OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2014-15 (1. samling)
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 23
Offentligt
1531222_0001.png
AS (15) DRP 1 E
Original: English
REPORT
FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND SECURITY
Recalling the Spirit of Helsinki
RAPPORTEUR
Ms. Margareta Cederfelt
Sweden
HELSINKI, 5 – 9 JULY 2015
 OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015
REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
ON POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND SECURITY
Rapporteur: Ms. Margareta Cederfelt (Sweden)
Introduction
In August 1975, the Helsinki Final Act was signed by the leaders of Europe, the Soviet Union
and North America in an effort to ease Cold War tensions, and for 40 years it has provided a
comprehensive framework and a vital forum for dialogue and negotiation. The principles
established by the Helsinki Accords, however, are now under threat, notably by the crisis in
and around Ukraine, but also by protracted conflicts in Moldova and the Southern Caucasus,
and more generally by rising tensions in the OSCE area, emerging threats including violent
extremism and cybercrime, and backsliding on human rights. The arms control and
confidence-building measures developed under the umbrella of the Helsinki Accords have
also come under stress in recent years.
With these realities in mind, the fundamental principles of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act must
be reconfirmed by the OSCE participating States for these values to retain their relevance as
the foundation of today’s Euro-Atlantic security architecture. The OSCE’s effectiveness
ultimately depends on the political will and engagement of its participating States. Looking
towards the future, the Organization will need more of both to efficiently and effectively
address the crisis in Ukraine and the many emerging threats that OSCE participating States
share. These challenges require a comprehensive approach and co-operative response.
I.
Ukraine and Other Challenges Facing the European Security Architecture
The recent changes in the political and security context due to the Ukraine crisis, the growing
terrorist threat, and increasing East-West tensions, are currently having an increasingly
detrimental effect on the overall security architecture in the OSCE area. The illegal
annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014 and the destabilizing
activities carried out by separatists in Ukraine, backed by the Russian Federation, as well as
other armed groups, have represented a serious breach of the Helsinki Final Act’s principles.
It must be stated clearly that Ukraine’s sovereign right to its own territory has been violated.
Existing divisions and mistrust among participating States have been exacerbated by the
crisis, with dialogue in the OSCE increasingly tense, often undiplomatic and marked by
mutual accusations. The crisis has led to a new level of divergent perceptions of military and
other external threats, a trend seen in previous crises such as in Kosovo (1999) and Georgia
(2008). This is underpinned by a growing normative divergence concerning the
interrelationship of OSCE principles and norms in concrete situations. Multilateral co-
operation has become more difficult while unilateral and bilateral approaches have received a
new focus.
The Ukraine crisis has diverted precious time, attention and resources from other
fundamental priorities of the OSCE, including the resolution of long-running frozen and
protracted conflicts in Moldova and the South Caucasus. The almost total standstill on certain
issues is clearly affecting the work of the Organization. This is particularly evident in the case
of re-launching conventional arms control and modernizing the confidence- and security-
building measures of the Vienna Document.
1
AS15RP1E
 OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015
Arms Control and Transnational Threats
In recent years a growing acknowledgement has emerged in the international community that
the OSCE arms control regime has grown outdated. While a number of decisions have been
taken to modernize the Vienna Document, most have been of a technical nature. However, a
more substantial modernization is needed. Further, the recent withdrawal of the Russian
Federation from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, coming 13 years after the
United States’ withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, is also a
matter of concern for the stability of the OSCE area, hindering constructive dialogue on arms
control and confidence-building measures and mechanisms within the international
community.
Globally, the terrorist threat continues to rapidly evolve, presenting new challenges in the
OSCE area and beyond. A number of groups have gained prominence recently, including
Boko Haram in northern Nigeria and ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is
expanding in other areas of the world. These developments, as well as growing tactical trends
such as hostage-taking, the recruitment of foreign fighters, and religiously and politically
motivated attacks in Europe, are a constant reminder that extremist violence remains a serious
cause for concern. The terror shootings in Paris and Copenhagen in January and February
2015 showed that Europe cannot consider itself isolated from violent trends around the world.
