Honest mediator, crossroads, and a bridge

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is less known in Ukraine as compared to the European Union and NATO or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the CIS. Why participating in the work of this organization and, in particular, the chairmanship in it, is important for Ukraine and what benefits will Ukrainian people get from the cooperation with the OSCE, known as security community? Lamberto ZANNIER, Secretary General of the OSCE, spoke about these aspects in an exclusive interview for The Day.

“First of all OSCE includes all of these organizations: NATO, EU, Council of Europe, CSTO, and CIS. It is an organization where each participating state has the same vote or power of veto which means that there are no domination or preferential group, and everybody around the table has the same weight. What we are trying to do at the OSCE today is to redefine European security. The OSCE has a very broad approach to security. To us security is arms control, politico-military matters, the economy and the environment, energy; security also means human rights, democratic stability, and democratic development. So in this sense we are rather unique and we are the only regional organization that really includes all the blocks I mentioned before. These are key features of the organization and the difference compared to others.”

Could you tell us some success story of OSCE?

“The OSCE is a conflict prevention organization. When you hear no news about a conflict, that for us is good news. This means we have been working well. I can give you some examples of things we have done. Beyond the policy issues we deal with – arms control has produced some good results. Since the 1990s the OSCE has helped to destroy almost 80,000 pieces of military equipment. We are continuing to do this. If you look at Ukraine, for instance, we have already destroyed 10,000 tons of very dangerous Soviet-era liquid rocket fuel known as m?lange. Just to give you an idea of the quantity, if this liquid was loaded on train carriages, the train would stretch twice around the world. Such a huge amount of this highly toxic material requires some very complex procedures for eliminating it and turning it into useful materials that can be used in production. Another example of our work is in Kosovo where we facilitated voting in Serbia’s Parliamentary and Presidential elections. At the time there were high tensions and NATO and KFOR sent an additional battalion of troops there because they thought there could be a crisis. Through our work the election took place in a peaceful and orderly manner and at the end both sides thanked the OSCE. So that’s the kind of things we do. Currently we are working in Central Asia, we keep an eye on threats emerging from Afghanistan and looking at strengthening the capacity of central Asian countries to deal with these issues, for example by strengthening their borders. We have a very broad agenda.”

Mr. Zannier, I have read your interview in which you spoke about your vision of a “security community,” rooted in agreed principles, shared commitments, and common goals. Why does it remain just a vision, a nice idea, or even better to say Utopia? What prevents us from reaching this goal?

“This is another thing we are doing under Ukrainian OSCE Chairmanship through a process called Helsinki+40. It is so called because in 2015 we will mark the 40th anniversary of our founding document, the Helsinki Final Act. What do I see in these discussions? There are divisions our community. There are different visions depending on the countries’ perspectives. For example Turkey has a set of issues, of security challenges it faces that are different from how the same issues are seen in Moscow, in Washington or in Brussels. So, bringing everybody together and developing a common strategy is difficult. You need to take each vision into account. This is part of process we are going through. In addition security issues have become broader than 10 or 15 years ago. We have a regional security, a post-Cold-War set of issues. But we also have global challenges: extremism, terrorism, drug trafficking, or human trafficking. There is also a third set of issues that is coming onto our agenda – security challenges from our neighborhood, the Mediterranean region and Afghanistan. So the agenda is very complex.”

You know that Russia proposed in 2009 a Security Treaty covering the space from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Why hasn’t this document gotten support in OSCE and in what way can we create such security space in other world common home as it was provisioned at first by the Helsinki Treaty?

(Laughing). “There are different visions concerning this project. From the Russian side there is the strong push to have a stronger base for the arrangement of security around the OSCE agenda. And they have requested to have a charter with a strong legal basis like the United Nations. Others believe that one of the strengths of the OSCE is the fact that it is based on political commitments which makes it more flexible. Personally I tend to think that what matters is the substance and focusing on resolving the issues themselves. And the form will come after that. The form to me is not the largest issue. If we agree how to update the agenda of organization I sincerely hope that the matter how you formalize it will not be the key one.”

It is known that US, contrary to Russia, believe that the OSCE as organization does not need to reorganize itself but only to become more efficient. That was the point of Hillary Clinton. What is the position of John Kerry?

“I have just come from Washington where I found strong support of the way we do business in the OSCE. I also found willingness to engage in this debate, but also a strong concern that this debate does not result in watering down or diminishing existing OSCE commitments. It is important as we move forward and as we update the agenda with looming issues like Afghanistan, that we do not lose sight of what the OSCE stands for, and we preserve the commitments made by the participating states.”

