Minister of Foreign Affairs Knut Vollebæk

The Fridtjof Nansen Memorial Lecture - OSCE priorities for southeastern Europe

Athens, 22 October 1999

Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great honour for me to address you as Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE and speak about the organisation's priorities for southeastern Europe.

Your old democratic tradition has been a rich source of inspiration both for me personally and of course for the objectives of the OSCE.

The ancient Greek political thinkers sought to achieve the ideal state, in which conflict would be eliminated in the interest of the good life for all. But they were also the first to insist that no actual state, past or present, has attained or even approached this goal.

Today we are facing a number of ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts threatening peace and stability on several continents.

Our challenge is how we can contribute to reconciliation and understanding and create the necessary confidence on which to bridge these conflicts and to build a peaceful future. That is the challenge we are facing also in the war-torn Balkans today, where conflicts have led to the loss of so many lives and caused so much suffering to millions of people. As a neighbouring country, Greece is more aware of this challenge than anybody else.

The conflicts following the break-up of Yugoslavia have been at the forefront of the attention of the international community during the 90's. That goes also for my own country.

Norway has been actively involved in the international efforts to restore stability in southeastern Europe. Norwegian military personnel have participated in the peace operations in Croatia and Bosnia from the very beginning.

More recently, 1200 Norwegian men and women began serving with KFOR in Kosovo. This is our largest military deployment outside Norway for almost fifty years.

Norwegian humanitarian organisations are actively involved in the efforts to relieve the sufferings of those who have been affected by war and ethnic cleansing in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Over the past four years alone, we have allocated more than 250 million dollars in humanitarian and economic assistance to the region, bilaterally and through international institutions.

The point of departure for Norwegian foreign policy is the indivisibility of European security. This means that by helping to meet the security challenges in southeastern Europe we are also serving our own basic interests.

Our commitment to peace and stability in Europe, to promote democracy and respect for human rights is also reflected in our taking on the responsibility of chairing the OSCE this year.

Four main priorities

The challenges in southeastern Europe were an important part of the background when we identified our four main priorities for the chairmanship of the OSCE. These are: emphasising the human dimension, promoting the division of labour between institutions, enhancing the OSCE’s capacity for preventive diplomacy, and developing regional strategies.

i) Our first priority is to adhere to the organisation's core functions, including the promotion of human rights, the principles of democracy and the rule of law. This is what is known as the human dimension of international security.

These are the basic values that give a common identity to the OSCE’s 54 non-identical members.

In my opinion, the human dimension of international security is the most important contribution the OSCE can make towards long-term stability and security in this part of our continent. It is at the core of all the OSCE’s activities in the region.

Our task is to provide people, every individual, with a choice. It is to allow them to have their own political views, their own religion and beliefs, their own ethnic affiliation – and still live side by side.

Our approach is practical. We aim to develop co-operation and mutual understanding between governments, groups and individuals. We seek to improve the structures and institutions that are crucial to democracy and good governance. And we aim to tackle problems that affect the everyday lives of ordinary people. The ability to reach out to them and to improve their situation is the basic yardstick by which our efforts must be measured.

Today the OSCE has missions of long duration in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Croatia, in Albania, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and of course in Kosovo, where the OSCE is working alongside the UN and the EU in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo.

Peace and stability cannot be imposed from outside. The international community must get people to work together in order to solve common problems. I have no illusions about the complexity of this task. It will take decades to achieve.

Ethnic conflict is often rooted in the economic and social disparities in a region, both within and across national borders. Regional economic growth and reduced poverty therefore provide the best basis for stability.

The conflicts in and around the Former Yugoslavia are a good illustration of this. They show that to reach long-term solutions we must focus just as much on economic reform and development as on democratisation, institution building, respect for human and minority rights and military security.

ii) The second priority for the Norwegian chairmanship is to strengthen and improve the co-operation between the OSCE and other organisations.

I believe this is crucial for the success of the international community's efforts, for the effectiveness of the OSCE, and for the impact of each country’s contribution.

No single organisation or group of states in the OSCE area is strong enough to meet the security challenges on its own.

Thus, strengthening of the co-operation between the OSCE and other international organisations will be a focus of the Charter for European Security, which we aim at formally adopting at the OSCE summit in Istanbul next month.

iii) We all see clearly the need to strengthen international preventive diplomacy. We have made this our third priority.

Throughout our chairmanship we have experienced the importance of enhancing the ability of the international community to predict and prevent conflicts before they reach the stage where large-scale military operations become necessary.

In the Kosovo crisis, an extensive military operation was chosen as a last resort. Taking up arms is a failure in itself. Employing force has enormous human and material costs. It leaves behind a legacy of hatred.

NATO’s military action provoked criticism from many quarters. Most NATO member countries also had a heated debate about whether this was the right thing to do or not. I know this was the case in Greece, as it was in my own country.

However, we must not merely criticise the international community for taking action. We must also address a larger problem – what happens when the international community fails to act?

This was one of the main themes of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s statement at this year’s UN General Assembly. He referred to the lack of will to intervene in the Rwanda conflict. If a coalition of states had been ready to move into the country, would it have been right to allow horrendous atrocities to continue, pending a clear mandate from the Security Council?

