Role of OSCE in Regional Stability - Research Paper Example

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Table of contents Introduction Structure of the organization The history of OSCE Role of OSCE in regional stability The economic, environmental, and human dimensions Conclusion References Introduction The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had its birth from the realization that only such an organization could ensure peace and stability in the European region. Presently, OSCE is one among the largest and most effective organizations of regional cooperation in the world. As of now, there are 57 members in OSCE and these member nations come from Europe, North America, and Central Asia; and the organization engages in a lot of various activities including ‘early warning preparation, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation’ (ICNL). A look into the history of OSCE over these years proves that the organization has done much more than any other organization could do in uniting the nations, preventing and mitigating conflicts, increasing mutual trust, and promoting economic and human rights conditions in the region. Structure of the organization The highest political leader of the organization is the chairman in office. The selection of the chairman in office takes place every year from the member states. As specified in its website, OSCE has two permanent bodies which are responsible for taking important decisions; they are the ‘OSCE Ministerial Council’ and the ‘OSCE Permanent Council’ (OSCE website). The Ministerial Council normally has its meeting once in a year. This council is made of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of all the member states. As Bloed notes, the Permanent Council consists of representatives from each member state; this body conducts its meetings on a weekly basis and discusses the various issues in the region. Also, all immediate decisions are taken by this body (4). There are various offices to implement the decisions of OCSE. They are ‘the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), and the OCSE Representative on Freedom of Media’ (qtd . ICNL). The secretariat of OCSE has its office in Vienna and it functions under the Secretary General. This secretariat has a number of various units. They range from “Action against Terrorism Unit, Conflict Prevention Centre, External Cooperation, Gender Section, Office of the Coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities, office of the Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, Strategic Police Matters Unit, and Training Section”(qtd ICNL, ‘NGO Law Monitor’). The history of OSCE The OSCE has its origin associated with the détente phase of the early 1970s. In fact, there had been an increased interest in promoting European security since 1905. However, no further progress was made because the Cold War made it impossible to conduct further talks. However, a talk took place in November 1972 at Dipoli in Helsinki. It was at that time that the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was created, which functioned as a multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between East and West. In fact this talk was held because Soviet Union wanted to maintain its hold over the communist states in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, Western Europe saw these talks as a way to impose stability in the region. These talks in Helsinki were compiled to be called ‘The Blue Book’; and these Talks were the practical foundations for a three stage conference called Helsinki Process (Galbreath, 5). The CSCE opened its office in Helsinki in July 1973 to which 25 states sent their representatives. The first stage of the process took five days and all the member states agreed to follow the Blue Book. The second stage took place in Geneva in July 1975. This main working phase gave birth to the Helsinki Final Act duly signed by the representatives of all the 35 states. Following this, the third stage was conducted in Finlandia Hall from 30th July 1975. Following these three stages, there were a number of follow-up meetings for which main meetings were held in Belgrade, Madrid, and Vienna. In fact, this famous Helsinki Final Act which was signed on 1st August 1975 contained a number of elements including politico-military, economic, environmental, and human rights issues. As Galbreath notes, the agreement gave birth to ten fundamental principles which all the member nations should abide by. These principles are called ‘Decalogue’. For two decades, CSCE had a number of meetings and conferences as its main activity, and these programs mainly aimed at extending and enhancing the commitments of the participating states (12). After the collapse of Soviet Union, the CSCE required a change in its focus. It was the end of Cold War that turned a new leaf in the history of CSCE. The Paris Summit that took place in 1990 developed the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, which called the CSCE to play an important role in the history of Europe. It was in 1994 ‘Budapest Summit of the Heads of State Government’ that the name of the organization was changed from CSCE to OSCE (Galbreath, 13). Role of OSCE in regional stability In the opinion of Hopman, OSCE has become the security regime for the Eurasian region. This organization shows the power of liberal institutionalist ideas about international relations. Thus OSCE proves that