Minister of Foreign Affairs Knut Vollebæk

The 1999 Norwegian OSCE chairmanship

OSCE Profile Seminar, Oslo, 22 October 1998 (Check against delivery)

Ladies and gentlemen,

Two months from now Norway will be assuming the chairmanship of the OSCE. During the past ten months I have been a member of the troika of the organization. This period has confirmed my view that we are facing a great challenge. However, we feel well prepared and intend to devote considerable resources to this task.

As you have just heard from the previous speaker, there is no shortage of tasks confronting the OSCE. Moreover, many of the challenges which will be a feature of Norway's chairmanship period are not known today and are extremely hard to predict. The rapidly unfolding situation in Kosovo is perhaps the best example of this. I will return to this issue later on in my intervention, but there is no doubt that the Kosovo operation will be at the very top of the agenda of the Norwegian chairmanship.

Before I go any further, I would like to pay tribute to my Polish colleague. Through his personal commitment, Bronislaw Geremek has contributed to strengthening the OSCE as an instrument for European security. The role it is assuming in Kosovo testifies to this.

Norway is taking over the chairmanship at a time of rapid change. The danger of large-scale war has disappeared, but the potential for regional, ethnic or religious conflict is far from being exhausted. The need for reform on a broad scale throughout Central and Eastern Europe remains considerable.

The OSCE is not the only actor on this scene. A trans-Atlantic security architecture based on interlocking institutions is emerging. A major cooperative effort is afoot to develop institutions that set standards for international conduct and require members to cooperate in order to uphold them. The new structure is intended to meet the demands of the world as it is today, not as it was 10 years ago. This effort is defining much of the framework within which the OSCE has to function.

The OSCE has advantages which give it a crucial role to play. It is the institution of choice for defending and promoting democracy in Europe. It has an extensive field presence and underlying institutions which enable it to play an active role in the stabilization of the new democracies. Its broad membership and flexible operating procedures allow it to act quickly when conflicts threaten.

We want to build on this foundation. The OSCE must be further developed as an instrument for preventive diplomacy, early warning, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. As we do this, we must bear in mind the words of my colleague Madeleine Albright: " The most important challenges we face today are on Europe's periphery. It will not help Europe's wealthiest nations to deepen our unity if freedom falters to the East, and if just 200 miles south of Vienna, we permit another bloody conflict to rage."

The OSCE can point to some success, not least in the Balkans. Here the organization has proven to be an effective instrument for the international community in the pre-conflict, as well as the post-conflict phase of crisis management. Bosnia is a good example. Thanks to the OSCE mission's activities democratic structures are slowly but surely emerging. In Albania the organization succeeded in stabilizing a potentially dangerous situation in 1996. Since then it has been able to respond in a flexible and effective manner to the many challenges posed by a difficult process of democracy building. In Croatia the OSCE recently took over the police monitoring of Eastern Slavonia from the UN.

Kosovo is yet another example of how regional conflicts may escalate unless they are contained and resolved in time. Up until last month the OSCE was not a key player. The US and the Contact Group had taken the lead. Moreover, due to Yugoslavia's suspension from the organization, the OSCE was excluded from

having a presence on the ground. It was therefore impossible to intervene in time with diplomatic, poltical or economic measures to prevent a simmering crisis from developing into a full-scale conflict.

This month's broad international effort to resolve the Kosovo crisis has completely changed our perspective. We are now in a position to repair the damage and prevent the conflict from escalating and spreading. The OSCE is in the process of establishing its largest field mission ever. Verifying compliance with the agreement negotiated by US special envoy Richard Holbrooke will undoubtedly occupy much of the attention of the Norwegian chairmanship.

It will be up to the chairman to head and coordinate the work of the Kosovo Verification Mission. In addition, we face a great challenge on the practical side. Norway has complied with the request to act as lead nation in establishing KVM headquarters in Pristina. The chief of staff may well be a Norwegian (oppdateres). We will head and organize the administrative and logistical functions without which the KVM cannot function. One of the reasons why we were asked to take on this responsibility was our forthcoming OSCE chairmanship. But we are also a committed member of NATO and well versed in the operating procedures of the Alliance. This is crucial since NATO will shoulder a major part of the burden for KVM's security. In my opinion the request to accept this assignment is a mark of confidence in Norway as a credible partner and ally.

