State Secretary Åslaug Haga

The OSCE in the new Europe

Speech at Bolkesjø 26 March 1998

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to this seminar at Bolkesjø, deep into the Norwegian countryside, where we shall be focusing on some issues of major importance for the future of our continent. The Bolkesjø seminar has been an annual meeting point for years, under the auspices of the Norwegian Advisory Council for Arms Control and Disarmament. It has proved to be a stimulating forum, and I am very pleased to see so many familiar faces here. I think it is helpful to leave the bustle of the city for a couple of days in order to concentrate. I am sure these two days of work will prove rewarding.

The subject chosen for this year, "the role of the OSCE in the European security architecture" is a highly topical one. This is firstly because the OSCE right now is proving its worth as a security organization. The containment of the Kosovo crisis is a prime example. Secondly, the OSCE has decided to adopt a charter, or document, that will define the role of the OSCE in European security at its next summit. These two elements are interlinked and are pulling in the same direction - a more operative and effective OSCE, with a major role to play in European security.

The end of the bipolar confrontation of the Cold War has now given way to democracy and a market economy in almost all of the OSCE area, from Vladivostok to Vancouver and from Murmansk to Marseilles. However, the numerous regional conflicts in Eastern Europe, held in check by the Cold War, have made parts of the area more unstable, and this is where the OSCE is operative. I firmly believe that non compliance with the OSCE commitments on the human dimension, laid down in the Helsinki Final Act and later documents, is one of the main reasons for the political crises in Europe today. Increased compliance, on the other hand, means increased security for all.

Europe is changing rapidly, and the extent and depth of these changes pose a number of challenges, having an impact on the entire range of political, economic, social and environmental issues. Old conflicts have been replaced by enhanced security and co-operation, a new partnership is being established between NATO and Russia. The EU and NATO are inviting new member states, regional patterns of co-operation are being expanded and strengthened. The question is, which role does the OSCE have in the new Europe?

The OSCE has two features that distinguish it from other European and transatlantic security organizations: It has universal membership in its region, and it has unquestioned moral authority. Its predecessor, the CSCE, played a historic role in breaking down the iron curtain and paving the way for freedom and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. One of the most important political events since the Second World War was the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. It laid down respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, as a basic value to which member states are committed.

Thus the Final Act was an important tool in the efforts to bring down the communist tyrannies. Helsinki committees were founded in most countries. Dissidents could demand that their governments stood by their commitments. We all remember how the oppressive regimes crumbled, one by one. But the end of the Cold War did not mean that we no longer needed the OSCE principles. On the contrary, it meant that we could come a step further. In 1990 and 1991, the Charter of Paris, the Copenhagen Document and the Moscow Document all refined the OSCE commitments on the human dimension. With these documents the term "internal affairs" was no longer part of the vocabulary of legitimate policy, and respect for OSCE commitments became a concern for all.

The answer to my question on the space left for OSCE is in my view that the OSCE is a important security organization, as long as we preserve its uniqueness. We must be vigilant and prevent the OSCE from becoming just another international organization. The OSCE is an important moral force and it is perceived as such. It has been argued that OSCE is too soft. Moral authority is not soft. It maybe was during the cold war. As of today moral authority is a strong force. The OSCE is also the only European and transatlantic security organization where not only both Russia and the United States are full members, but also all countries of the region that suffer under low stability and threats to security. This provides the OSCE with a unique base for managing conflicts at our continent.

The importance of conflict prevention can no be overestimated. Investing in conflict prevention is first of all cheap in terms of human sufferings - and that should be our prime concern - but it is also cheap in terms of money. Armed conflicts are the most tragic and costly undertakings imaginable. Peacekeeping and other operations that very often follow peace settlements are costly in all senses of the word. An OSCE mission with anything from a handful to a couple of hundred mission members is a low cost affair. The cost effectiveness of OSCE field operations compares favourably with that of most other international organisations. We have seen that the field work done by the OSCE missions has an impact. If, through field work and other instruments at our disposal, we can get all OSCE members to pay respect to human rights, including the rights of ethnic minorities, and to the principles of democracy, there will be less reason to fear armed conflict and unstability. We will then have managed to remove most of the causes of war.

(Conflict-curve - foil)

When we think of security, we tend to think of armed forces and hardware; of doctrines, and not of moral authority. I have just explained that we should change our perspective. However, the OSCE has, as we know, also a certain military dimension. The Stockholm Conference in 1986 was a breakthrough in establishing military confidence and security building measures, and these arms control measures have since been refined. They now constitute a web of commitments that regulates military behaviour on our continent, and are thus an important stabilizing factor. The Vienna document has been supplemented by the CFE treaty, under which the most comprehensive disarmament in modern European history has taken place.

