Statement
at the special meeting of the OSCE Security Model Committee
July 3, 1998

On behalf of the Delegations of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine let me warmly welcome the representatives of the international organizations and institutions at this meeting and thank them for their contributions to the work of the SMC.

Our countries are satisfied with the way the Committee and the working bodies are implementing their tasks. A number of documents have been tabled for the consideration of the participating States. The cooperation between the organizations and institutions concerned with promotion of comprehensive security within the OSCE area is undoubtedly becoming the centerpiece of our work in the OSCE. Though the positions of our States are well known, nevertheless I would like to touch upon some specific elements of the issue in question.

The initiation of a cooperation process and its further development have to be transparent at all times. The transparent character of a cooperation should be a two-way process: transparent both in the OSCE and in the partner organizations and agreed by their member States. We are of the opinion that the Platform for Cooperative Security has to reflect this. At the same time the cooperative exercise should not be seen as something amorphous, the diffusion of responsibilities needs to be avoided, and comparative advantages of each player have to be fully utilized. Common cause and objectives should not be used as an excuse to shield a partner organization from justified criticism once it fails to meet its obligations. Peace and security are too important to be permitted to fall victim of falsely understood ethics in relationships between international organizations.

The Copenhagen document envisages adherence to the OSCE principles and commitments, as well as transparency and predictability in the actions of organizations. However, all these will be meaningful if only we are able to establish a mechanism to track this and to measure the degree of adherence, transparency and predictability. This is very important since the possible cooperation aimed at maintaining peace and stability in most cases would affect the security of individual States in a certain way. Being drawn into this process one has to be sure in advance about the real intentions, which are behind the solemn slogans. Under these conditions the provision that no State, organization or grouping can have any superior responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE region, or regard any part of the OSCE region as its sphere of influence is acquiring not the theoretical but a real, material meaning.

With regard to what we have just heard about the Commonwealth of Independent States, we take appreciative note that the CIS bodies have finally come to view the crisis management as the most important element of the activities of this institution. So far, the CIS regretfully was not able to protect the interests of its member States in the inter- and intra-State conflicts. Without resolution of the conflicts the CIS will not be able to develop cooperation between its member States at the proper level.

Another important aspect is the elaboration of mechanisms to monitor compliance with the principles and implementation of the decisions and obligations of the OSCE, in particular as regards the prevention and settlement of conflicts in the OSCE region. The OSCE has still unfinished business of resolving violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity of its member States. The on-going conflicts in our countries are being considered in the OSCE and will continue to be so, as the OSCE is the best forum to deal with these conflicts. However, the obvious indecisiveness and reluctance of the OSCE to act promptly in these conflicts when time for action comes should not be allowed to be exported into its relations with other organizations, because this will undermine the sound basis of such cooperation. When manifested in a cooperative exercise, these weaknesses may become even dangerous. Two organizations decide to join their efforts in order to mutually complement each other, not weaken. If it continues like this, we may end up in the situation when our partners will have the right to ask whether the OSCE itself is able to adhere to its principles. The way the OSCE is talking and acting must not leave room for doubts like these.

The operational field for cooperation of organizations must be prevention or elimination through multinational peacekeeping operations of continuing violations of the OSCE principles and obligations, as well as the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the States in the OSCE region. The criteria and mechanisms for such peacekeeping operations, devised on the basis of the relevant OSCE documents, must be clearly defined. The peacekeeping operations in the OSCE region may be carried out under the auspices of the UN or the OSCE. Once all peaceful means have been exhausted, the OSCE must have the possibility to submit the matter to the UN Security Council for its consideration. In exceptional cases, the OSCE must be prepared to take the necessary enforcement action under the leadership of the Security Council or with its authorization. In preparing and conducting such operations, the OSCE may call upon the NATO, WEU and EU, which have the necessary experience and stand-by resources. However, if the OSCE's own peacekeeping background is not developed, the parties most concerned could face the forced necessity to start considering other peacekeeping options and possible alternatives.

These are some thoughts our Delegations wanted to share with the colleagues prior to a summer break which will be followed by intense and hard preparation work for Oslo meeting the potential of which has to be exploited to full extent.