 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
              
|
The right way to deal with Russia America must embrace the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Friday, December 03, 1999 By Jonathan M. White
The United States and its Western allies are currently facing a conflict in Chechnya that cannot be addressed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union. The former is certainly not the appropriate instrument for the job and the latter lacks the capabilities. Unless the fighting de-escalates and a political solution is found soon, the religious, ethnic and nationalist tensions that pervade the Caucasus risk creating the tribal warfare we have already witnessed in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Jonathan M. White was born in Pittsburgh and graduated from Allegheny College in 1992. He is finishing his master's in International Economics and European Studies at Johns Hopkins University and working for the British American Security Information Council in Washington, D.C.
Of the three multilateral bodies that are mandated to ensure trans-Atlantic security, only the 54-member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) can effectively tackle the Chechen conflict. Unlike NATO and the EU, the OSCE takes on the less glamorous responsibilities of reducing the flow of arms, protecting human rights, supporting elections and promoting the rule of law in regional hotspots.
Its wide membership, including the United States, other NATO countries, EU member states as well as Russia and most of the former Soviet Republics, grants it extensive geographical reach. More to the point, OSCE is the only such body that Russia will allow near the maelstrom of Chechnya.
But what is the OSCE and why should Americans care?
Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently commented that "diplomats can persuade and soldiers can fight, but the OSCE is the organization that can put civilians on the ground in troubled nations to promote democratic ideals and prevent conflict." Strategic air strikes deliver precise military results and NATO troops can bring security to an area of conflict. NATO, without question, has its place. But, by raising the threshold for the use of force, OSCE reduces the heavy political and military costs of direct intervention by the United States and its allies.
Since 1995, the Clinton administration has formally envisioned NATO, the EU and the OSCE as the "three pillars" maintaining security, prosperity and democracy across the Atlantic. However, on both sides of the Atlantic political, diplomatic and military resources have tended to gravitate toward NATO and the EU at the expense of the OSCE pillar of the trans-Atlantic relationship. But, they can neither substitute for the OSCE nor in themselves achieve a truly pan-European security framework.
Many hoped that NATO could manage problems like ethnic violence and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but the continuation of ethnic cleansing after the bombing of Kosovo demonstrated NATO's limitations. Much work -- for good reason -- has gone into reinforcing the EU and NATO since the end of the Cold War. But, they both lack the instruments of nation-building in which the OSCE specializes.
In the case of Chechnya, we have the virtual absence of a state; Islamic militants have slit the throats of Western businessmen and the Russian military is now implementing a scorched-earth policy with impunity. The Caucasus as a whole possesses vital resources and fragile political institutions whose vulnerability fosters organized crime and invites aggression from its neighbors. The OSCE is uniquely equipped for dealing with these weaknesses -- which is exactly why it must be supported in the region.
The OSCE has already become a critical player with a record of successes in the new states emerging from the old Soviet Empire. The OSCE mission to Ukraine resulted in a diplomatic settlement that gave ethnic Russians in the Eastern region of Ukraine autonomy, preventing the state from splintering. Although criticized for its handling of the elections in Bosnia, the OSCE's cooperation with NATO there has helped to bring indicted war criminals to the Hague.
The recent OSCE summit in Istanbul showed that it is a useful forum for persuasion, dialogue and conflict prevention. Facing condemnation from many OSCE members at the summit over Chechnya, Russia conceded to troop reductions and the dismantling of bases in Georgia and Moldova. Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov also agreed that deployment of forces into another state now requires the approval of the host country. While Russia's refusal to budge on Chechnya did overshadow the summit, these agreements create a basis for regional stability elsewhere.
If the West wishes to address security issues like Chechnya that lie beyond the realistic domains of NATO and the EU, it must put its weight behind the OSCE. The United States has a strategic interest in isolating the conflict and protecting our access to the oil and gas of the Caspian Sea basin. Yet, without a clear commitment to the OSCE, the West is deprived of the most effective tools for securing our interests in the region.
Ultimately, though, Russia must decide Chechnya's fate -- and, in doing so, her own. Reaffirming civilian control over the operation by embracing OSCE mechanisms must be balanced against strong resistance from within the military and the Russian public's enthusiasm for the campaign.
But a democratic Russia can find alternatives to a purely military solution. Unfortunately, she may have to endure another protracted guerilla war before she sees the wisdom of embracing the OSCE.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
