The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - Case Study Example

Eklavya Pujari OSCE 10 May The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Introduction The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was created to serve as the multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between East and West with key commitments on polito-military, economic and environmental and human rights issues which were reached in agreement on the Helsinki Final Act signed on 1st August 1975. The organization mainly functioned as a series of meetings and conferences built on and extended the participating States’ commitments. The organization forms the largest regional security organization in the world with 56 participating states from Europe, Central Asia and North America. The organization is a primary instrument for warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post conflict rehabilitation dealing with three dimensions of security – the politico – military, the economic and environmental and the human dimension, which are also referred to as three baskets on OSCE which addresses the wide range of security related concerns, including arms control, confidence – and – security building measures, human rights, national minorities, democratization, policing, strategies, counter – terrorism, and economic and environmental activities. Politico – military aims at formulating mechanisms for conflict prevention and resolution while seeking to enhance military security by promoting greater openness, transparency and cooperation. The economic and environmental dimension includes the monitoring of developments among participating states while alerting them of any threat of conflict and assisting the creation of economic and environmental policies and related initiatives to promote security in OSCE region. The human dimension aims at ensuring full respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms; to abide by the rule of law, to promote the principles of democracy by building, strengthening and protecting democratic institutions, and to promote tolerance throughout the OSCE area (www.osce.org). McKenzie and Rupp (1998, 119) stated that OSCE reflects the challenges facing multilateral cooperation in new and volatile era. The members of OSCE have committed themselves to promote security operation. Freire mentioned that post 9/11, most of the countries were concerned about the terrorism issues and OSCE was no exception in focusing on the need to respond to terrorism as a source of instability and an obstacle to the spread of democratization and rule of law principles (190). According to Cordell (1999, 62) the organization was the only international forum that defined respect for human rights as an essential factor for international security and not a purely domestic concern. The connecting of three baskets along with the inclusion of human rights in the Helsinki Act provided implications that human rights could no longer be defined as an internal affair. The OSCE foreign ministers met on the Greek Island of Corfu to discuss the issue of European security challenges by taking concrete steps in order to restore confidence, which is also known as ‘Corfu process’ signaling the place of discussion. The Corfu Process was important as it was at this venue that the ministers of foreign affairs from OSCE countries met to discuss the issues relating to current challenges and future perspectives of the common, indivisible, comprehensive and cooperative security. The minister’s concurred that traditional security problem along with new challenges and threats like protracted conflicts, ethnic tensions, protection of fundamental principles of human rights, economic crisis, energy security, etc. should be dealt with in a comprehensive, coherent and cooperative manner (www.osce.org). The participating states in Corfu process committed themselves to ensuring a predictable, reliable, economically acceptable, commercially sound and environmentally friendly energy supply, achieved by means of long term contracts. The Corfu process has build a platform for stock taking purpose wherein participating states can rebuild their trust, discuss the issues related to security of members of OSCE in Europe and other energy related issues (OSCE, 2009). Kazakhstan as Chairman – in – Office: Reasons Kazakhstan sought the position of OSCE Chairman-in-Office for various reasons including enhanced security and national prestige as it is the first post-Soviet country and the first predominantly Muslim country and the first in the Central Asia to be entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring security to all the member countries of OSCE. Astana adopts an agenda which reflects Eurasia’s multiple security threat and OSCE’s capacity to serve as an effective security organization. Kazakhstan sough this position in order to alleviate threats to its own security and at the same time enhancing the security of both Central Asia and Europe. With regard to the close proximity to Asian countries, as it is situated in Central Asia, the country would be able to negotiate with the countries posing challenges and security threats to the member states of OSCE through terrorism and trafficking (Assenova and Bugajski, 2009). Kanat Saudabeyev, Secretary of State/ Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan while speaking as Chairman – in – office, stated that the nation would make efforts to contribute to the resolution on protracted conflicts, strengthening of coordination between the Turkmenistan based United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia and OSCE field presence, involvement of OSCE in stabilization of Afghanistan by focusing its attention on the country’s border with its Central Asian neighbor were the top priorities during their term of chairmanship in the office. However it is assumed that dealing with Afghanistan would not be easier to the European countries and the issue favors the Kazakhstan as it is capable of negotiating