Easing Dialogue Via the OSCE
By Andrej Benedejcic
The Moscow Times, Russia
June 15 2005
It was June 2001, only a few days before the planned first meeting of
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, and the U.S.-Russia
summit in Slovenia seemed in jeopardy. The advance teams of both
presidents could not agree on how to divide up the rooms in the Brdo
Castle, the favorite mansion of the late Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia.
The protocol deadlock was only broken when the Slovenian side
suggested a solution worthy of Solomon: The east wing of the castle
went to the Russians, the west wing to the Americans and the south
wing to the Slovenians. The summit took place.
The meeting in Slovenia was marked by bright and sunny weather, which
was also reflected in the talks of both presidents. This positive
spirit was most clearly expressed by Bush, who is still remembered
for saying that he looked Putin in the eye and found him
straightforward and trustworthy. Summit participants came away with
the impression that they had witnessed the dawning of a new period in
East-West relations, characterized by mutual trust and candor.
The events of the past four years, however, have shown that the logic
of presidential advance teams in dividing up the Brdo Castle remains
sound. The dialogue between Moscow and Washington, for one, has had
its share of vicissitudes, reflected most clearly in the changing
fortunes of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
chaired this year by Slovenia.
The OSCE, with a membership of 55 participating states, is the
largest regional security organization and extends from Canada’s west
coast to the Russian Far East. The discussions and events that take
place in this forum thus reflect the many processes that take place
in the Euro-Atlantic space. As outgoing OSCE Secretary General Jan
Kubis recently noted: “What is going on in the OSCE is therefore
worth watching, because it is a barometer of the political atmosphere
in Europe today.”
Judging from the current situation in the OSCE, the state of affairs
in the area between Vancouver and Vladivostok at the moment is not at
all reassuring. The statements at the regular ambassadorial meetings
of the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna sometimes even hark back to
the bygone days of the Cold War. There is talk of countries belonging
to different “blocs,” and the general level of distrust is palpable.
The situation is unfortunate not only because the OSCE member states
should be concentrating on celebrating a number of important
anniversaries this year — including the 30th anniversary of the
signing of the seminal Helsinki Final Act — but also because the
organization as such still holds great promise. Part of this is due
to its innate openness and historically induced flexibility. For
example, while the Collective Security Treaty Organization — which
unites Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and
Tajikistan — still regrets the European Union and NATO’s lack of
responsiveness to dialogue, it cannot say the same about its
relationship with the OSCE. The secretary generals of both
organizations met in February 2004 here in Moscow. The CSTO secretary
general, Nikolai Bordyuzha, was also invited to and took part in the
OSCE’s 2nd Annual Security Review Conference in June 2004.
The current impasse in the OSCE is primarily due to the
dissatisfaction of countries “East of Vienna” with its work. This
discontent was most clearly expressed last July, when the presidents
of nine countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States signed
the Moscow Declaration. Then, in September, foreign ministers from
eight CIS countries adopted the Astana Address, which made concrete
proposals for changing the OSCE’s work. Finally, last December the
OSCE was shaken by a financial crisis on account of certain
reservations from the Russian side regarding its new budget.
The OSCE’s current predicament is regrettable. It is the only
regional security organization with established and comprehensive
field presence in Central Asia, as well as in some of the most
problematic areas of the European continent, including Transdnestr,
Nagorny Karabakh and South Ossetia. It is also the only regional
organization that takes the holistic approach to security for
granted, as evidenced by the political, military, economic,
environmental and humanitarian dimensions of its activities.
Finally, the OSCE has taken the calls for its reform seriously. In
fact, one of the first measures taken by the OSCE’s new chairman,
Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, was to establish the Panel
of Eminent Persons, which is required to come up with concrete
proposals to improve the organization’s work by the end of this
month. The panel includes a Russian representative.
At a time of dissonance in the dialogue between East and West and
their security institutions, the OSCE is a natural forum for
discussion of different points of view. After all, the organization
was originally created precisely for this purpose. In its current
chairmanship role, Slovenia will endeavor to ensure the continued
viability of the OSCE, including through discussions regarding how it
can function more effectively.
This will allow the organization to continue its important activities
and concentrate on new tasks and projects, such as the upcoming
seminar on military doctrines and the energy security conference.
This will also allow the trusting and candid spirit of Brdo to live
on.
Andrej Benedejcic is the Slovenian ambassador to Russia. As an
adviser to the prime minister, he was a member of the Slovenian
organizational committee for the Bush-Putin summit of June 16, 2001.
He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.