|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/95Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>Hungarian Ambassador Dr. Istvan Gyarmati...OSCE as a European
Umbrella</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED">
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+4">OSCE as a European Umbrella</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">Ambassador Dr. Istvan
Gyarmati</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+2">Hungarian Foreign
Ministry</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">INTRODUCTION</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">It is sometimes said that the
OSCE is a "NATO-handling" organization for Russia or, on the
contrary, that it is a "Russia-handling" organization for us.
There may be an element of truth in both ideas; but, more importantly, the
OSCE provides a European umbrella for all European states, in particular
for those that are not and will not in the foreseeable future become
members of such hard-core integration organizations as the European Union
and NATO. This umbrella function is essential because we want to prevent
dividing lines within Europe from becoming lines of confrontation;
if, in addition, we want to turn these lines into lines of cooperation, we
need an overall European umbrella to succeed.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">COOPERATION IN
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">At the Budapest Summit, however,
our discussion on the security model for the 21st century showed that
despite what some Russian officials sometimes say publicly, almost all
European countries--including the Russian Federation--recognize that one
single organization cannot operate alone. A variety of organizations, each
contributing its particular advantages, must cooperate to provide this
umbrella protection, if it can be done at all. Therefore, the cooperation
of at least the United Nations, the OSCE, NATO, the European Union, the
Western European Union, and the Council of Europe is essential. I would go
even further and suggest that the involvement of several economic
organizations is also needed to settle current and future conflicts.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">OSCE-NATO Cooperation</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Cooperation between OSCE and
NATO is vital. Incidentally, this idea of cooperation, of asking NATO to
do something for another international organization, originated in the
CSCE when it elaborated the principles of such cooperation in the 1992
Helsinki document. The Helsinki document familiarized the international
community with the idea and made possible the smooth and rapid cooperation
between NATO and the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The OSCE may be able to continue
to cooperate with NATO in peacekeeping activities, but this may prove
unrealistic. Although many see a future role for NATO out of area
activities in peacekeeping, I doubt the Alliance's capability to do so.
Since almost all conflicts that have occurred or are likely to occur
happen on territory that was part of the former Soviet Union, it is
unlikely that NATO would be invited or willing to carry out military
operations there. This does not mean, however, that the OSCE or NATO could
not do a useful job in support of operations such as the Nagorno-Karabakh
one where support from significant NATO member-states and consultation by
the United Nations and NATO would be invaluable.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Conclusions from
Peacekeeping Efforts in the Former Yugoslavia</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">While most governments and
experts have drawn two conclusions concerning the peacekeeping missions in
Yugoslavia, I would like to add a third one.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The first conclusion is that
this type of operation--a large-scale peacekeeping operations and
large-scale involvement--will never be used again and is no longer
possible. I think that this conclusion is wrong.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The second conclusion reasons
that, if there is to be another operation, it should be carried out in
the early stages of the conflict and with appropriate determination.