Ensuring compliance by all parties will be the greatest challenge. Previous experience indicates that there is a need to maintain political and military pressure on Yugoslavia. But we have also seen differences of opinion on the viability of the agreement on the Kosovo-Albanian side. Ensuring their commitment to the political process will be of decisive importance.

The efforts to stabilize the Balkans are a promising sign that the OSCE is continuing to evolve. By enhancing the ability of the organization to support democracy building we are contributing to a safer Europe. And when we engage in these efforts, we must bear in mind that the aim is to make the OSCE more operational, to make it produce results, not just reports.

However, both the Bosnia elections and the Kosovo crisis illustrate that the challenges to our security are deeply rooted. Building security in post-Cold War Europe is a complex process. Few problems can be solved during the twelve months available to an OSCE chairmanship. This accentuates the need to see efforts in a long-term perspective, and to work for cooperation and consensus building, not just within the OSCE, but between all the actors on the European security scene. It also highlights the need for strict priorities. By sticking to our priorities we risk disappointing those who expect too much from the OSCE. If we take on too many tasks at the same time, we run the risk of being reduced to administrators, doing too little in too many places.

Our chairmanship will focus on four areas of priority. The first of these is intimately connected with the nature of the chairman's tasks, which is to promote consensus among the 54 members of the OSCE. This must be done amidst a crossfire of opposing national interests and priorities. One criterion for the success of Norway's chairmanship will be whether it has the ability to balance the need for quick action against the need to find broadly based solutions. We must both serve as the translator of political decisions into concrete action and be regarded as an honest broker by all parties.

To achieve this, I need the cooperation of the states which are directly or indirectly affected by conflict and tension, as well as the other actors in European security. This means organizations like the EU, NATO and the WEU, and ad hoc arrangements like the Contact Group for Former Yugoslavia. It also includes major powers like the USA and Russia, and it includes Germany and Finland, who will hold the EU presidencies during my tenure.

Secondly, there is a need to enhance the moral authority of the OSCE as a community of values. In practical terms focusing on the human dimension means further work to ensure that democracy is firmly embedded in Central and Eastern Europe. Building political structures answerable to the public must continue. So must the process of establishing the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights.

In this connection I would like to pay tribute to the High Commissioner for National Minorities, Max van der Stoel, who is with us today, to the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and to the OSCE permanent missions in areas as far apart as central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Baltic states. Without them we could not have come this far.

Democracy will not take root unless we remove the basic causes of popular dissatisfaction. Economic reform, social improvements and environmental clean-up are essential factors in this endeavour. With a sound economic basis in place we can prevent a clash between the "haves" and the "have-nots". Removing such causes of conflict is in keeping with a long-standing Norwegian tradition, and is at the very heart of the present Norwegian Government's foreign policy.

The EU, the Economic Commission for Europe and global institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are shouldering the brunt of the economic reforms. But the OSCE can also make a contribution. It is my ambition to use the economic dimension of the OSCE to draw attention to such issues in this forum as well. In particular I would like to focus on the central Asian republics, an area where economic reform has not progressed far, and where the ecological and humanitarian challenges are formidable. To this end the OSCE needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for central Asia.

Economic reform and humanitarian assistance alone will not eliminate all the causes of a conflict. Former Yugoslavia and the Caucasus demonstrate that regional tension associated with ethnic, cultural and religious differences can be equally destabilizing. Religious fundamentalism is a major issue in the central Asian republics. The hostile camps in places like Bosnia and Kosovo underline the need for people-to-people contact across the dividing lines. On the other hand, the Middle East and Guatemalan peace processes have shown us that it is possible to build trust and confidence between long-standing opponents.

This is precisely an area where the OSCE can contribute to a substantial degree. We should explore the possibilities of using dialogue and cooperation on religious and cultural issues to prevent conflict and foster the stability the new democracies must have in order to develop.

To further this process the OSCE must enhance its relations with other relevant institutions, the Council of Europe in particular. The OSCE and the Council of Europe are different in many respects. But they have overlapping agendas and responsibilities, particularly in the domain of democracy and human rights.