regional security organizations can effectively control anarchy in international political relations. In fact, OSCE has successfully created the necessary conditions for regional cooperation to maintain European security since Cold War. It has an excellent institutional framework which ensures that all states attend to the security needs of other members (569). One can see an active role of OSCE in regional peacekeeping since the second follow-on meeting in Madrid in 1980. The meeting witnessed intensified debate over human rights and intervention in internal affairs. Some important steps which came out as a result of this meeting were the negotiations in Stockholm which is commonly called the Conference on Security and Confidence Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe. Moreover, as noted in Mays, meetings were conducted to deal with issues like fundamental freedom in Ottawa, Bern, the issues in Athens, cultural issues in Budapest, and Mediterranean security issues related to Venice (196). One of the most important achievements of the Helsinki Summit was the adoption of a proposal to start the Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities. This High Commissioner has the responsibility to engage in early warning, preventive diplomacy, and informal conciliation when it seems necessary to do so to avert critical conflicts. Along with this, a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was started, though the members did not cooperate in the same. One can see that there were more important achievements. For example, the organization decided to start fact-finding and peace-keeping missions to places like Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Sandjak, and Vojvodina. A perfect example of the contribution from OSCE in monitoring, early warning, and preventing conflict is the case of Crimea in Ukraine. In fact, the Crimea region in Ukraine has 67% ethnic Russians, and the place had been a part of the Russian Federation till 1954 when Khrushchev decided to give the region to Ukraine. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the Crimean Russians found that they had become a minority in the new Ukraine state. Soon, tensions erupted and in January 1994, a nationalist Russian Yuri Meshkov was elected as the first president of Crimea. Immediately after his ascent, he declared the decision to declare independence and a new Crimean constitution. This according to Mychajlyszyn led to increased fight between the Ukrainians who wanted to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the Crimean Russians. The OSCE high commissioner on national minorities, Max van der Stoel, visited the troubled places in February and May of the same year, and as a result of the visit, a new OSCE mission was started for the place. The mission was started in June 1994 and the aim was to help Crimea maintain its status as an autonomous are within the state of Ukraine. Problems further worsened in Crimea when the President Meshkov abolished the Supreme Council and local councils of Crimea. However, the Supreme Council of Crimea declared that the president violated the laws of Crimea and Ukraine by doing so. Soon, the President of Ukraine intervened and insisted that he would not allow the parties to use force to settle the dispute and he sent deputy prime minister Marchuk to Crimea to manage negotiations. At the time, the Ukrainian parliament insisted that Crimea should bring its constitution in line with the Ukrainian constitution before November 1 of that year. In the beginning of 1995, again, the supreme council of Crimea came up with the claim that the state property of Ukraine in Crimea belonged to Crimea. Infuriated, the Ukrainian parliament decided to dismantle the autonomy of Crimea by annulling the Crimean constitution and abolishing the Crimean presidency. It also made criminal charges against the Crimean president. Seeing the situation, the Crimean parliament speaker requested the OSCE to assess the situation in light of the international law. The OSCE mission started with intensive discussion with Ukrainian officials and soon, there was a meeting of OSCE ambassadors. The finding was that Ukrainian parliament had acted within their constitutional authority and the decisions taken by the parliament had been provoked by Crimean separatists. Moreover, it was found that though the central government increased its authority over decisions taken by regional authority, the Crimean autonomy remained intact. As it was observed by the mission that the action of Ukrainian parliament had resulted in an escalation of tensions which could result in the radicalization of Crimean Russians, the mission urged Ukraine ‘to restore the autonomy status of 1992’ (Hopmann, 1). The OSCE also warned other external parties not to interfere in the issue. In fact, the warning was aimed at Russia as it was possible that Russia would interfere through both political and military sources. Furthermore, the high commissioner on national minorities continued the work there by actively helping both the parties to make their constitutions consistent with each other. As a part of it, the high commissioner van der Stoel organized a meeting in Switzerland from 11th to 14th May 1995 when the Crimean parliament decided to hold a referendum on the reinstatement of the 1992 constitution. After the meeting, the high commissioner proposed a formula to develop parallel language in their respective constitutions. It