSCE can and must use allof its prior experience to build an ambitious new security system spanning the entire Eurasiancontinent, in the area laved by four oceans – from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from theArctic to the Indian Ocean.Second, it was important to pull the OSCE out of a critical situation. Although it hadmanaged to freeze the local conflicts in its area of responsibility – the Balkans,Transdniestria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia – the Organization hadsimply been unable to find a way to resolve those conflicts fairly. OSCE participating Stateshad developed different approaches to understanding the fundamental issues related to themilitary, humanitarian and economic dimensions of security.Third, it was necessary to restore the value and effectiveness of direct dialogue among theleaders of OSCE countries. In some participating States, a whole generation of politicalleaders had already been replaced without ever having met one another on the margins ofOSCE summits.Such were the arguments in favour of convening the summit, and this line of reasoningreceived support. At the Istanbul Summit in 1999, the OSCE essentially stopped at the opendoor to the twenty-first century. But only in Astana could it cross that threshold.The Astana Summit, attended by 73 official delegations from all participating States andpartners, as well as key international organizations, demonstrated their readiness to furtherthe dialogue about changes in the largest international security structure.For the OSCE, the road from Istanbul to Astana took 11 years. For this reason, the value ofthe OSCE’s Astana Commemorative Declaration, “Towards a Security Community”, isindisputable.The Declaration confirms the relevance of the principles on which the Organization wasbased, and the adherence of all 56 participating States to OSCE norms and commitments,starting from the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, the Charter for European Security,and other documents.
1
The Astana Declaration notes in particular that the security of the OSCE area is inextricablylinked to that of adjacent areas, notably in the Mediterranean and in Asia.The Declaration sets the goal of establishing a common and indivisible Euro-Atlantic andEurasian security community as the primary objective for the OSCE in the new century.All ideas for strengthening OSCE mechanisms should certainly be viewed as a collectivecontribution to the process of rethinking the Organization’s role in consolidating globalsecurity. One must agree with the position voiced at the Astana Summit by United StatesSecretary of State Hillary Clinton, that today, “[t]here is no other regional organization aswell positioned [as the OSCE] to do so”, especially when it is a question of strengthening theOSCE’s capacity to respond effectively to emerging threats and challenges, and to preventand resolve grave conflicts throughout its area of responsibility.With regard to the economic and environmental dimension, new initiatives took shape at theSummit. In particular, there was a proposal to single out the issues of financial and economicsecurity as a separate basket of the OSCE. Today, the world’s most promising areas ofeconomic growth are to be found in the OSCE area and in Eurasia as a whole. For this reason,it is important to look for ways to establish co-operation among them on the basis ofconfidence and effective security systems.The OSCE has the potential to participate in the development of guidelines for co-ordinatedmonetary and financial policies, and in co-operation and integration in the Euro-Atlantic andEurasian area. The proposals to supplement the OSCE’s structure with councils on energysecurity and economic co-operation, and to establish a council of ministers of OSCEcountries to co-ordinate the fight against cross-border crime, drug trafficking and illegalmigration, are worthy of attention.The Kazakh Chairmanship drew the partners’ attention to a number of questions relating toenvironmental security. In particular, a donors’ conference on the Aral Sea was held, atwhich the idea was put forward of adopting, in the OSCE format, a “Water and Rights”programme as an international legal framework for resolving water issues in a region affectedby shortages.The OSCE partners’ attention was also drawn, in particular, to the need to consolidate thesearch for ways to overcome the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis.The Chairmanship proposed that work be carried out with regard to implementing theOSCE’s Maastricht Strategy and adapting it to a post-crisis environment.The Astana Summit was the first ever held beyond the geographical borders of Europe, inCentral Asia, which had avoided the fate of becoming an area with downsized securitymechanisms.The experience of Kazakhstan, which led the OSCE in 2010, is being seamlessly developedby Lithuania, which holds the Chairmanship this year. This process will be continued byIreland in 2012 and by Ukraine in 2013.
