The OSCE and the Effectiveness of their Conflict Management and Missions

Table of Content

1. Introduction

2. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

3. Conflict Management in the OSCE

4. Missions of the OSCE
4.1 Kyrgyzstan
4.2 Ukraine

5. Conclusion

6. Literature
6.1 Online
6.2 Print

1. Introduction

The world has never been peaceful, there were always conflicts around that states, people and organizations had to deal with. Today most of these conflicts have been mostly forgotten. However, even though the absolute number of war deaths has declined since 1946, the overall numbers of ongoing conflicts each years has increased, compared to the World War II period. This increase is related to the more and more civil conflicts arising, on the contrary the conflicts between states have almost ceased to exit. Also the scale of conflicts has changed. Nowadays the world has to deal with small scale conflicts rather than large scale conflicts¹.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) aims at preventing and managing these conflicts within Europe. They have developed several activities to prevent and consolidate peace through eliminating the root causes of tension. They do so by strengthening the respect for human rights, building democratic institutions and fostering economic and social progress within and between States².

In this paper, it will be analysed if the OCSE is able to successfully manage conflicts within Europe on the example of two case studies. Furthermore, to evaluate the OSCES's effectiveness, a closer look at the different organs has to be done. In the essay conflict management will be also referred to as conflict resolution.

2. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is the world largest regional security organization with 57 countries involved from America, Europe and Asia. The OSCE aims at stability, peace and democracy through helping to bridge differences, build trust, crisis management and post conflict rehabilitation³.

It origins can be traced back to the early 1970s, when the OSCE predecessor the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was implemented. The CSCE original purpose was to create a dialogue and negotiations between the East and the West. Until 1990 the CSCE functioned as a series of meetings and conferences. The most well-known conference was the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. The Helsinki Final Act played a crucial role in defining the key commitments of politico-military, economic, environmental and human right issues, which are still active today.

The Paris Summit in 1990 turned over the structure of the CSCE from meeting and conferences to permanent institutions. During the Summit the CSCE took a new path away from the dialogue and negotiations between the East and the West. Their new aim was to manage historic changes taking place in Europe and respond to new challenges of post-cold war period. This development created the need for permanent institutions and operational capabilities. Furthermore the name was adjusted from CSCE to OSCE in 1994 during the Budapest Summit⁴.

Nowadays the work of the OSCE covers a wide range of activities. This includes arms control, border management, combating terrorism, conflict prevention and resolution, gender equality, minority protection, promote the rule of law and human rights, elections, environmental activities, etc⁵. In 2018 a budget from around 137,800,000 € was available to finance those activities. The budget is compounded from the members contributions⁶.

3. Conflict Management in the OSCE

According to the OSCE them self, they are the primary institution to manage conflicts. In the Helsinki document, they have defined conflict management in a broader and narrower sense. The broader sense refers to a comprehensive, multidimensional security building. It addresses economic, social, environmental and other components of classic interstate and intrastate conflicts. Furthermore it addresses specific new transnational threats and challenges that may give rise to insecurity such as bad governance, social disparities, demographic maldevelopment, human right violations, illegal migration, mass expulsion, terrorism, etc.

The definition builds the framework and conceptual foundation for conflict management in a narrower sense. Conflict management in the narrower sense addresses concrete examples to forestall aggression and violence as well as examples to prevent, manage and settle conflicts peacefully by appropriate means⁷. This includes peacekeeping activities in cases of conflicts within or among participating states to help to maintain peace and stability in support of an ongoing effort at a political solution. However, any peacekeeping operation excludes enforcement actions⁸. All peacekeeping operations take place in cooperation with the European Union, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Council and Russia’s CIS. Usually the OSCE takes the role of a 3rd party mediator between the participating states. All decisions in the OSCE are taken on the basis of consensus. This guarantees that the states are always directly involved in conflict management⁹.

A range of different structures and institutions within the OSCE are included in the process of conflict management.

The Chairmanship is explicitly authorized to deal with crisis or conflict situations. He/ she is empowered to appoint personal representatives for dealing with the conflict and appoints the head of field operations. The primary task is to advice and give guidance¹⁰.

The Secretariat holds a conflict prevention centre within its structures. It is mandated to fulfil necessary tasks concerning procedures for conciliation of disputes and tasks relating to dispute settlement. Secondly the consult on military activities^{11 12}.

The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), both concentrate on early warning and conflict prevention. However, the HCNM furthermore authorized to take appropriate early action in regard to tensions .

Lastly, the OSCE field operations are included in the process of conflict management within the OSCE. They contribute to conflict management int the narrow sense to advocate bilateral agreements. Additionally, they provide assistance in lasting transition situations with no direct conflict relation¹³.