was also suggested the high commissioner that both the governments should constitute a special body which is aimed at solving conflicts. Thus, by November 1, 1995, a new constitution came into power giving Crimea the status of an autonomous republic. This constitution adopted most of the suggestions from the Locarno conference. Thus, OSCE proved that it can play an effective role in conflict prevention. Another important example of the effectiveness of OSCE is the cease-fire negotiation in the case of Chechnya and Russian Federation. Chechnya is a Sunni Muslim majority region in the northern Caucasus where a considerable proportion of the population is mountain dwellers. These people were against the Russian occupation for many centuries. In the year 1989, the population in Chechnya mainly contained 65 percent ethnic Chechens and 25 percent Russians. As described in Taylor & Francis Group’s book, after the August 1991 Moscow coup attempt, General Dzokhar Dudayev seized power in Chechnya. Soon, he declared Chechnya’s independence from Russia; and after some political arguments, in December 1994, Russian soldiers invaded Chechnya and on of the bloodiest wars in the post-Cold War Eurasia (680). Evidently, the attitude of the Russian troops broke the rules and regulations of the CSCE. In fact, the massive military activity in the region was a violation of the international norms because it was done without the presence of international observers. Thus, it constituted the violation of many confidence building measures under the Vienna Document of 1994. More noticeably, the war was started only very few days after the Code of conduct was signed at the CSCE Budapest summit. As it was found that there is flagrant violation of norms, after much debate, the OSCE intervened in the issue through its OSCE Assistance Group created by the Permanent Council. The mandate of the assistance was to promote the peaceful resolution of the crisis and the stabilization of the situation in the Chechen Republic in conformity with the principle of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and in accordance with OSCE principles. Moreover, the group was given the responsibility to observe compliance with the human dimension norms of the organization. It also included human rights, unhindered return of refugees to their homes, and free operation of international humanitarian organizations in Chechnya. Most importantly, the group had the mandate to promote dialogue and negotiations between the parties in order to achieve a ceasefire and eliminate sources of tensions. The first observation of the group was that there was no possibility of a productive negotiation between the parties. However, negotiations were started and though Russia refused to admit the full independence of Chechnya, it agreed that there was a constructive ambiguity. Similarly, Chechens agreed to impose a moratorium on their declaration of independence. Though Chechens agreed to impose moratorium for two years, Russians asked for five years. However, the parties agreed to work out a cease-fire and to negotiate a political solution. Thus, an agreement was reached according to which the number of Russian troops had to be reduced to 6000 men and the Chechens were allowed to have their own small armed self-defense units in al villages until the problem is solved. Thus, the agreement came into effect on July 31 with a cease-fire. However, as Russians again started military action, the cease fire was broken. The Russians did not allow the Chechens to arm themselves in villages, and the Chechens appealed to OSCE to further explain the terms of the agreement so that they could ensure their self defense. However, the cease-fire broke down irreparably. Soon, in December, Russia conducted an election in Chechnya and elected pro-Russian leaer Doku Zavgayev as the new president of Chechen Republic. Admittedly, OSCE failed to act in accordance with its own norms. First of all, it did not have any observers in the election process, and despite discrepancies, it did not condemn the election. In the year 1996, the leadership of OSCE Assistance Group approached Ambassador Tim Guldimann of Switzerland who was actively interested in the issue. In February of the same year, he approached Russian Interior Minister and Yeltsin’s adviser on ethnic issues. While the minister insisted that Chechen leaders were terrorists, the latter exhibited willingness to do more negotiations. However, the efforts reached nowhere as Dudayev was killed by the Russians through a rocket attack. However, Yeltsin expressed his interest in meeting the Chechen leaders and Guldimann communicated the same to them. On his request, there was a brief and intense debate, and an agreement was signed between Yandarbiyev and Yeltsin. It brought another cease fire and ensured peaceful exchange of prisoners on May 27. It was followed by another agreement between Russians and Chechens on June 10 in Nazran, and again, Guldimann was acting on behalf of OSCE. This agreement called for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Chechnya by the end of August and a gradual disarmament of the Chechen rebels. However, problems restarted soon as Russian planes started bombing Chechnya. In response, Chechens captured Grozny from Russian control. After a few days, the chief security adviser to Yeltsin, Lebed, met Chechen chief of staff Maskhdov under the influence of OSCE Assistance Group head