2
II. The OSCE’s Activities in the Economic and Environmental Field
Co-operation among OSCE countries in the economic and environmental field is part of the“second basket”. It is clear that the full realization of the OSCE’s potential, not only in thesecurity field, but also in the economic and environmental dimension, would enable it torespond more effectively to new global and European security challenges.Previously, the OSCE’s economic component developed slowly, owing both to the prioritygiven to integrating the European countries within the framework of their own bloc alliances,and to the absence of general incentives for integration, as well as, in a wider sense, specifictopics of discussion. Another factor was the political confrontation during the Cold War,which frequently led to economic blockades and sanctions. Nevertheless, the “second basket”was supported both as a channel for dialogue, and as one of the three thematic tracks of theHelsinki Process.Nowadays, the phrase “security through co-operation”, which defines the essence of theconcept of co-operative security, also reflects the role and significance of economic andenvironmental co-operation within the OSCE’s comprehensive approach to ensuring peaceand stability in its region.The tendency in recent years as regards the OSCE’s work shows a declining interest on thepart of the Western participants in the politico-military aspects of the Organization’sactivities.With regard to humanitarian issues, the OSCE has increasingly become a body whichmonitors the human rights situation in the countries of the Commonwealth of IndependentStates. In these circumstances, the economic and environmental area (the “second basket”)now appears to a number of OSCE participating States as being probably the only promisingone, from the standpoint of their long-term interests. This being the case, attention toenvironmental matters is growing markedly.As everyone knows, in December 2003, the OSCE Ministerial Council adopted the OSCEStrategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimension. This basic document isthe foundation for the activities of participating States and for co-ordinating the OSCE’sefforts with those of other international organizations. The advisability of preparingsupplements to it, or even a new document – “Maastricht Plus” – was discussed in Astana.What might the “novel features” of what previously seemed to be an impeccable strategyconsist of?Energy Co-operation
In the last few years, the energy dialogue has played a key role in the OSCE’s economic andenvironmental dimension.Despite the existence of a number of Ministerial Council decisions on energy security, inparticular the Brussels Ministerial Council decision on the “Energy security dialogue in theOSCE” and the Madrid Ministerial Council decision on “Protecting critical energyinfrastructure from terrorist attack”, the OSCE has not decided up to now on its place androle in international co-operation in the field of energy security. In order to resolve this issue,3
the ministers for foreign affairs of the OSCE participating States, in their December 2009decision on “Strengthening dialogue and co-operation on energy security in the OSCE area”(adopted at the Athens Ministerial Council meeting), tasked the OSCE Secretary General toexplore a possible role for the OSCE in international co-operation in the field of energysecurity. The corresponding report of the Secretary General was presented during the ReviewConference preceding the Astana Summit, in October 2010.The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is justified in expecting rapid approval of the OSCEAction Plan on the outcome of the Astana Summit.The issue of energy security has also been examined repeatedly in the course of the informalCorfu Process. In the context of Corfu Process meetings devoted to the economic andenvironmental dimension, a number of delegations have voiced their ideas on the deepeningof energy co-operation in the OSCE region. Among the proposals which deserve specialattention, mention should be made of last year’s initiative by the delegation of Slovakia,joined by Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg,Poland, Slovenia and the United States of America, concerning the creation of an OSCE earlywarning mechanism for energy crises. We should also carefully consider the Russianinitiative for the conclusion of a convention on ensuring international energy security, a draftof which was presented by the delegation of the Russian Federation to the OSCE inDecember 2010.The issue of the growing energy interdependence among producer, consumer and transitcountries must be resolved through dialogue in a spirit of co-operation, so that these countriescan benefit fully from such interdependence and contribute further to the strengthening ofglobal energy security, while duly taking into account the interests of all parties concerned.Following the so-called “gas crisis” in early 2009, due attention was given to transitcountries. According to Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, none ofthe other regions in the European Union’s neighbourhood faces a more complex set ofsensitive challenges, but at the same time, more auspicious prospects, than the six countriesof the “Eastern Partnership” – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.To put it simply, it is impossible to imagine Europe’s energy security, both in terms of thereliable functioning of the transit network and of the potential diversification of energysources, without the involvement of the Eastern partners.The large-scale use of renewable energy sources could make a significant contribution toensuring long-term energy conservation without a negative climate impact. At the same time,the OSCE’s efforts to inform the public about the challenges in the field of energy security, toprovide a space for dialogue on that subject and to fill it with constructive content, and todevelop regional and global co-operation in the field of energy security, are insufficient.It is generally recognized that vital energy infrastructure, including nuclear power plants,hydroelectric dams, oil and gas extraction and refining companies, electricity transmissionlines, pipelines and infrastructure, and energy and hazardous waste storage facilities, can bevulnerable.
