The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which occupies a key place in the structure of European security, has not been able to adapt in the current conditions to the requirements of the changing world and ensure an effective solution to issues of security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic area.
The organization does not sufficiently observe fundamental documents, including the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Paris Charter for a New Europe (1990) and the European Security Charter (1999). Fundamental Helsinki principles, such as non-intervention in internal affairs and respect for the sovereignty of nations, are frequently not observed.
We consider it necessary to point out a series of aspects which we believe hinder the development of constructive, mutually beneficial cooperation in the OSCE framework.
There is a clear disbalance between the three dimensions of security – military and political, economic, and ecological, and humanitarian. There is a clear shift of priorities towards humanitarian problems, which noticeably reduces the OSCE’s ability to oppose new challenges and threats.
Work in the humanitarian sphere comes down to monitoring the situation in the sphere of human rights and building democratic institutions within the CIS and the former Yugoslavia. While we acknowledge the importance of this dimension of OSCE activity, we nevertheless believe that deploying the activity of the Organisation in this way does not correspond to the main principles of the OSCE.
Selectively paying more attention to some countries while ignoring the problems in other member countries is a violation of the OSCE mandate, and shows that the Organisation has a practice of double standards and selective approaches, and does not wish to pay attention to the peculiarities and specifics of individual nations.
For example, this becomes apparent in the work of the OSCE Bureau for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (BDIHR) which primarily monitors and assesses election results in member nations. This work is often politicized and does not take into account the specifics of individual nations. Therefore we believe it is necessary to develop common objective assessment criteria of the electoral process by the BDHIR and OSCE missions throughout the entire area of the Organisation.
The “field activity” by the OSCE is also ineffective, and it is on this that most of the Organisation’s budget funds are spent. It is also cause for concern that the OSCE “field missions” focus their activity not on the main statutes of their mandates providing aid and assistance to the authorities of the receiving country within the entire spectrum of the Organisation’s activity, but exclusively on the functions of monitoring the situation in the sphere of human rights and democratic institutions. There are cases of unjustified criticism by the leadership of “field missions” towards the domestic policy of the receiving countries’ governments.
At present, the development of new approaches to OSCE activity has become especially relevant.
The OSCE should aim to remove the disbalance between the three dimensions of Organisation activity as swiftly as possible, by increasing the role of military and political, economic and ecological components.
As member countries of the OSCE, the CIS nations intend to organise their further joint policy within the Organisation towards its specialized institutes and field presence, and towards monitoring of electoral process, subject to the real capabilities of the OSCE to properly adapt to the new conditions, and the degree of its receptivity to the concerns listed above.