Guldimann. Thus, another cease-fire agreement was signed between the parties. This cease-fire gave five years time to negotiate and settle the dispute. Also, it was decided to start a joint commission to study and solve the issue and the Russian troops were to be fully withdrawn from Chechnya by December. Soon, in January 1997, another presidential and parliamentary elections were held in Chechnya under the observation of OSCE members. Though it becomes evident that OSCE effectively managed to reach a cease-fire in an existing conflict, it failed in post conflict rehabilitation. The war totally shattered the economy of Chechnya. This is so because the strong feudal nature of Chechen society gave birth to a strong fighting class which retained its war spirit even after the war. Moreover, the war severely destroyed the infrastructure and education system of Chechnya. Though OSCE continued observing and reporting the situation in Chechnya, it failed to introduce any improvement in the living conditions of people. However, one cannot forget the important role played by OSCE in introducing a cease-fire. (Taylor & Francis Group, Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2004, Volume 4, p. 685) Also, one can see that OSCE plays an active role in preventing violence in areas which are already tense. Some examples are Transdniestria in Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan. In Moldova, the organization sent its mission with the mandate to facilitate the achievement of a lasting, comprehensive political settlement of the conflict in all its aspects, which include reinforcement of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova and an understanding of the special status of the Trans-Dniester. In fact, the Trans-Dniester region or the region on the bank of Dniester River was different from the rest of Moldova as this area was a part of the Russian Empire since long. The remaining part of Moldova was a part of the Russian province of Bessarabia and later Romania. During the rule of Gorbachev, Moldovan nationalist insisted for independence from Russia and some of them even wanted unification with Romania. However, the people east of Dniester river resisted this movement and declared themselves as the Transdniester Moldovian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union. In 1992, the Moldovan authorities tried to implement the decision to impose Moldovan law throughout the country by force, and soon, fight broke out between the Moldovan army and the Transdniestrian Republican Guard which also received support from Russia. However, the parties managed to reach a cease-fire on July 7 and as a result of it, a joint peacekeeping force was established with Russian, Moldovan, and Transdniestrian forces. Also, CSCE sent its mission to oversee the performance of the peacekeeping activities and to report human right and security issues in the region. Moreover, the mission had the responsibility to see that a permanent political settlement was reached in which some autonomy would be allowed to the Transdniester region in Moldova. In the beginning, the main activity for OSCE was to create transparency in the activities of all the parties as it would help reduce the possibility of a restart of fights. Along with this, the mission started talks with all the parties and suggested that a special region should be constructed as an integral part of Moldovan state but with a considerable degree of self-rule. Based on the findings from OSCE mission, talks were started between Moldovan president and the self-proclaimed president of Transdniestria, Igor Smirnov. Both the leaders agreed to set up a working group of experts along with representatives from Russian Federation and OSCE. It was followed by another summit on April 28, 1994. This talk resulted in ‘a joint declaration on principles for the settlement of Transdniestrian dispute’. It was followed by negotiations by the expert group. at this time, the OSCE high commissioner on national minorities continued working in Moldova and Transdniestria and observed the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the region. However, talks failed to bring out a final solution as a final agreement was never reached. Though Yeltsin invited both the parties for a talk before the Commonwealth of Independent States summit in May 1996, the final agreement was not signed as Moldova government demanded the renegotiation of two articles. As a final settlement evaded all attempts, OSCE focused to keep expert talks alive and asked the Moldovan government to come up with a political solution to the problem it had created. Soon, OSCE decided to try unofficial diplomacy in the matter. Thus, a seminar on the issue was conducted at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England. All the members of the expert group along with OSCE head of the mission attended the seminar. However, the seminar did no good as negotiations virtually stopped after that. Moreover, relation between OSCE and Transdniestria authorities worsened as the head of mission was criticized by the Transdniestrian authorities for bias. Thus, soon, the head of mission was replaced. As the image of OSCE diminished, Ukraine and Russia intervened in the situation and soon, Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov visited Moldova in 1997. In the visit, he managed to make the parties agree to add one more article to the unsigned memorandum, which committed the parties to