4
For this reason, the OSCE Action Plan must contain answers to the grave concern in the lightof the growing risk of man-made and natural disasters or terrorist attacks against vitalinfrastructure, which in the event of damage to the infrastructure or its destruction will have amajor impact on people’s health and well-being.This question remains relevant today because the Lithuanian delegation has included itamong the priority tasks of its Chairmanship programme. This year’s OSCE Economic andEnvironmental Forum will deal with energy problems in addition to the subject of transportdevelopment.Environmental Protection
At the meeting of the General Committee on Economic Affairs, Science, Technology andEnvironment held in Vienna this February, it was noted that 2010 had set a sorry record asregards the number and scale of natural disasters. According to figures provided by theUnited Nations, the forces of nature claim more lives each year despite the development ofearly warning technologies. In 2004 some 250,000 people fell victim to natural disasters. Thisis three times as many as in 2003 and almost ten times higher than the figures for 2002.According to the European Union Commissioner for International Co-operation,Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, Kristalina Georgieva, last year natural disastersclaimed more than 300,000 human lives. The damage to the economy totalled 180 billioneuros, compared to 70 to 80 billion euros in the previous years. On average, around200 people died each day as a result of natural disasters. The natural disasters that occurred inthe OSCE region in 2010 were notable for their gigantic scale and the long-termconsequences, which will take many years to overcome. For example, one might recall thefloods in Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, the Czech Republic and other European countries or theforest fires in Russia.According to experts from the International Civil Aviation Organization, during the volcaniceruption in Iceland airline companies suffered losses totalling 250 million United Statesdollars each day.That was 2010. The year 2011, however, began with even more alarming news – massiveflooding in Australia, as a result of which territory greater than the size of France andGermany combined was flooded. The damage is estimated at around 6 billion United Statesdollars.The earthquake and tsunami in Japan claimed more than 20,000 lives and resulted in atechnological disaster at a nuclear power plant.The OSCE Action Plan expected on the basis of the outcome of the Astana Summit cannot ofcourse offer any absolute conclusions regarding the reliability of the operation of nuclearreactors or the future prospects for atomic energy. There would, however, certainly bejustification for specifying the requirements for the monitoring of existing nuclear powerplants and, above all, common approaches as regards security measures and the response ofOSCE participating States to incidents at nuclear power plants, particularly in view of themassive protests and concern on the part of the civilian population in many countries.This is especially true since the OSCE already has considerable experience of co-operationwithin the framework of the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC).5
The Migration Problem
The political events in the North African countries this spring have evoked the possibility ofthe eruption of a “migration volcano”. At the Winter Meeting of the OSCE ParliamentaryAssembly in Vienna, a number of rapporteurs mentioned the figure of 1.5 million refugees,most of whom are potential immigrants to European countries.The migration question is one of the main priorities of the Office of the Co-ordinator ofOSCE Economic and Environmental Activities. Under the Slovenian Chairmanship, whichactively focused on this question, the OSCE Ministerial Council adopted a decision in 2005on migration, which laid the foundations for the subsequent development of co-operation onmigration problems within the OSCE.In 2006, the foreign ministers of the OSCE participating States confirmed the relevance ofthis question during their meeting in Brussels in a Ministerial Statement on Migration.A fresh impetus to co-operation on migration issues within the OSCE was given by the GreekChairmanship, under whose auspices the OSCE Forum on the theme “Migration managementand its linkages with economic, social and environmental policies” was held in 2009. As aresult of that forum, the Athens Ministerial Council decision on “Migration management”was adopted in 2009.Together with the delegation of Slovenia, the Greek Chairmanship actively promoted thetopic of migration within the Corfu Process as well. For example, an idea was put forwardregarding the establishment of a network of migration experts within the OSCE. The purposeof this network was to be the exchange of experience among participating States on questionsconcerning the legislative basis, the integration of migrants, the question of savings andtransfers, border control, the examination of current international trends in the sphere ofmigration, and the like.The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly also paid considerable attention to these problems in theKyiv Declaration of 2007 and the Vilnius Declaration of 2009. In 2008, the OSCEParliamentary Assembly adopted a separate resolution in Astana on “Recognizing theeconomic, cultural, political and social contributions of migrants”.In due course, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance encouraged newcountries – the “newcomers” in the Council of Europe – to sign and ratify three conventions:the European Convention on Nationality, the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners inPublic Life at the Local Level and the European Convention on the Legal Status of MigrantWorkers. However, these conventions have not been approved by some countries in transitionor by some EU countries. Specifically, the European Convention on Nationality has beenratified by only 20 States, the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workershas been signed by only 4 States and ratified by 11 States, and the Convention on theParticipation of Foreigners in Public Life at the Local Level has been even less popular – ithas been ratified by eight States and in five cases it has not been signed after ratification.There are many reasons for this, including the fact that the breadth and universality of theseconventions conflicts with the desire of States to preserve unrestricted freedom of action onmigration issues.6