The security of Europe demands that the OSCE remains involved in increasing stability in its
region and beyond, requiring that the Organization and its participating States address the
root causes of intolerance and extremism. The phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters, for
example, highlights the need to develop a multidimensional approach to combating terrorism,
by addressing challenges of early prevention and intervention while respecting fundamental
freedoms.
II.
Lessons Learned and Key Strengths
The Ukraine crisis has highlighted the OSCE’s challenges – particularly the deep divisions
among its participating States – but at the same time has provided an opportunity for the
OSCE to demonstrate its relevance and enduring utility as the organization best suited to
bridge the East-West divide. Although other international organizations have played
significant roles in addressing this crisis, the OSCE has demonstrated its relevance as the
most appropriate organization to restore stability in Ukraine due to its inclusive nature, its
role as an impartial observer and its long-term presence on the ground. Indeed, the OSCE’s
most important actions in Ukraine – deploying a Special Monitoring Mission (SMM), an
Observer Mission at two Russian checkpoints and the adoption of a declaration calling for an
international investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 – were approved
by consensus from all 57 participating States. OSCE monitors in Ukraine, however, have
been stymied by a lack of resources, prohibitions on their freedom of movement, and
challenges posed by the OSCE’s lack of a legal personality.
The signing of the Minsk Protocol, establishing a ceasefire in the Donbas region of Ukraine,
on 5 September 2014, and of the Minsk II agreements on 11 February 2015, represents an
OSCE success story. Despite the criticism that has been directed at the OSCE – including
accusations that its participating States have employed double standards – the Organization
deserves real credit for minimizing complications from the Ukrainian impasse. Indeed, the
OSCE has been the only international organization able to create a platform for negotiation
2
AS15RP1E
 OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015
that has brought the sides together with a view towards reaching a long-term settlement to the
conflict.
Co-ordination with the Broader International Community
Beyond the Ukraine crisis, the OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security offers a powerful
answer to violent extremism and other transnational threats, and past experience has shown
that the OSCE can make a meaningful contribution when it collaborates with other
international organizations and civil society.
The OSCE has long worked closely with the United Nations, actively supporting the process
of implementing the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Noteworthy is the “OSCE
Consolidated Framework for the Fight Against Terrorism,” a key document adopted by
OSCE participating States in 2012, which constitutes an important milestone as it provides a
blueprint of the OSCE’s contribution to global efforts against terrorism. All of the OSCE’s
activities in this field have been organized to promote the implementation of this international
legal framework against terrorism in order to strengthen travel document security, counter
violent extremism and radicalization, and curb the use of the internet for terrorist purposes.
The OSCE can maintain its relevance in global efforts at arms control by bolstering its
regime of confidence-building, transparency, verification and predictability measures, as well
as by streamlining its early warning intervention mechanisms in co-ordination with its
international partners.
III.
The Way Forward
There is no doubt that the OSCE, by developing a unique combination of human rights,
democracy, concrete security standards, and agreements, has played a major role in
promoting stability and security in Europe over the last four decades. However, the relevance
of the OSCE is only ensured if all 57 participating States respect its guiding principles and
relevant international law. Yet today the institutional fragmentation within the OSCE area is
growing and the culture of searching for consensus and compromise solutions has taken a
back seat to political expedience. Too many participating States of the OSCE rely on
unilateral actions, thereby increasing mutual mistrust in the Organization as a whole.
The most important task for the OSCE is now the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis,
based on respect for the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and the rights of national
minorities. It is in the interest of all participating States to avoid the emergence of another
protracted conflict in Europe, especially given the impact that the Ukraine crisis has already
had on the broader OSCE agenda – in particular, resolving protracted conflicts in Moldova
and the South Caucasus.