build their relationship in the framework of a common state within the borders of the Moldavian SSR as of January 1990. This agreement was signed by the parties in Moscow on May 8, 1997. Moreover, as Freire notes, the three mediators in the issue, including OSCE chairman in office, President Yeltsin, and President Kuchma of Ukraine signed another statement which declared that any agreement in future must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova under international law (236). Similarly, one can see various other monitoring missions from the part of OSCE in Europe. As Mays notes, some of the missions were purely peacekeeping in nature while others were political in nature (196). One such important mission was the Kosovo Verification Mission. In fact, the political situation in Kosovo was at its worst in 1998. As it was found that Yugoslavia was acting against international demands, the NATO started air strikes on Serbians. Soon, OSCE started its Kosovo Verification Mission. The purpose of the mission was to observe human rights violations in Kosovo. Later on, the mission was replaced by OSCE Mission in Kosovo. This mission had more roles to play. First of all, it monitored how Yugoslavia adhered to UN guidelines. Secondly, the mission monitored the movement of various military forces. In addition, the mission undertook various tasks to enhance democracy and human rights. To illustrate, the Kosovo Police Service established and operated by OSCE gives training to police personnel (Mays, 197). Some such other important missions were formed to handle issues in Georgia, Herzegovina, Tajikistan, Zagreb, Albania, and Skopje. The economic, environmental, and human dimensions As stated in its website, the politico-military dimension of the organization involves various activities such as promoting OSCE Confidence and Security Building Measures; combating terrorism and organized crime; fighting trafficking in small arms and light weapons, chemical, biological, and nuclear substances; and strengthening border security (OSCE). An example of the activities in politico-military dimension is the activities in Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. There, it helps the state law-enforcement institutions to counter illegal drugs and arms trafficking. Moreover, help is offered in fighting terrorism and other transnational crimes. An example is the Customs Assistance Project in which the customs officials from the countries are trained in risk assessment, profiling, targeting and searching techniques. Similarly, there is the Border Assistance Project which is aimed at providing training to border officials from Turkmenistan and Afghanistan in effective patrolling and surveillance. Along with this, there are various courses for law enforcement officials in travel document security assessment (OSCE Center in Ashgabat). Furthermore, to promote security and security, the organization offers multilateral security initiatives which include secure stockpiling of small arms, proper management of the surplus arms and ammunition, and joint efforts to fight illicit arms trade. Yet another part is the police education. To illustrate, the agency works with the Ministry of Interior and Turkmenistan’s Police Academy to support the country’s police reform. As a part of this, the organization conducts various activities to enhance the professional capacities of police officials. Moreover, there are study tours and education courses for police staff. The activities in human dimension emphasize on areas like rule of law and human rights; democratization and civil society; migration; gender issues; and education. An example of this is the legal reform support in Turkmenistan. In order to achieve this purpose, as stated in Osborne and Kriese, the centre has undertaken various courses on legislative drafting skills for the members of parliament and legal officers; moreover, the agency has started a searchable database which contains all the national normative acts and international treaties to which the nation has signed (36). Following this, the organization also offers support to the criminal justice administration system in the nation through training programs for judges and law enforcement officers. Thus, the legal officers are made aware about international judicial standards and new legal developments. Along with this, the organization ensures that various courses on international human rights are offered through various higher education institutions. Furthermore, the organization works to stop human trafficking issue. To illustrate, the National Red Crescent Society of Turkmenistan (NRCST) is supported by OSCE in conducting ‘train the trainers’ programs which are aimed at safe migration promotion and human trafficking prevention (Borchert and Zellner, 8). Also, one can see that the organization conducts training for prison officials to raise awareness about the rights of detainees and prisoners. Along with this, there are various activities aimed at preventing domestic violence, supporting youth education, and developing media sector. For example, in 2009, the ‘keik okara’ program was initiated which offered a hotline service to deal with domestic violence in Turkmenistan; moreover, the organization offers legal and psychological aid to the people suffering from domestic violence (qtd OSCE). Following this, there are various programs for youth education. The National Red Crescent Society of Turkmenistan