During repeated discussions of these issues within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly,however, the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians came out firmly in favour ofestablishing acceptable mechanisms for the legal regulation of migration processes.Otherwise, a failure to act on the part of politicians would merely create a breeding groundfor transnational criminal activities in the area of illegal migration, for excessive profits forpeople smugglers and, in the worst cases, for the slave trade and years of bondage for migrantworkers or asocial behaviour of members of their families from generation to generation.Security in Cyberspace
In November 2010, a group of government experts from the United Nations managed toagree on a report on the evaluation of the threats to information security and the developmentof the situation in cyberspace, which was signed by 15 countries, including the United Statesof America and the Russian Federation. The document recognizes the existence of a generalthreat.The paralysis of control systems, massive blackouts, chaos in air traffic control and groundtransport systems, disruptions to the work of banks and stock exchanges, Internet failure andbreakdown of mobile communications – this is what the cyber weapons scenario looks likeaccording to those who believe that inter-State confrontation in cyberspace is inevitable.We are witnessing the development of cyber tactics, equipment and technologies. They arebeing researched, designed and employed by both developed and developing countries. Inthis situation it would be foolish not to act, not to protect critical infrastructure, facilities andnetworks, not to inform the public, and so on.In the 20 seconds that it takes to read the previous paragraphs, around the world 680,000search requests will be made and 8 million emails will be sent. There will be 140,000 statusupdates among the half a billion users of the Facebook social networking site, while thecomputer network of the Automated Clearing House linking all American financialinstitutions will process 12,000 electronic payments.The possibilities of the Internet for the instantaneous transfer of information regardless ofinternational borders offer enormous advantages when they are used for legal purposes. If,however, a criminal is at the other end of the line, these opportunities turn into an area ofvulnerability. The danger is many times greater if the computer networks of militaryauthorities are involved.In today’s world, personal data theft is the most widespread and most rapidly growing formof commercial fraud. The modern methods used to obtain personal data via the Internet canbe divided into three principal categories: a) tricking the Internet user into disclosing his orher personal information; b) malicious programs; c) using programs installed without theuser’s knowledge to enable access to computer systems. One of the major advantages of theInternet from the criminal’s point of view is that on the World Wide Web completely randompeople who are in no way connected may act as buyers and sellers of personal data.Restrictions as regards the number of cyber weapons and tactical prohibitions would be alogical step. In the first instance, it is a matter of safeguarding international banking systems.
7
The world needs a treaty that can prevent a total cyber war, the Secretary-General of theInternational Telecommunication Union, Hamadoun Touré, said at the World EconomicForum during the discussion of the question whether a cyber attack could be considered to bea declaration of war.However, negotiations on the conclusion of such a treaty are progressing extremely slowly.Even the initiators of this new treaty are not ready for transborder control and the monitoringof violations in cyberspace. And the arms race in cyberspace is gaining ever more speed.The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has examined the question of cyber security on severaloccasions. This topic was considered most extensively in the Oslo Declaration of the OSCEParliamentary Assembly (2010) in connection with transnational organized crime.However, both State structures and private companies and natural persons need co-ordinatedand organized measures of protection. The task of the OSCE is first and foremost to avert thethreats and new challenges of the twenty-first century.
III. Conclusion
At the present time, five key challenges determine the geopolitical strategy:1.2.3.4.5.Increase in militant extremism;Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;“Frozen” conflicts and warring countries;A fundamental imbalance of power, brought about by the appearance of newpowerful economic and military players in the world;Growing tension as a result of the struggle for natural resources, water andfertile lands, which has been caused, among other things, by climate change.
At least two of these challenges are directly linked to the economic and environmentaldimension of the OSCE. Aggravating factors include the consequences of the financial andeconomic crisis, the appearance of potentially dangerous dual-purpose or environmentallyhazardous technologies, the uncontrolled nature and rapid growth of cyberspace, and the riseof international organized crime.The OSCE must, by modernizing its activities, counter the new challenges through collectivemeasures that have been agreed by all participating States, through its wealth of experiencefrom the – to quote the words of European intellectuals – “brief” twentieth century, andthrough closer co-operation with other prestigious international organizations.
8