The tragic developments and loss of life in Ukraine have demonstrated the relevance of the
OSCE’s co-operative crisis-management tools and mechanisms, but the cumbersome
consensus-based decision-making process of the OSCE remains a serious obstacle to timely
action in addressing this crisis and others. Therefore, OSCE participating States should
address the consensus rule to prevent an effective one-country veto on matters of
international urgency.
3
AS15RP1E
 OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015
The crisis in Ukraine has also underlined that a key strength of the OSCE is the long-term
presence of its representatives on the ground. Indeed, the OSCE’s field operations remain
some of the most important and effective instruments of multilateral diplomacy in the areas
of conflict prevention and crisis management. However, it is imperative to end the trend of
budget reductions for field missions and the closure or downgrading of OSCE presences in
areas where work and monitoring are still needed.
Resuming dialogue on conventional arms control and improving the effectiveness of existing
confidence- and security-building measures would give stimulus to the Helsinki principles
and put them into practice more effectively. As part of the ongoing OSCE discussions on the
modernization of the Vienna Document, focusing in the short term on measures to improve
the efficacy of verification mechanisms should be considered. The three most recent annual
Declarations adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly have stressed the relevance of
the CFE Treaty as an arms control and confidence-building mechanism and the need for all
parties to the Treaty to honour their obligations.
The role that ongoing conflicts in and around Europe are playing as drivers for international
migration puts the OSCE also at the center of the migration governance debate. The flow of
migrants across the Mediterranean not only represents a humanitarian emergency, but also a
security crisis, as smuggling networks are often linked to terrorist activities. Therefore, the
OSCE participating States need to further engage with the Mediterranean Partners for Co-
operation and to reinforce dialogue between countries of origin, transit and destination in
order to de-escalate crises in the region and reduce the root causes of migration. Moreover,
EU Member States are urged to ensure that the contribution and burden of migrants on the
European continent is shared equally among member States.
Online Radicalization and Cyber Security
Over the last several years, cyber security has emerged as an increasing concern to OSCE
participating States. Cyberspace has been used to facilitate terrorism and other criminal
activities, becoming a primary tool for terrorists to identify, recruit and train new members,
collect and transfer funds, organize terrorist acts and incite extremist violence. Effective
countermeasures in this field require a comprehensive, multidimensional approach that takes
into account the interests of various stakeholders, and also ensures privacy rights and freedom
of expression.
A shared vision of how to increase the effectiveness of the international response to violent
extremism and to better define the role and the added value of the OSCE in addressing these
challenges is needed. As an inclusive platform for dialogue, the OSCE can serve as an
effective forum for in-depth debate to find constructive approaches to deal with the challenge
of terrorism. Overall, the Organization should make better use of existing programmes, in co-
operation with civil society and other international organizations, to mitigate these threats.
The Role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Strengthening the role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly within the overall OSCE
structure would improve the functioning of the Organization as a whole and its ability to deal
with emerging threats and crises. As the democratic backbone of the OSCE and its most
versatile and adaptable Institution, the Parliamentary Assembly remains a critical player in
improving the Organization’s ability to adequately and swiftly respond to new crises. It
4
AS15RP1E
 OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015
occupies a special place in the structure of the Organization’s main Institutions, and is in
essence more independent than any other OSCE body, which enables it to take political
initiatives when no other OSCE body can. It therefore plays a vital role in promoting the
values and achieving the goals of the OSCE in all dimensions of its activities.
While preparing for the 40
th
anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, due attention should be
paid to the improvement of the mechanisms of interaction between the Parliamentary
Assembly and the decision-making and other structures and Institutions of the OSCE, with
the aim to make this interaction more systemic.
The Helsinki Final Act set out the founding vision for a community of States united by the
concept of common, comprehensive and indivisible security. In these critical times, a strong
sense of co-operation and common political will from all participating States is needed in
order to enhance the security in Europe and reconsolidate the European security architecture.
In this regard, the dialogue within the Parliamentary Assembly and the work at the 2015
Annual Session in Helsinki – including the Declaration to be adopted – is crucially important
and demands the commitment and the full support of all parliamentarians involved.
5
AS15RP1E