Although this conclusion is probably right, it is always difficult to
make the decisions that allow early entrance to a conflict.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">A third important conclusion,
one I can give you only from the outside since we are not on the
Atlantic Council, is that operations should not be initiated when the
mandate and chain of command are unclear. Undoubtedly, one of the
reasons for our failure in the former Yugoslavia is that there was no
political concept, therefore there was no mandate and the chain of
command was doomed to fail. If NATO ever offers its services again, so
to speak, to the United Nations or the OSCE, both the military
objectives and the chain of command must be very clear.</FONT></FONT></LI>
</UL>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL
COOPERATION</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Where else can NATO and the OSCE
cooperate? In addition to peacekeeping, there are many political
objectives for which the OSCE will need support from other countries and
organizations. Let me illustrate this by mentioning the successful
experience in crisis management that took place in Chechnya and the OSCE's
involvement there.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The OSCE has had a relatively
successful dialogue with the Russian Federation and its forces because it
could offer cooperation without confronting one of the parties; the
necessary pressure came from other organizations and from individual OSCE
states such as the United States, Germany, France, the U.K., the European
Union, and NATO. And this pressure was essential--without it, the OSCE
could never have successfully negotiated with the Russians. On the other
hand, pressure by the OSCE alone would have failed. So, in this case,
close coordination and cooperation between organizations was clearly
beneficial.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Military, Political,
and Economic Negotiations</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Where has this cooperation led
and where do we currently stand in Chechnya? As of June 21st, all
television stations concentrated on the hostage drama and showed the
release of the hostages, but they failed to mention OSCE's very important
role in the release (the OSCE's contribution is not important for the
press). The current perception, which is somewhat truthful, is that
negotiations started and a cease-fire was agreed upon by the Russian
government under terrorist pressure. There is another part of the truth,
however. First, negotiations took place between Russians and Chechnyans on
May 25, in which they agreed to resume negotiations with the participation
of military commanders as soon as a cease-fire became feasible; second, an
agreement in principle, brokered by the OSCE mission on a cease-fire, was
reached in mid-June between the Russian military commander and the
Chechnyan Chief of Defense staff. So the cease-fire came before the
terrorist attack. The terrorist attack, of course, made the situation much
more public, accelerated the whole process, and secured a high level of
public support on the Russian side. But the cease-fire definitely came
first.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Now negotiations are continuing,
still under OSCE auspices, in an OSCE building where Chechnyan negotiators
feel secure. The parties have agreed to extend the cease-fire to June 23
in order to conclude an agreement by that date; they have also agreed on
an agenda, which is a major step forward. The agenda is to be divided into
three areas of discussion: military, political, and economic. Military
points will cover cessation of military operations, release of all
detained persons, cessation of terrorist acts, and, most importantly,
disarmament and gradual withdrawal of forces from Chechnya. The mere fact
that the Chechnyans have agreed to talk about the disarmament of Chechnyan
forces while the Russians have agreed to withdraw most of their forces is
obviously a very important compromise, perhaps a breakthrough. The two
sides have gone even further. According to General Khulikov, Russia would
be ready to withdraw all but 2,000 of the 60,000 troops that are currently
there; the disarmament and disposition of arms would be a simultaneous
step-by-step and region-by-region process; and federal authorities would
be willing to guarantee the safety of those who laid down their arms and
even buy back arms.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Political negotiations will
initially focus on preparing for free elections. Although both parties
agree that elections will be held, the Chechnyans propose October 28 while
the Russians favor November 5. These elections, which will be both local
and federal, will be monitored by the OSCE, the United Nations, and the
Council of Europe. All difficulties will be resolved by peaceful means.
Among outstanding questions are whether or not there will be a referendum
on independence; how and when a constitution for Chechnya will be
elaborated and approved; and when an agreement can be concluded between
the federal authorities and Chechnya.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Concerning the economic agenda,
the parties agreed to finish the federal program for the reconstruction of
Chechnya, which is a concession on the Chechnyan side. They also agreed to
return all goods that were removed from Chechnya during the hostilities,
which is a Russian concession. Both sides also wish to establish an
international fund for the reconstruction of Chechnya, which will
hopefully materialize.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">A Comprehensive
Approach to Conflict Management</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The work being done in Chechnya
is a good example of a comprehensive approach to conflict management. It
is comprehensive in that it covers everything from military questions up
through human rights questions, and also in the sense that one
organization is spearheading the work but other organizations are
cooperating and supporting the activities. It is also an excellent
example--the first, I think, since 1990--of results without competition
between organizations. The OSCE is extremely glad to see this high level
of cooperation among the United Nations and other specialized agencies,
NATO, the European Union, and OSCE member-states. It is a very promising
sign. Through such cooperation, we hope to obtain many more positive
outcomes from the experience in Chechnya than we have drawn from the
experience in the former Yugoslavia.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="Gyarmati.htm">Go to
Top of Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="95Workshop.htm">Return
to Dresden '95 Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><A HREF="../index.html">Return to Home Page</A> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>