Secretary-General Annan put his finger on the greatest dilemma in crisis management today. Like Ulysses passing the Sirens, we can tie ourselves to the mast and insist on a mandate from the Security Council. But then we will also have tied our hands if one of the five permanent members lays down a veto.

On the other hand, if we no longer require an explicit UN mandate, we will lower the threshold for intervention and may pave the way for the misuse of intervention in pursuit of other political objectives.

This is one of the most important choices the international community is faced with today. It is directly linked to the future role of the UN in conflict resolution. It is also of direct relevance to the OSCE. Confronted with this dilemma we have to work for a renaissance of long-term conflict prevention. We need to contribute to what UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan have called “a culture of prevention”.

I believe that developing early warning mechanisms that are sensitive enough is essential if we are to be able to intervene before a potential conflict gets out of hand.

Prevention, however, is not only a question of mechanisms, it is also a question of resources and capacity. How do we generate the political will and resources to prevent new conflicts from breaking out? How do we build consensus on strengthening preventive diplomacy in Nagorno-Karabakh or Central-Asia, when Bosnia and Kosovo are laying claim to such enormous resources?

At the same time we know the importance of preventive work being carried out. A clear example of this is the work that the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Max van der Stoel, has been doing in the Baltic states and elsewhere in the OSCE area.

The High Commissioner’s task is to keep his ear close to the ground. This does not make headlines. But he still needs resources and political support. I am confident that the High Commissioner’s endeavours, be it in southeastern Europe or the Baltic Region or other parts of the former Soviet Union has made a significant contribution to easing tension and preventing ethnic conflicts in these countries.

iv) Croatia and Bosnia, but also Albania, and now Kosovo have taught us that even when a solution to a particular conflict is in place, long-term measures are required to counteract the aftermath and possible resurgence of the conflict.

Security and stability cannot be built within the narrow confines of national borders. This is why the fourth area of priority for Norway’s chairmanship is to ensure that both the OSCE and the rest of the international community develop a regional approach to southeastern Europe. The lessons we learn from this exercise will also be useful for the OSCE as it develops broad-based strategies for other areas of conflict, including Central Asia and the southern Caucasus.

The Stability Pact for South-East Europe is the result of an initiative by the German EU Presidency, and was adopted at the EU summit in Cologne in June. It is a response to the need for comprehensive, long-term and regional action in southeastern Europe.

The Stability Pact is designed to promote good neighbourly relations and growing interdependence between the countries of the region. This is being done through a network of agreements and bilateral contacts, and by enhanced political and economic co-operation.

Long-lasting stability can only be achieved if Yugoslavia’s present isolation is broken. We must include the Serbs in the stabilisation process. However, Belgrade has chosen to isolate itself from Europe. I do not foresee a normalisation of relations as long as President Milosevic’s regime remains in power. We should, however, respond actively to the humanitarian needs and support for the political opposition in order to break the isolation.

Through the Pact we have established a forum where the participants will be able to discuss measures to strengthen democracy, respect for human rights, economic growth, confidence building and arms control, and thus ensure greater security and stability in this region.

The EU will be playing a leading role in the implementation of the Stability Pact. However, the Pact has been placed under the auspices of the OSCE, whose institutions and regional outreach will be important aspects to the Pact. Here, too, division of labour between institutions is the key.

The OSCE is particularly well equipped to promote stability, especially with regard to efforts in the field of democracy and human rights. It is natural, therefore, that it has been assigned the task of leading the working table under the Stability Pact devoted to these issues.

The OSCE will also play an important part in the security field. The first meeting of the Working Table on Security Issues took place in Oslo last week. The Table will focus on traditional military questions as well as crime, corruption and other issues that affect internal stability. This broad agenda illustrates our approach to the challenges in southeastern Europe.

The members of the Pact in the region have great expectations of both the EU and the OSCE. They view the Pact as a means of achieving political and economic development.

These expectations must be fulfilled. The Pact constitutes a framework. We must give the Pact definite substance. We must develop specific projects and allocate responsibility for implementing them as rapidly as possible. Economic resources will be essential in achieving our goal.

The Istanbul Summit will present our Heads of State and Government with an opportunity to provide new impetus to the process. As OSCE Chairman-in-Office I have emphasised the need to provide early and tangible results. Otherwise we risk disillusionment and frustration among the countries of the region. The Pact must be action-oriented and not a mere framework for consultations however important that is.

We must not forget the overall perspective of the Stability Pact. It is an instrument for the gradual integration of an entire region into the Euro-Atlantic co-operation framework. Unless we achieve our aims we risk a setback for the reforms, a reduced influence on the stabilisation process and a return to conflict.

The processes taking place within the framework of the Stability Pact must be reinforced by efforts in other fora. As a member of NATO, Norway will help ensure that the Alliance’s South-East Europe Initiative becomes a reality.

I have charged the head of the Bosnia mission, with examining how we can strengthen the OSCE's own regional approach. His report will be made available before the Istanbul summit.

