The Role of OSCE and EU Cooperation in Resolving the Russia-Ukraine Conflict (original) (raw)

Perspectives on the role of the OSCE in the Ukraine crisis

2014

This preface is based on introductory remarks given by OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier at an OSCE panel organized by foraus-Swiss Forum on Foreign Policy and the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the European Forum Alpbach on 25 August 2014. The OSCE provides the only permanent forum for sustained and inclusive dialogue among all the countries of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space. It is the only regional organization that includes Ukraine and all its neighbors, as well as the countries of the EU, NATO, CIS, and CSTO. 2 Daniel Trachsler, "The OSCE: Fighting for Renewed Relevance", in: CSS Analysis in Security Policy no. 110 (2012). 3 These include the conflict in Georgia around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the conflict around Transnistria in Moldova and the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The current crisis in Ukraine is the latest addition to the list. Kosovo still remains a contentious issue, none of the former post-Soviet states (with the exception of the three Baltic states) having recognized its statehood.

Overcoming the East-West Divide: Perspectives on the Role of the OSCE in the Ukraine Crisis

Based on a panel discussion held at the European Forum Alpbach on 25 August 2014, this edited volume published in co-operation with foraus (Swiss Forum on Foreign policy) analyzes the role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in the 2014 Ukraine Crisis. Perspectives on the Role of the OSCE in the Ukraine Crisis includes contributions by OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier, Switzerland's OSCE Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Christian Nünlist, and Pál Dunay (OSCE Academcy, Bishkek).

OSCE Field Operations After The Ukraine Crisis: In Search of A New Strategy?

* Publication sponsored by the Federal Foreign Office of Germany (www.auswaertiges-amt.de) The long-standing disagreements between NATO and Russia have been left unresolved for decades. In 2014 they finally escalated into an outright confrontation on the European continent, in which most European countries are now involved. Armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine, information warfare, along with a military buildup – these developments signalize clearly that European security is in danger today. If the OSCE is to resolve this crisis, there needs to be more than a high-level dialogue among the OSCE participating States on the future of European security. It could be years before such a dialogue would bring results and a way out of the dangerous confrontation would be found. Until then, this dialogue should be complemented by the OSCE’s work on the ground, through its field operations, targeted at preventing new conflicts similar to that in Ukraine. This work is particularly needed in the countries of Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus where the lines of geopolitical confrontation are drawn today. Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan – over the fate of these six states a particularly intense struggle has unfolded. While they have been developing closer relations with NATO and the EU, the example of Georgia in 2008 has shown that Russia will oppose the Western influence in its neighbourhood. The more recent example of Ukraine has further demonstrated that the increasing instability in Europe puts even the states without ‘frozen conflicts’ on their territories at risk of an armed conflict that could lead to civil war and partition. The OSCE and its field operations have been slow to respond strategically to these new challenges. In contrast to the field operations in the Western Balkans, the OSCE operations in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus are much smaller and have lower budgets. Unlike the OSCE field operations in Central Asia, they do not have explicit conflict prevention mandates focusing instead on the resolution of already existing ‘frozen conflicts’. Moreover, in three of the six countries of Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus – Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia – there is no OSCE field operations at all. This chapter will present the evidence of why the risk of new armed conflicts in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus is real. It will then argue that the OSCE should respond to the challenge by, firstly, enlarging its field operations in Moldova and Armenia, secondly, re-establishing the field operations in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Belarus, and, thirdly, tasking all field operations in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus with conflict prevention.

NATO Is Not Brain-Dead: How Can OSCE And NATO Help Stop The War In Ukraine?