NATO and the UN are security organizations that are better known and better understood, but the OSCE has had untold successes. The role it has played in conflict prevention and crisis management has, paradoxically, contributed to its relative anonymity.

It is when diplomacy fails, and serious conflict breaks out, that media attention reaches its peak, and unfortunately not when serious situations with possibly grave repercussions are effectively avoided. It is the failures of diplomacy, not the victories, that make headlines. The successes enjoyed by the OSCE in Estonia and Latvia are good examples. The low-key, long-term work of the OSCE has in my view contributed significantly to keeping tension in the Baltic countries at a low level.

This leaves us with an information gap. The media and the public should be made more aware of what the OSCE actually does, and the member states also have a responsibility to provide relevant information about what we do. In sum the OSCE has proved to be an effective security organization by preventing and managing tension and crises while they were at a low level of intensity. It also has special competence in post-conflict democracy building, one of the many remedies for conflict prevention. The main instruments are diplomatic; with low-key political work, and active involvement in human rights, democracy and ethnic minority issues.

This brings us to the OSCE negotiations on a European security pact - or whatever we eventually want to call it. It will in all likelihood fall to Norway to chair the negotiations in their final stages, in 1999. There is a need for an updated document reflecting the altered state of affairs since the adoption of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe at the Paris Summit in November 1990.

The European security architecture has changed profoundly over the last ten years. We should remind ourselves that this change is based on tremendous progress. However, during this period we have also witnessed war and regional instability. Armed conflict is still a real threat to the lives of many Europeans. But these threats to security have not been countered by traditional security policy means, as we know them from the Cold War. Deterrence and military preparedness on a large scale are luckily not the only answer.

All our security-related organizations have adapted to the new challenges, and fulfil different roles. The OSCE has carved out its role in preventive action and management of low intensity crises. Neither the OSCE nor NATO, WEU or any other international organization, has a superior or co-ordinating role to play. The establishment of some kind of European security council, or superior decision-making body stemming from any of these organizations, would be counterproductive. The OSCE charter should provide for flexible co-operation between democratic security organizations. The inclusiveness of the OSCE gives it a central location, and its human dimension avis is a ground timber for all these organizations. None of these organizations, however, should have a role superior to that of other international organizations.

Norway's task as Chairman-in-Office for 1999 is a reminder that Norway's foreign policy is one of continued commitment and active involvement in all parts of European security in order to promote peace and stability. Norway is willing to take on this task because we are willing to bear our share of the responsibility for security and stability in Europe. It is a major opportunity for us to be a key contributor on a broad range of issues relating to security, human rights and democracy.

We have already invested much in the OSCE, politically, economically, and in terms of personnel. It is in our interest to follow up this involvement. We also have a good reputation in international crisis prevention and crisis management. We should build on our experiences in this field and do our part of the job here on our own continent. I also see this task as a natural extension of our commitment to NATO. We look forward to next year with high expectations, but also with respect for the task that has been entrusted to us by the member states.

The chairmanship is a major administrative and political one for Norway, requiring substantial resources, but. The OSCE is unique also in the sense that it is led by the Chairman-in-Office, and not by a Secretary General. This arrangement provides maximum political involvement and momentum. It also gives the organization a different character from that of comparable international organizations. Flexibility, ingenuity and adaptability are hallmarks of the OSCE.

One of our main objectives for the chairmanship is to make the organization better suited for its operational tasks. In practical terms, this means that some priority will have to be given to the organization itself. We must continue our efforts to put in place a sound financial basis for the manifold activities of the OSCE. Political preparedness for unforeseen emergencies will not suffice unless it is accompanied by financial preparedness. Much has been achieved through the establishment of the OSCE Emergency Fund last year, on our initiative, and through the decision at the Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting on a new scale of distribution for large-scale OSCE missions and projects. The latter, which was accomplished thanks to Danish diplomacy, is a major step in the right direction. Much, however, remains to be done.

A much-needed reform of the OSCE Secretariat is under way. It is a lean secretariat, and should remain so. This task should be a first step in the direction of building new OSCE capabilities, such as police training and monitoring, and streamlining existing capabilities. One important priority will be improved recruitment and training of mission members. We have a moral obligation to ensure that individuals serving the OSCE, frequently under very difficult circumstances, are as well prepared as possible for the challenges they will be facing. Another factor is that the OSCE is a young organization, and might need to establish its own esprit de corps. I expect this to be a positive side effect of improved training. The OSCE should, in sum, hone its own tools in order to become a more effective instrument for the early warning of potential conflict, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post conflict rehabilitation.