We should explore the possibility of developing concrete, specific and pragmatic ways of enhancing cooperation. Joint, or at least mutually supportive, efforts would be the best way of ensuring flexible use of limited combined resources. Meeting concrete operational needs related to conflict prevention must be at the root of this cooperation. I will discuss these issues with the forthcoming Icelandic chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

This need for joint action leads me to my third area of priority, the OSCE as part of a broader security architecture. Post-Cold War crisis management requires a long-term commitment. No individual organization or country has the resources to act on its own. Bosnia and the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, as well as the action over Kosovo, show that no organization can be, to paraphrase John Donne, an island sufficient unto itself.

The OSCE plays a key role on the civilian side in Bosnia. This includes preparations for and monitoring of elections, promoting human rights, building democratic political structures and ensuring regional military stability and confidence.

Still, the OSCE is part of a broader effort, where also other international organizations are making significant contributions. Through SFOR, NATO remains responsible for maintaining the peace in Bosnia. The UN has been entrusted with the task of establishing a democratic police force. The World Bank, the IMF and similar organizations are important contributors to the process of economic rehabilitation. Much practical work, particularly in the humanitarian field, is being carried out by non-governmental organizations and UN agencies. Without all these elements in place Bosnia will not have the stability necessary for a lasting peace.

We are not looking for a bureaucratic division of responsibilities, nor a rigid hierarchy of organizations. What we need is a pragmatic and flexible system of cooperation and consultation which ensures that all available resources are utilized in order to reach a common goal. This is an important part of the ongoing negotiations on a European security charter document.

Another primary aim in the ongoing negotiations on a security document is to define the OSCE's role in conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. The process should confirm that the emphasis of the OSCE is on "soft security". This includes political and diplomatic conflict prevention, building democratic structures and respect for human rights, and alleviating the consequences of regional, ethnic and religious tension. The OSCE could act as coordinator on the ground for non-military aspects of conflict prevention and post-conflict rehabilitation, for instance in the way already envisaged in the mandate for its presence in Albania.

Whether the OSCE should carry out military peacekeeping operations is part of the debate. I would not exclude such an option completely, but I believe that in most cases the OSCE's main role will be to provide the mandate. On the other hand, civilian police activities should be part of the OSCE's focus on preventive action. The police tasks which the OSCE took over from the UN in Eastern Slavonia just one week ago will therefore serve as a model for the future.

My fourth area of priority is to enhance the operational capabilities of the organization. This means continuing to strengthen the ability of the Secretariat in Vienna to support the field activities. It also means increasing the ability of the field operators and of underlying institutions like the High Comissioner for National Minorities and the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, to carry out their conflict prevention and early warning tasks. It entails looking into recruitment procedures and developing a comprehensive training concept.

It is the joint responsibility of the participating states to ensure that the quality of the personnel assigned to the OSCE is high. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that they are prepared for their job. I see a significant potential for cooperation with the Council of Europe on this point.

Without effective OSCE bodies no Chairman can succeed. They must work for him. He on his part must coordinate their activities and ensure that they can do their job properly. But the strengthening of the organization must not take place at the expense of the qualities which have made the OSCE what it is today. It must remain cost effective and flexible.

In this connection I would like to point to an unresolved dilemma. The ambitious agenda of the OSCE requires resources. Up to now we have tended to increase the case load without providing an adequate economic base. This issue must be resolved. Increasing the regular budgets of the OSCE in line with the tasks we give it is a joint responsibility.

There is no time for a full geographical tour d'horizon. But I am afraid that the conflicts in the Balkans will be with us throughout Norway's chairmanship period. I have already spoken about Kosovo. If we succeed here the benefits will be substantial. We can help alleviate the humanitarian situation, support the peace process and assist in fostering reconciliation. In time we can also give Yugoslavia the assistance in political and economic reforms it needs in order to be fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community.

This is not the only crucial area, however. There can be no question of scaling down the efforts to turn Bosnia into a true democracy. But the election outcome illustrates that we need a long-term strategy to accomplish what we have set out to do. The newly established "Friends of Albania" has given the OSCE co-responsibility for coordinating the efforts of the international community to contain the conflict, bring about reconciliation and foster a reformed Albania.

It follows from what I have said that the chairmanship will be a major challenge. Some have said that it will be too large a task, that it will consume too many resources. I do not agree. Europe's security is our security. The chairmanship gives us the opportunity to take on responsibility and play a role in resolving the burning issues in today's Europe. We can show that we have the ability to head a large organization with sensitive political tasks. Clearly, this serves Norway's national interest.