Besides the structures and institutions included, various mechanisms, procedures and instruments are included in the process of conflict management. Standardized sets of provisions for information exchange, discussion and reporting on early warning, conflict prevention and crisis management (Vienna Mechanism/Moscow Mechanism) were developed. They regulate the order of procedural steps between participating states¹⁴. Moreover four groups of instruments were defined. The first instrument is the human dimension mechanisms and procedures. It stipulates the procedures for exchange information on questions relating to human dimensions. Secondly, the risk reduction mechanism and procedures. They aim at reducing risks of military nature trough consultation and cooperation, fostering the role of forum of political dialogue. Followed by the early warning and prevention action mechanisms and procedures, which stipulates political dialogue between participating states. And lastly the instrument of peaceful settlement of disputes based on conciliation and/ or arbitration. This is the court of conciliation and arbitration but so far it has been never called upon¹⁵.

Conflict management in the OSCE is complex and includes many aspects and levels. There is no standardized approach within the OSCE and therefore every case is unique. The procedures and mechanisms mentioned above, as well as the institutions and structures are all possibilities which could be included in the process but are not necessarily included.

4. Missions of the OSCE

The OSCE has already performed several conflict prevention and resolution field operations. Currently they carry out conflict prevention and resolution field operations in: Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Skopje and Moldova, Project co-ordinator in Ukraine, special monitoring mission to Ukraine and an observer mission at the Russian checkpoints Gukovo and Donetsk¹⁶. Even though the OSCE has members from America, Europe and Asia, it can be observed that peace resolution missions are mainly carried out in Eastern Europe¹⁷. Therefore the paper will focus on OSCE peace prevention and conflict resolution missions in Eastern Europe.

4.1 Kyrgyzstan

In 2010, Kyrgyzstan experienced two major conflicts. In April the opposition protested successfully against president Bakiyev. Followed by ethnic clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in June, where at least 200 people were killed and 400,000 displaced¹⁸.

In both cases the OSCE was involved in the conflict management process and played a significant role because Russia, the United Nations as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Council refused activities to intervene the conflict¹⁹. In the broader conflict management sense, the OSCE carried out activities to prevent conflicts in Kyrgyzstan. This included regular visits for political talks with the government and representatives from the civil society and interstate dialogues on social integration and national minority education. Nevertheless, the events in April occurred unexpectedly and developed rapidly which made an early warning by the OSCE impossible²⁰. Coincidentally, the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010 was held by the neighbouring state Kazakhstan, who took a significant role in coordinating the efforts to solve the conflict. The mediation talks between the different parties in Kyrgyzstan, in the name of the OSCE were very successful and completed with an interim president. Nevertheless of the successful management some people argued that it was rather bilaterally resolved than through the platform of the OSCE²¹.

During the June conflict the OSCE took a far more important role. The events in April lead to uprising nationalism within the country and caused a potential threat to the inter-ethnic peace. The OSCE took several narrow conflict management measures during the June conflict. Between April and June, the High Commissioner on National Minorites issued reports that explicitly warned about inter-ethnic tension between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in the south of the country. The reports, raised awareness amongst the participating states, of the increase of likeliness of violence but nevertheless the states were reluctant or unable to use instruments to take steps to prevent the increase of violence²². Consequently the conflict escalated.

[...]

¹ Cf. Roser, M. (2019): War and Peace.

² Cf. CSCE Council (1991): Prague Meeting of the CSCE Council, Summary of Conclusions,

³ Cf. OSCE (n.y.): Who we are.

⁴ Cf. OSCE (n.y.): History.

⁵ Cf. OSCE (n.y.): What is the OSCE?.

⁶ Cf. OSCE (n.y.): Funding and Budget.

⁷ Cf. Evers, F. (2012): OSCE Conflict Management and the Kyrgyz Experience in 2010, p. 8.

⁸ Cf. CSCE (1992): 1992 Summit, Helsinki — The Challenges of Change, p. 13.

⁹ Cf. Evers, F. (2012): OSCE Conflict Management and the Kyrgyz Experience in 2010, p. 9.

¹⁰ Cf. OSCE (2002): Tenth Meeting of the Ministerial Council, p. 79.

¹¹ Cf. CSCE (1990): Charter of Paris for a New Europe, p. 17.

¹² Cf. Evers, F. (2012): OSCE Conflict Management and the Kyrgyz Experience in 2010, p. 15.

¹³ CF. Zellner, W. (2007): The OSCE at a Turning Point: OSCE Chairmanship and Other Challenges, Review of Field missions, p. 36-38.

¹⁴ Cf. OSCE (2011): OSCE Mechanisms and Procedures, p. 10-14.

¹⁵ Cf. Müller-Wolf, T.J.A. and Schneider, P. (2007): The Court of Conciliation and Arbitration within the OSCE.

¹⁶ Cf. OSCE (n.y.): Partners for co-operation.

¹⁷ Cf. OSCE (n.y.): Conflict prevention and resolution.

¹⁸ Cf. BBC (2018): Kyrgyzstan profile — Timeline.

¹⁹ Cf. Evers, F. (2012): OSCE Conflict Management and the Kyrgyz Experience in 2010, p. 34.

²⁰ Cf. OSCE Permanent Council (2010): 811th PLENARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL.

²¹ Cf. Evers, F. (2012): OSCE Conflict Management and the Kyrgyz Experience in 2010, p. 35.

²² Cf. Evers, F. (2012): OSCE Conflict Management and the Kyrgyz Experience in 2010, p. 32.