I want this report to be a “living document”, subject to periodic updating. It will include suggestions for better co-ordination among OSCE missions, as well as between missions and the OSCE institutions. It will also include suggestions for initiatives and projects in fields such as regional media collaboration, regional stabilisation, arms reduction and combating organised crime and corruption. These initiatives and projects could then be fed into the Stability Pact Working Tables.

We will focus on areas where the OSCE has specific competence. This approach should increase the effectiveness of each individual mission and the efforts of the OSCE as a whole.

Peace and stability in Kosovo is a key to stability in the whole of southeastern Europe. It is clear that Albanians and Serbs still have a long way to go before they can live together in peace. For many of those who over the years were oppressed by the regime in Belgrade it is almost impossible to forgive. The numerous incidents we have witnessed over the past few months underscore the urgent need to tackle this problem. Otherwise our goal of a free, multiethnic and prosperous Kosovo will never become a reality.

As long as hatred prevails in Kosovo, it is virtually impossible to start rebuilding the province, to establish democratic institutions and to develop a vigorous economy. I have appealed to the leaders of all communities, including religious leaders, to encourage their people to work towards peace. I have stressed that if the violence continues there will be only one loser, the people of Kosovo.

The situation of the non-Albanian population is of particular concern. Before, the Kosovo Albanians were suffering, now the Serbs and other ethnic minorities are the victims. We must ensure that they are better protected.

The OSCE has therefore given priority to opening field offices in areas where there are vulnerable minority populations. Together with the UNHCR we are monitoring and implementing initiatives that promote respect for human rights and encourage displaced persons to return.

A special responsibility now rests with the ethnic majority. If we want to see a multi-ethnic Kosovo in the future, the Kosovo Albanians must accept institutional mechanisms that will allow this.

But before we can achieve progress I believe that the regime in Belgrade must also make concessions. An important first step would be to start a process of reconciliation by accepting responsibility for the atrocities committed against the Kosovo-Albanian population.

Next, Belgrade should release the great number of Kosovo-Albanians currently detained in Serbia. During my recent visit to Kosovo, I raised this issue with representatives of the Belgrade authorities. I have also raised it with Foreign Minister Jovanovic.

Confidence-building acts can only be carried out by the parties to a conflict. Only they can move the peace process forward, through their actions and involvement. The OSCE can never substitute for any of the parties – not before, not during, or after the escalation of a crisis into a full-blown conflict.

What we can offer is advice, personnel, a supportive political framework and a long-term commitment. What we need is for the parties to show political courage and a sense of responsibility. And above all, we must remember that actions speak louder than words.

Similarly, the preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution that we can offer only work if the parties are willing to make use of us. This is another of the problems the OSCE will always face. The present situation in Chechnya is a case in point.

I mentioned the OSCE’s long-term commitment. The international community must stand by its commitments to the people of Kosovo. KFOR must remain as long as there is a need for a stabilising military presence. The efforts of the international community to rebuild the institutional framework and the economy, to promote respect for human rights and to build peace must be intensified. If we fail, the investments already made in a new Kosovo will be wasted.

The work of the OSCE is well under way. We are very pleased that Greece is an active partner. The OSCE Mission is now helping to develop the democratic institutions and practices that Kosovo needs to transform itself into a multi-ethnic democracy. We are training police officers, judges and civil servants, we are monitoring human rights, developing free media, NGO's and political parties.

The first class of cadets for the new multi-ethnic police force graduated last week. Radio Television Kosovo has resumed broadcasting. Political Party Service Centres are being established. These are all encouraging signs of progress. Without these elements in place Kosovo stands less of a chance of becoming the community we want it to be.

One issue that has been much discussed is elections, which the OSCE is mandated to organise and supervise. The UN will decide when they should be held in consultations with the OSCE. But there is more to this than just setting a date. Elections must take place as early as possible, but not prematurely, that is, not before they have been adequately prepared. They will only be successful if they reflect the wishes of all the people of Kosovo. To achieve that, they must comply with international standards and norms.

Registration of voters is crucial. A proper registry must also include all those who have been forced to flee the province. Following registration, we need time to prepare the technical arrangements and, of course, to give the political parties time to campaign. Announcements must be made to all of those who have left Kosovo to exercise their democratic rights. If not, it would be tantamount to condoning ethnic cleansing.

I am more concerned with the election process than with the election date. Without a minimum of confidence and mutual respect between the parties before the elections, standards and norms will not be maintained afterwards.

Closing remarks

The OSCE’s summit in Istanbul next month will be an opportunity to take stock and to look ahead. It will address how the OSCE is measuring up to the tasks that we envisage for it in the next century. It will also review the member states’ implementation of OSCE commitments.

From my point of view, the overriding challenge will be to enhance the OSCE as the primary instrument for early warning, conflict prevention and crisis management.

But as we step into the 21st century, let us not forget the legacy of the ancient Greeks. They knew that formal agreements and charters are never ends in themselves. People and their actions are what really count.

What mattered for security and stability in the Greek city state, and what matters today, is that people act in a way that makes them worthy of confidence and respect.