organizes various training events in the nation for people to raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, STD, and other issues like domestic violence. Lastly, there are various programs from the agency to promote media rights too. OSCE, OSCE Center in Ashgabat, Diplomats discuss quiet and preventive diplomacy at OSCE supported course in Turkmenistan (OSCE Center in Ashgabat). At this juncture, it is important to mention the economic and environmental dimension of the organization. In order to concentrate on these areas, the organization has its Office of the Coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities. On the economic side, the organization promotes good governance in the member nations. In addition, attention is paid on promoting good transportation facilities, developing effective and comprehensive migration management policies, and developing a healthy economy through small and medium sized enterprises. Following this, on the environmental side, the organization concentrates on various tasks like reducing water-related conflicts, and proper protection of water resources. In addition, the organization conducts various studies and assessments about the impact of climate change on natural resources and public life. As stated in its fact sheet, the organization has its Economic and Environmental Forum which holds its meeting every year; and this forum looks into the important environmental issues of the time and tries to find solutions for the same (OSCE Economic and Environmental Dimension). In the year 2010, the Government of Turkmenistan, with the cooperation of the Office of the Coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities, and the Ashgabat Center of OSCE, organized a high level meeting to discus the various strategies to improve regional cooperation in Central Asia. It also discussed the ways to ensure a stable and reliable energy supply in Eurasia. Similarly, the Turkmenistan organized a high level energy conference under Lithuanian OSCE chairmanship to discuss issues regarding energy safety in the year 2011. Conclusion Admittedly, one can see that despite a certain degree of conflict of interest between Russia and the Western states, OSCE has proved its ability in maintaining regional order, stability and security. It has proved through various examples that it is capable of negotiating and mediating issues of regional security. In fact, Russia claims at times that the Western states are more interested in dealing with human right issues and democratization in former Soviet Union states. According to Russia, it is more important to give attention to more topical issues like human trafficking, terrorism, and non-proliferation. Moreover, Russia demands that the independent bodies of OSCE should be more accountable to the center. However, opponents allege that the reason behind this demand is the desire for a veto power over all the decisions and activities. Anyway, despite these basic differences in interests, OSCE has proved itself effective in dealing with regional security issues. Works Cited Bloed, Arie (ed.). The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Analysis and basic documents. 1972-1993. Netherland: Kulwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Print. Borchert, Heiko and Zellner, Wolfgang. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Contribution to the Stabilization of Central and Eastern European Countries. Web 04 Dec 2012 hawk.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/.../doc_6835_290_en.pdf Freire, Maria Raquel. Conflict and security in the former Soviet Union: the role of the OSCE. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003. Print. Galbreath, David J. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). New York: Psychology Press, 2007. Print. Hopman, P. Terence. “The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe: Its Contribution to Conflict Prevention and Resolution”. The National Academies Press. Web 4 Dec 2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9897&page=569 Hopmann, Terrence. P. The OSCE role in conflict prevention before and after violent conflict: The case of Ukraine and Moldova. Web 08 Dec 2012 http://www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/09_sb1_03_ocp.pdf ICNL. NGO Law Monitor: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Last updated 9 November 2012. Web 08 Dec 2012 http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/osce.html Mays, Terry M. Historical Dictionary of Multinational Peacekeeping. UK: Scarecrow Press, 2010. Print. Mychajlyszyn, Natalie. ‘The OSCE in Crimea’. 9 Helsinki Monitor 30 (1998). Web 08 Dec 2012 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/helsnk9&div=46&id=&page Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). NTIO. Web 08 Dec 2012 http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/organization-cooperation-and-security-europe-osce/ OSCE Center in Ashgabat. ‘Diplomats discuss quiet and preventive diplomacy at OSCE supported course in Turkmenistan’. Web 08 Dec 2012 http://www.osce.org/ashgabat Osborne, Russell E and Kriese, Paul (Eds.) . Global community: global security. Rodopi, 2008. Print. OSCE Economic and Environmental Dimension, Overview. Web 08 Dec 2012 http://www.osce.org/eea/30348 OSCE.Official website. 08 Dec 2012 http://www.osce.org/ Taylor & Francis Group, Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2004, Volume 4. Routledge, 2003. Print. Read More