Center For Eurasian Studies Analysis Series, 2022

In an interview about two and a half years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron arrogantly claimed that NATO was brain dead and Europe was on the edge of the precipice, and he assertively questioned NATO's very future. Macron's prediction turned up false. NATO is not brain-dead. Today even most wealthy Nordic EU member countries are willing to join NATO. For example, according to a Deutsche Welle (DW) report, Sweden and Finland have stayed out of NATO due to their military nonalignment policy supported in the past by majorities of both Finns and Swedes now seem to change their policy due to war in Ukraine and are desirious of joining NATO. It seems possible that the EU will become much more in need of the NATO security umbrella in the coming period. On the other hand, these days, when a serious war situation is taking place right next to Turkey, it is believed that it would be beneficial to go back to the past and to remember the principle of "indivisibility of security" developed by the Conference/Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE/OSCE) and to explain the essence of this principle to the younger generations. In the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE, the participating States recognized the indivisibility of security in Europe. At the OSCE Istanbul summit in November 1999, the leaders of fifty-four states participating in the OSCE signed the Charter for European Security called the "İstanbul Document." Paragraph eight of the Charter for European Security involves one of the crucial principles for the security and stability of Europe in the twenty-first century. The reason for the war situation that Europe is facing in Ukraine today is that the Russian Federation and some countries in the Western bloc consider this paragraph in terms of their priorities. In order to find a solution to the war situation we face today in Ukraine, the constructive negotiation spirit of the period when the 1999 Istanbul Document was prepared must be returned. In our judgment, Turkey, in current circumstances, is one of the most appropriate OSCE countries that can best prepare the suitable ground for a revival of such constructive spirit in the new negotiations.

OSCE Mediation Strategies in Eastern Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh: A Comparative Analysis

European Security, 2021

Even though the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has performed mediation efforts in Eurasian secessionist conflicts, its role has been neglected by mainstream international relations (IR) and conflict mediation literature. To fill in this gap, this article examines OSCE mediation strategies in two major secessionist conflicts: the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Drawing on Zartman’s conceptual framework, this study posits that OSCE mediation strategies were constrained given its weak organisational capacity, lack of legal empowerment and adverse geopolitical environment. Due to these structural limitations, the OSCE can be said to have been more effective in containing conflict than contributing to conflict resolution. This article aims to contribute to conflict mediation research by highlighting the importance of context for understanding the role of international organisations (IOs) as mediators.

Position Paper on Agenda of the Ukrainian Chairmanship of the OSCE in 2013

2012

In 2013 Ukraine will hold the chair at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is the highest profile role in the international arena the country will take since the declaration of its independence.  Ukrainian Chairmanship of the OSCE can become an instrument and a chance for Ukraine to advance its international standings and promote its status in international relations. It will foster Ukrainian active involvement in the regional political, humanitarian and security dialogue.  The Chairmanship can become a useful tool for Ukraine. At the same time Ukraine will be expected to have serious attitude towards European values and principles and in fulfillment of its commitments within the Framework of the OSCE.  The OSCE country Chairmanship is not only a great honor but a challenge too. It is not a purely procedural position, but that one requiring skills of good mediator, proposition of a concrete agenda. This endeavor requires not only state involvement, but also of the civil society and independent analytical centers.

European Security System, the OSCE and Conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine

Crisis of European Security and OSCE On the OSCE ministerial that was held in 2014 the representative of France called this year “The Year of European Security and Confidence Shock”. What is security? OSCE has comprehensive approach to security (until 1975 year the security was determined only by military component), i.e. security means: humanitarian / human rights / human, economic and environmental, political and military dimensions, 24 as a whole - Comprehensive Approach to Security. Yet in 1990 year has been recognized that the responsibilities imposed in humanitarian/human rights dimension is direct and legitimate care subject and it doesn't belong to only one particular state internal affairs (OSCE, 1990). There are many mechanisms within the OSCE framework related to control of Conventional Armed Forces, confidence and security measures are and were integral part of Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security system. We are mainly speaking about CFE (Conventional Armed Forces restrictions in Europe) (OSCE, 1990), Vienna Document 1999 and “Treaty on Open Skies “ (OSCE, 1992). These mechanisms were developed to avoid conflicts. It has a great role in early warning and crisis resolution affairs. At the same time, the OSCE has acknowledged that one of them, especially the weakening of the CFE's regime, would have a devastating impact on the OSCE's comprehensive security. And it was so. Should be noticed that European security and confidence collapse began in 2007 year, when Russia announced “Moratorium“ (Doran, 2007) on the agreement of Conventional Armed Forces (and it was eloquently called "A Cornerstone of European security") (Despite the fact that the contract did not implied this possibility) it was announced a little later, in the same year, it completely stopped the performance of contractual obligations. In 2008 year Russia used large-scaled military force against Georgia (Nichol, 2009). Nowadays in Tskhinvali and Abkhazia regions Russia has illegally disposed several military bases, with this there is a threat of annexation of these two occupied regions of the Russian. Russia carried out the annexation of Crimea (BBC, 2015) and there is a threat of recognition/capture of Donetsk and Lugansk regions (Goncharenko, 2015).