We cannot possibly know much about what emergencies will have arisen nine months from now. It is a safe bet, however, that there will be difficult situations to handle on behalf of the member states. We must expect the unexpected, but can safely predict that the OSCE will have major commitments throughout the Balkans, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Albania, as well as in several parts of Eastern Europe, including Belarus and Ukraine. The current conflicts in the Caucasus and in Tajikistan will probably still be with us. It will be our duty to take the initiative and lead the way, but only with the backing of the member states, and above all, of the parties involved. The OSCE is a consensus-based organization, and should remain so. This is an important asset. Thus the Chairman-in-Office can not act without support and approval. I am sure that Norwegian diplomacy has much to contribute, but we are primarily obliged to take into account the interests of member states, and to work out viable compromises. 1999 will accordingly not be the time to pursue parochial Norwegian interests.

This government is emphasizing the importance of moral values in all politics, which coincides well with the basis for OSCE conflict prevention. Consider the case of Belarus. In the last few years the OSCE has paid increasing attention to the negative developments there, with their massive violations of OSCE commitments. The constitutional crisis and increasing repression are a tragedy for the people of Belarus. The situation is, moreover, a threat to stability and security in the whole region. The early warning functions of the OSCE were triggered at an early stage, and we are now at the crisis prevention stage. The OSCE has set up its Monitoring and Advisory Group in Minsk. The aim is to work both with the authorities and with non-governmental organizations in order to bring the country a step forward on the road to democracy and the rule of law. It will not be easy, but I think it is possible to help Belarus find its way to democracy.

The crisis management function is perhaps even more demanding than crisis prevention. We try through the OSCE to manage crises while they are still at low intensity, to curb them and to offer remedies. Looking back on the crisis in Albania, it seems fair to say that the OSCE handled it in a reasonably effective manner, thanks largely to our Danish friends. Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen appointed Former Chancellor Dr. Franz Vranitzky as his personal representative to Albania. Dr. Vranitzky handled the co-ordination of international efforts with great skill. The immediate danger of total breakdown and chaos is over, and post conflict rehabilitation is well under way. The job in Albania is not finished yet, of course, and it is really up to the Albanian leaders to take the right steps towards reconciliation.

The international community can normally not take a hands-on approach as was done in the elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The normal tasks of the OSCE are monitoring and advising on the one hand and more direct approaches like political pressure and offering of good offices on the other. And this is what we have done in Albania.

I will spare you a tour d'horizon of OSCE conflict prevention and crisis management, but I would like to point out that the Western Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus are all areas where the OSCE is involved to some degree and where there is potential for conflict. Let me, however, be very concrete on one particular case, namely Kosovo.

The current crisis in Kosovo is a good example of the security role of the OSCE. The crisis is potentially destabilizing for the whole region, and can, if left uncontained, have serious negative implications for all of us. The people of Serbia, the Kosovo Albanians included, will of course be the primary victims if we do not succeed. The Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE has reappointed former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales, as his personal representative to Yugoslavia, with a mandate that includes specific provisions with regard to Kosovo. The OSCE is also strengthening its field missions in the neighbouring countries, Albania and Macedonia, in order to monitor a possible spillover from Kosovo. The OSCE embassies in Belgrade are aiming at a continuous presence in Kosovo, and the OSCE is seeking to move its missions in Serbia back to Kosovo, Sandzak and Vojvodina. Foreign Minister Knut Vollebæk represented the OSCE at the meeting on Kosovo of the Contact Group in Bonn yesterday. At the meeting a mandate was given to the OSCE troika to present a report on FRY's compliance to the demands of the Contact Group before their next meeting.

Today, Kosovo is on the brink of civil war. Remembering the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is not difficult to imagine the horrors we could be facing if efforts to find a peaceful solution prove fruitless. The Kosovo issue is currently at the top of the OSCE's agenda. At this point it is unclear whether Mr. Milosevic will co-operate on the Gonzales mission. Tremendous pressure is being brought to bear on Mr. Milosevic, however, and we must remain hopeful that he will soon realise that the only possibility is a solution based on dialogue and mutual accommodation. An independent Kosovo is not a viable option, but neither is a continuation of the status quo. Mr. Gonzales can be helpful in mediating an enhanced status for Kosovo within the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I hope that we will have the OSCE mission back again soon, and that we will be able to engage the parties in serious talks on how to solve the problems.

Working on conflict prevention and crises management necessarily mean that you have to focus on the difficulties. Let me, however, conclude by stressing that if somebody 10 years ago had suggested that we would be sitting here today discussing a completely new security achitecture for Europe, we probably would have thought that he or she was completely out of his or her mind. We have plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the future, and we should be eager to take advantage of the many possibilities that the new era has put within reach.

Thank you for your attention.