OJ Simpson
2010-11-12 18:32:32 UTC
this text is now archived forever:
Some good ideas may emerge out of Astana soon, but probably not from
the
OSCE summit.
by TOL 12 November 2010
Three unusual things are about to happen in Astana.
The first is that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe
will hold a summit there on 1-2 December, its first since 1999. Since
then the security concerns of the organization have taken on shapes
scarcely imaginable in the pre-9/11 period, at the same time as power
relations within the organization have been transformed as Russia
grew
into a Eurasian, if not world, force.
The second is the mere fact that the meeting is taking place in
Kazakhstan. Although the OSCE defines itself primarily as the largest
regional security organization on the planet, concerns around human
rights, free elections, and democratic practices have risen to the
fore
in recent years, to the dismay of Russia and some other post-Soviet
members, including Kazakhstan. Years of lobbying by Astana, Moscow,
and
some Western friends such as Germany led to Kazakhstan being awarded
the
2010 chairmanship of the OSCE. That the summit is taking place is due
to
Astana’s astute and persistent efforts to convince all 56 members of
the
need to meet for the first time in 11 years, all under the wise
guidance
of the only leader post-Soviet Kazakhstan has known, President and
Leader
of the Nation Nursultan Nazarbaev.
Finally, it comes as mild surprise that Astana gave the go-ahead to a
parallel summit of civil society organizations set to take place on
28-29
November. Considering the country’s mixed human rights record, the
Kazakh
authorities are probably relieved that the conference, organized by
some
20 regional and international organizations, will focus not on the
country’s performance as OSCE chair but on strengthening the
cooperation
between civil society and OSCE institutions.
In the past years the OSCE has been often described, even from within,
as
an organization undergoing institutional crisis. Put another way, a
group
of members centered around Russia argue that the OSCE’s core mission
should be security and economic issues, while another faction of
Westerners insists that the “human dimension” that member states
promise
to uphold – human rights, the rule of law, commitment to
strengthening
and protecting democratic institutions – is no less important.
In fact, this split character goes back to the very foundation of the
organization in the 1970s. Since the OSCE is not a treaty
organization,
its members cannot be hauled into international court for neglecting
their promises. Nevertheless, scholars view the explicit commitment
to
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms made in the founding
Helsinki Accords as a breakthrough in international relations,
raising
“soft” values to the same level as security and trade.
The Kazakhs certainly do not claim to have the solution to this
dilemma,
nor do the activists involved in the parallel summit. In fact,
according
to one expert, for Astana the summit itself, regardless of its
outcomes,
is the main thing. Anna Kreikemeyer, a security and Central Asia
specialist at the University of Hamburg’s Center for OSCE Research,
says
that glitzy international gatherings are valued in Central Asian
political culture above all for the prestige they bestow upon the
hosts.
As Nazarbaev put it recently in a Russian newspaper, "Astana will
become
a center of global politics” when the summit convenes. He hinted that
Eurasian security problems, headed by Afghanistan, will feature at
the
summit.
The groups behind the parallel summit also plan to discuss crisis
management, in particular improving the OSCE’s ability to respond to
political and humanitarian crises – events in nearby Kyrgyzstan this
year
being a case in point.
Conflict resolution is one area where soft and hard power can work in
tandem, and where cooperation with civil society is essential,
whether
during sudden flare-ups like the June violence in Kyrgyzstan or in
situations that yield only to years of quiet diplomacy, the kind of
thing
the OSCE has proved good at over the years.
The OSCE’s low-key, businesslike conflict resolution methods might
have
had a chance to shine when unrest erupted in Kazakhstan’s southern
neighbor this year, first in the spring when the discredited regime
of
Kurmanbek Bakiev was brought down and again when ethnic conflict
broke
out between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in June.
When dealing with distant partners like the other OSCE members, the
European Union, or the United States, Kazakhstan has with some
success
pitched itself as a consensus builder and a safe bulwark against the
seething discontent in the rest of Central Asia, Afghanistan
included.
Unfortunately, having the OSCE chair next door proved to be a
disadvantage during the June mob violence in Kyrgyzstan and since, as
a
Kazakhstan-based activist and co-organizer of the parallel summit
suggests. A disconnect exists between Kazakhstan’s high-level foreign
policy and its relations with neighboring states, a result of which
was
to render the country unable to provide leadership on helping resolve
the
Kyrgyz situation.
Had Astana taken the proposed OSCE police force for southern
Kyrgyzstan
in hand rather than dithering over it, that comparatively
straightforward
mission might have been in place by now. Instead, it’s still unclear
whether the mission will go ahead, and the affair could tarnish the
OSCE’s standing as an honest broker in conflict situations. Evidently,
in
this instance Astana could not find a balance between its OSCE
commitments and its membership in the Russian-dominated CSTO security
grouping, which has kept well away from the humanitarian crisis in
southern Kyrgyzstan since it broke out in June.
Local problems so often do trump summit-level rhetoric, not only in
Central Asia and not only in the OSCE. As Kazakhstan’s mandate in the
OSCE chair winds down, the organization would do well do reflect on
the
need to involve civil society in conflict resolution and peacekeeping
missions.
Transitions Online encourages readers to respond to this and other
commentaries or articles. We also invite readers to submit longer,
more
detailed commentaries. For information, read our submission
guidelines.
back | printBookmark and Share
More... (304)
Get AddThis for FirefoxPrivacyAddThis
Some good ideas may emerge out of Astana soon, but probably not from
the
OSCE summit.
by TOL 12 November 2010
Three unusual things are about to happen in Astana.