terms with the its Muslim neighboring countries. Further it is understood from the statement of future Chairman – in – Office, Mr. Kanat Saudabeyev; that it is capable of mobilizing funds and support from the OSCE nations to help Afghanistan, which is terror struck country, in areas such as the provision of fertilizer as well as agricultural and construction equipment. It is further stated that Kazakhstan intends to put full use of its capabilities coupled with the potential of OSCE nations. The nation sought the chairmanship as it intended to tolerance and intercultural dialogue as on the major priority on the basis of its experience in ensuring lasting peace and accord in its multi ethnic and multi faith country. The reason for bidding for the position, though it had earlier made a bid, in vain; as it had more fitting definition of the country’s focus during its term in the office that is based on four T’s – trust, traditions, transparency and tolerance (www.un.org). Kazakhstan which is a Central Asian country, the first nation to be appointed as Chairman – In – Office from this region has close proximity to the other Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. where terrorist operations and human trafficking are on high. And as the OSCE promotes three baskets targeted towards security, humanitarian and environmental issues, Kazakhstan sought the position on basis of its capabilities to enter into negotiations with the Muslim countries and provide aid and assistance in these regions. According to Daniyar Kanafin (56-61) the document of OSCE conference on the human dimension adopted in Moscow specifically states that the participating states will respect the internationally recognized standards relating to the independence of judges and legal practitioners ensuring its guarantee and enshrined in the constitution or the law of the country but whereas the independence of judicial system in Kazakhstan is exploited with regard to criminal procedures, acquittal suppressed by political powers and complains pertaining to minimal working conditions, low salaries, poor social benefits, insufficient retirement benefits, financial challenges, etc. Assuming that values of developed countries will impact positively on the Kazakh government, Chairmanship of OSCE is a historic chance which provide Kazakhstan an ultimate opportunity to build a fair and law governed state where independent, objective and impartial courts will be guarding human rights and democratic freedoms. Kazakhstan’s Appointment – Circumstances The appointment of Kazakhstan has been questioned by many in view of its failed attempts to bid for the office. The OSCE decision to award the chairmanship to Kazakhstan in 2010 underscores a growing recognition of the country’s regional and continental importance which is a strategic linchpin in the vast Central Asia, a region which is rich in energy resources and potential gateway for commerce and communications between Europe and Asia. The appointment of Kazakhstan as Chairman – in – Office was controversial because OSCE members had to deal with countervailing pressures (Assenova and Bugajski, 2009). According to Human Rights Watch (HRW, 2009), the decision to appoint Kazakhstan was controversial because of its poor performance in adhering to the OSCE principles of human rights which was also the reason for its failed bids earlier in 2005 and 2006. It is further stated that the government has showed no signs of improvement and events of continuous deterioration were reported and documented by HRW. And moreover, the Kazakh government rejected the efforts of human rights groups and political opposition to press for expanded human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the international agreements and Kazakhstan’s own constitution. The country has also ignored criticism and ideas submitted by civil society with regard to legal reforms and had failed to introduce meaningful reforms guaranteeing rights in key areas such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and access to legal counsel. The participating states showed concern over the human rights and freedom of media in the region as media outlets and journalists are faced with constant threat of lawsuits and crippling defamation penalties. Though the government had made certain amendments for media reforms, but they did not address the broader problems of domination by government loyalists, threats and harassment against independent journalists, prohibitive penalties for defamation, etc. The member states differed on their opinion with regard to the appointment of Kazakhstan as Chairman in Office for the next term with United States and European Union expressing concern over the Kazakhstan’s capability and feared that it might compromise on the OSCE’s support for democratic principles based on three baskets (Assenova and Bugajski, 2009). HRW (2009) reports that international actors in OSCE including United States, European Union and the OSCE’s representative on freedom of the media, expressed concerned regarding the adoption of the internet law, the sentencing of the journalist, and fair trail violations. Responding to the concerns of OSCE participating states, Foreign Minister Marat Tahzin, while bidding for the chairmanship for 2010, pledged that Kazakhstan would take several reform steps in all the three baskets of OSCE before assuming the chairmanship which included the amendment of media law, reforms in election law, and liberalization of registration process for political parties (Berg, 2008, p.5). However, Kazakhstan received strong support from Russia who threatened to effectively unravel the OSCE if it was not selected for the chairmanship (Assenova and Bugajski, 2009). Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister vigorously targeted the negative tendencies in the evolution of OSCE which happened at the crucial time in the European history addressing the common security problems of Europe. The minister outlined the problems of Kosovo and the treaty on conventional arms in Europe and highlighted the application of Kazakhstan, whose application for the promotion to chairmanship was backed by all the CIS countries constituting one-fifth all the OSCE countries and encountered the approach promoted by certain member states to defy the selection of Kazakh that led to violation of OSCE’s principle of equality. The Russian government represented by Lavrov, strongly advocated for the selection of chairmanship of Kazakhstan (Novostei, 2007). European nations supported the appointment of Kazakhstan as Chairman – in – Office at OSCE. Austria welcomed the Kazakh’s chairmanship that intended to advance to OSCE’s contribution to non – proliferation in connection with the sanctions regime set out in Security Council resolution and to the protection of Afghanistan borders. United Kingdom too welcomed the appointment of Kazakhstan as chairmanship marking a milestone as the position would promote the principles of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law in the region and provides an opportunity to the country to prove its leadership in the region. France too supported and welcomed the appointment of Kazakh as chairman for OSCE in view of its efforts in Afghanistan. Turkey welcomed the chairs priorities and stated that election of Kazakhstan was the result of that country’s effort to build stable and modern state thus contributing to regional stability (www.un.org). However while acknowledging the problems with Kazakhstan’s adherence to the principles of liberal democracy, the governments of participating states hope that the appointment as Chairman to the organization will encourage the country towards the standards in Kazakhstan as well as bolster the OSCE’s influence in the former Soviet bloc (Weitz, 2008, p.12). The participating states of OSCE welcomed the appointment as it promoted equal opportunities as well as promotion and formulation of policies for security, energy and human rights in and around Europe along with the Central Asian countries. Kazakhstans Chairmanship: Challenges and opportunities from Russian, EU and USA perspective Though the appointment of Kazakhstan as the Chairman – in – office is a milestone for the country, the position holds great responsibility of ensuring stability and security in the region and in the participating states of OCSE. The first from the Central Asia, Kazakhstan faces many challenges and opportunities during its chairmanship at OSCE from various corners which it needs to address it specifically. Socor (2009) mentioned that the challenges are daunting to any chairing country. Weitz (2008, p17) mentioned that the Kazakh government had launched a program named ‘Road to Europe’, to prepare the country for the economic and political challenges and opportunities, that will come along with the OSCE chairmanship. Kazakh faces two challenges as it prepares to serve as the CIO which includes developing a compelling agenda for its chairmanship and pursuing and consolidating democratic reforms inside the country. However the chairmanship presents important opportunities to Astana and OSCE countries concerning security, economy and human dimension. It is necessary that security challenges are addressed mainly in Central Asia which is important for the international interests of the United States and its European allies which include Asian security, controlling the Afghan borders, addressing transnational terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking, energy security, etc. (Assenova and Bugajski, 2008). According to Melvin, the appointment of Kazakhstan as OSCE chairman is important because apart from being Central Asian country, Kazakhstan’s chairmanship will bring new perspectives to the difficulties confronting the organization brining balance in the OSCE political structure (45). According to Centre for Strategic and International Studies (2009), the major challenge for Kazakhstan would be to preserve the mandate of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) contested by Russia and several CIS participating states. Kazakhstan shares good relation with Russia and the candidacy of Kazakhstan was strongly advocated by Russian representative Levrov for the Chairman in office at OSCE. The engagement of Kazakhstan limits the pursuit of Moscow’s tough policies towards OSCE. The main challenge of Kazakhstan would be to pacify both the United States and Russian government while chairing the organization and formulating policies for security, economy, and human dimension. Moscow hopes that Astana 2010 could add some value from the Russian perspective against the background of the active pursuit by Moscow. The Kazakh government has the opportunity to harmonize its relations with both Russia and Western countries (Zagorski, 2009). Socor (2009) mentioned that Moscow intended OSCE to focus on the NATO’s area of responsibility and support for recasting of security arrangements while directing the attention of OSCE towards west. Russia supported the campaign of Kazakhstan for chairman in office threatening the budget process so that it could manipulate the chairmanship to promote the Russian policy objectives in the organization which is an added challenge to Kazakhstan as defying the Russia policy may lead to complications among the bilateral ties between these two countries. As Kazakhstan was already dealing with challenges from Moscow perspectives, United States, who has also supported the contention of Kazakhstan for the position, although unofficially and Kazakhstan committed to continue democratic progress and dissociated itself from Russian proposals (Socor, 2009). Kazakhstan is an important international partner for the United States and key partner on nonproliferation. The Kazakh government has cooperated with United States for more than a decade on a host of projects to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction from Soviet era. The greatest challenges faced by the Kazakhstan during its term as Chairman – in – Office at OSCE will be international relations due to the difference of attitude between Kazakhstan and United States towards Russia where Kazakhstan’s policies are formulated with intent to preserve close relationship with Moscow (Assenova and Bugajski, 2008). Regarding European relations, Melvin states that Kazakhstan’s growth as an energy supplier and the country’s rising profile in the international arena has resulted in more importance to developing relations with Kazakhstan from the EU perspective. Moreover the OSCE chairmanship is regarded as an important event in fostering relations between the two. The chairmanship also offers opportunities for further development in broader relationship with EU countries, but the European Union will need to develop a more proactive agreement (42-45). These challenges also provide opportunities to the Kazakhstan government to enhance regional cooperation in Central Asia can prioritize enhanced cooperation on anti-narcotics and anti-trafficking activities as well as facilitate cooperation on migration. The challenges will also help the Kazakhstan to prove its power and leadership in the region (CSIS, 2009). The main priorities of 2010 chairmanship will be to support the work of OIDHR, freedom of media. Kazakhstan’s leadership and proactive approach in promoting tolerance will be an added value to its OSCE chairmanship. The chairmanship also provides opportunities to promote gender balance, participation of women, support coordination between the ODIHR and the OSCE and improve the mechanisms for combating trafficking in human beings. The chairmanship also provides opportunity to promote good governance at border crossing, work on migration and energy security, building on and enhancing the Corfu process, continue the dialogue on the future of European security, combat illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs, counter terrorism, and other new challenges of the modern age (OSCE, 2010). Conclusion Isaacs mentioned that Kazakhstan, since the collapse of Soviet Union, had faded the hopes of democratization and instead developed authoritarian state of control in the country mainly due to cultural legacies of kinship identities and family bonds (1). It was necessary that Kazakhstan gets awarded with the Chairmanship as it would help at least in restoring democracy in the state with implementation of three baskets of OSCE. The chairmanship offers challenges along with the chair along with several opportunities to tackle the issues relating to human dimensions, economic and environmental challenges and security issues which represent core areas and three baskets of OSCE that aims at providing security to the participating states. The Kazakhstan government sought the chairmanship as it had already attempted failed bid earlier in 2005 and 2006 and promised to develop and formulate the policies pertaining to human dimension with regard to freedom of expression and media. The contention was supported by Russia as well as United States which led the OSCE members to sanction the position to Kazakhstan. References 1. Assenova M and Bugajski J. Kazakhstan’s OSCE Chairmanship; Challenges and Opportunities, A Policy paper of the US Kazakhstan OSCE task force, CSIS, 2009 http://csis.org 2. Berg, A and Human Rights Watch. Kazakhstan, an atmosphere of quiet repression, Human Rights Watch, USA, 2008. 3. Centre for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS), Challenges to the OSCE Chairman – in – Office in 2010, Institute for New Democracies, CSIS – IND Task Force, http://csis.org 4. Cordell K. Ethnicity and democratisation in the new Europe, Routledge, USA, 1999:55 5. Corfu Informal Meeting of OSCE Foreign Ministers on the Future of European Security Chair’s Concluding Statement to the Press, OSCE, www.osce.org 6. Fraire, Maria Raquel. “The OSCE’s post – September 11 agenda, and Central Asia” Global Society, 19:2 (2005) 189-209 Print 7. Human Rights Watch, Ten Questions of Kazakhstan and the OSCE Chairmanship, HRW, November 25, 2009, http://www.hrw.org/ 8. Isaacs, Rico. “Informal politics and the uncertain context of transition: revisiting early stage non-democratic development in Kazakhstan”, Democratization 17:1 (February 2010) 1-25, Print 9. Kanafin, Daniyar. “Criminal Justice Reform in Kazakhstan and OSCE commitments”, Security and Human Rights, 1 (2009): 56-61, Print 10. McKeznie and Rupp The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe: Institutional Reform and Political Reality, McKenzie M.M. and Loedel P.H. ‘The promise and reality of European security cooperation: states, interests, and institutions’ Greenwood Publishing Group, USA, 1998: 119 11. Melvin, Neil J. “The European Union, Kazakhstan and the 2010 OSCE Chairmanship”, Security and Human Rights, no.1 (2009) 42-47 Print. 12. Novostei, V. How Kazakhstan became the OSCE Chairman, Central Asia News, 2007, Ferghana.ru, http://enews.ferghana.ru 13. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Report by the OSCE Secretary General, Ambassador Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, at the 17th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting, Athens, 2009 14. OSCE, Facts and Figures, www.osce.org 15. OSCE, Kazakhstan’s OSCE Chairmanship, www.kazakhembus.com 16. United Nations Security Council, Stronger Role in European Security, Better Cooperation with United Nations among key priorities for Regional body, Incoming Chair Tells Security Council, Department of Public Information, New York, SC/9857, http://www.un.org/ 17. Vladimir Socor, Kazakhstan poised on to step into the OSCE’s chairmanship, Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 117, The Jamestown Foundation, 2009, http://www.jamestown.org 18. Weitz, R. Kazakhstan and the New International Politics of Eurasia, Silk Road paper, Central Asia – Caucasus Institute, United States of America. 2008 19. Zagorski, A, Kazakhstan’s Chairmanship: Challenges and opportunities from the Moscow perspective Security and Human Rights 2009. Read More