The first is that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe
will hold a summit there on 1-2 December, its first since 1999. Since
then the security concerns of the organization have taken on shapes
scarcely imaginable in the pre-9/11 period, at the same time as power
relations within the organization have been transformed as Russia
grew
into a Eurasian, if not world, force.
The second is the mere fact that the meeting is taking place in
Kazakhstan. Although the OSCE defines itself primarily as the largest
regional security organization on the planet, concerns around human
rights, free elections, and democratic practices have risen to the
fore
in recent years, to the dismay of Russia and some other post-Soviet
members, including Kazakhstan. Years of lobbying by Astana, Moscow,
and
some Western friends such as Germany led to Kazakhstan being awarded
the
2010 chairmanship of the OSCE. That the summit is taking place is due
to
Astana’s astute and persistent efforts to convince all 56 members of
the
need to meet for the first time in 11 years, all under the wise
guidance
of the only leader post-Soviet Kazakhstan has known, President and
Leader
of the Nation Nursultan Nazarbaev.
Finally, it comes as mild surprise that Astana gave the go-ahead to a
parallel summit of civil society organizations set to take place on
28-29
November. Considering the country’s mixed human rights record, the
Kazakh
authorities are probably relieved that the conference, organized by
some
20 regional and international organizations, will focus not on the
country’s performance as OSCE chair but on strengthening the
cooperation
between civil society and OSCE institutions.
In the past years the OSCE has been often described, even from within,
as
an organization undergoing institutional crisis. Put another way, a
group
of members centered around Russia argue that the OSCE’s core mission
should be security and economic issues, while another faction of
Westerners insists that the “human dimension” that member states
promise
to uphold – human rights, the rule of law, commitment to
strengthening
and protecting democratic institutions – is no less important.
In fact, this split character goes back to the very foundation of the
organization in the 1970s. Since the OSCE is not a treaty
organization,
its members cannot be hauled into international court for neglecting
their promises. Nevertheless, scholars view the explicit commitment
to
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms made in the founding
Helsinki Accords as a breakthrough in international relations,
raising
“soft” values to the same level as security and trade.
The Kazakhs certainly do not claim to have the solution to this
dilemma,
nor do the activists involved in the parallel summit. In fact,
according
to one expert, for Astana the summit itself, regardless of its
outcomes,
is the main thing. Anna Kreikemeyer, a security and Central Asia
specialist at the University of Hamburg’s Center for OSCE Research,
says
that glitzy international gatherings are valued in Central Asian
political culture above all for the prestige they bestow upon the
hosts.
As Nazarbaev put it recently in a Russian newspaper, "Astana will
become
a center of global politics” when the summit convenes. He hinted that
Eurasian security problems, headed by Afghanistan, will feature at
the
summit.
The groups behind the parallel summit also plan to discuss crisis
management, in particular improving the OSCE’s ability to respond to
political and humanitarian crises – events in nearby Kyrgyzstan this
year
being a case in point.
Conflict resolution is one area where soft and hard power can work in
tandem, and where cooperation with civil society is essential,
whether
during sudden flare-ups like the June violence in Kyrgyzstan or in
situations that yield only to years of quiet diplomacy, the kind of
thing
the OSCE has proved good at over the years.
The OSCE’s low-key, businesslike conflict resolution methods might
have
had a chance to shine when unrest erupted in Kazakhstan’s southern
neighbor this year, first in the spring when the discredited regime
of
Kurmanbek Bakiev was brought down and again when ethnic conflict
broke
out between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in June.
When dealing with distant partners like the other OSCE members, the
European Union, or the United States, Kazakhstan has with some
success
pitched itself as a consensus builder and a safe bulwark against the
seething discontent in the rest of Central Asia, Afghanistan
included.
Unfortunately, having the OSCE chair next door proved to be a
disadvantage during the June mob violence in Kyrgyzstan and since, as
a
Kazakhstan-based activist and co-organizer of the parallel summit
suggests. A disconnect exists between Kazakhstan’s high-level foreign
policy and its relations with neighboring states, a result of which
was
to render the country unable to provide leadership on helping resolve
the
Kyrgyz situation.
Had Astana taken the proposed OSCE police force for southern
Kyrgyzstan
in hand rather than dithering over it, that comparatively
straightforward
mission might have been in place by now. Instead, it’s still unclear
whether the mission will go ahead, and the affair could tarnish the
OSCE’s standing as an honest broker in conflict situations. Evidently,
in
this instance Astana could not find a balance between its OSCE
commitments and its membership in the Russian-dominated CSTO security
grouping, which has kept well away from the humanitarian crisis in
southern Kyrgyzstan since it broke out in June.
Local problems so often do trump summit-level rhetoric, not only in
Central Asia and not only in the OSCE. As Kazakhstan’s mandate in the
OSCE chair winds down, the organization would do well do reflect on
the
need to involve civil society in conflict resolution and peacekeeping
missions.
Transitions Online encourages readers to respond to this and other
commentaries or articles. We also invite readers to submit longer,
more
detailed commentaries. For information, read our submission
guidelines.
back | printBookmark and Share
More... (304)
Get AddThis for FirefoxPrivacyAddThis