What do you expect to reach before the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act in 2015?

“It is still early to say. But I personally wish to see some kind of document emerging that will redefine security in Europe and the security of our participating states and redefine the agenda of our organization with respect of these challenges. Hopefully, there is clear indication what would be the priorities for security community. Personally, I very much support the work that Ukrainian chairmanship started in the OSCE on this set of issues. And I think we are now starting a discussion on very concrete issues, for instance, how we can strengthen the economic dimension, have a stronger focus on economic and environment issues. Environmental protection and climate change are gaining more importance as security issues.”

“The first time I came to Kyiv was in 1993. I was dealing at the time with former Soviet nuclear weapons. It was long time ago. I remember relations between Ukraine and Russia were complicated. I discovered Ukraine at that time. Now I find a lot of changes, positive changes.”

I have seen that this year Security Days will take place in Vienna. Why not in Russia or Ukraine? Or is there need to convince Austrians in importance of security?

“Security Days is an initiative that I launched myself last year. There is no political decision behind the venue. It is in Vienna because that is where are our headquarters are.”

Mr. Zannier, some experts are already predicting the failure of Ukraine’s Chairmanship in OSCE. What do you think about this?

“Working in OSCE is always long-term. You do not start something in January and finish in December. It is a matter of moving the agenda across the board. I think what Ukraine has done pretty well, is that it started this debate on larger vision of our organization – the Helsinki+40 process – that will finish in 2015. There are a number of initiatives in various areas that have been launched. For instance, there is an important debate on arms control. Any results will require a lot more time, but it is essential that the discussion has begun.

“There are initiatives in human dimension where Ukraine is very active. Freedom of movement, freedom of media, today we are in Kyiv discussing trafficking of human beings. Recently the Ukrainian Chairmanship organized a high-level conference on tolerance and non discrimination in Albania.”

The main domain of OSCE activities is resolving frozen conflicts. In your opinion, will Ukraine as Chairman of OSCE achieve some progress in resolving Transnistria conflict?

“Resolving of conflicts does not depend on Chairmanship. It only depends on the sides. Chairmanship can only try to create favorable conditions for the resolution of these conflicts. What we have seen so far is that Ukraine is engaged very actively in this area. It is one of the Chairmanship priorities. For example one of the first trips by Minister Kozhara, the OSCE Chairperson, was to Moldova to work on the Transnistrian settlement. Ukraine hosted two important rounds of the official negotiations in the so called ‘5+2’ format in Lviv and Odesa. The next one will be held in Vienna in July. There are always difficulties. There has been a political crisis in Moldova that has slowed the dynamic of the process. The Transnistrian leadership is very engaged but when it comes to the political issues it has a very firm line. So, we have seen some steps. For instance, For instance as a result of the last meeting they agreed on a confidence building measure where the OSCE will dismantle a dangerous disused cable car in Rybnitsa and Rezina. It is confidence measures we are discussing, reopening of a bridge, and freedom of movement. Also the Nagorno-Karabach conflict is an issue on which you need to take a long-term perspective and where each Chairmanship can make its own contribution. I think that Ukraine is doing everything it can in given circumstances. But as they say in the Arab world, you can take a camel to the water but you cannot force it to drink.”

What can you say about Russia’s position in this, is it helpful or not?

“Russia is one of the key players and obviously has important influence. So you need to work with Russia just as you do with others. Some of the solutions can be found only in Moscow. That is obvious. So, engaging with Russia is important. I think Ukraine has an added value because it is at the same time a crossroads and a bridge. Ukraine has strong economical and political relations with Russia, but also with the EU, Turkey, and other countries in region. So it can act as an honest broker.”

And there is an opinion that Chairmanship in OSCE would even thwart the possibility to resolve the Transnistrian conflict. What can you say about this?

“The Chairmanship has advantages and disadvantages. The Chairmanship gives you an institutional role. However this also means that you cannot go beyond a certain point, you cannot push for some ideas that reflect your own position. You have to bring others together and be more impartial. But then the advantage is that Ukraine in this capacity has more channels than the others. That is an advantage.”

Mr. Zannier, I see that you will be a speaker at the conference organized in Kyiv about strengthening of the role of OSCE in combating human trafficking. What would be your main message on this conference?

“First of all this issue is important for Ukraine as well as for the OSCE, it has a strong profile on the agenda in our organization. It is an issue that brings together everybody in the OSCE community in many ways. There are countries of origin, countries of transit, and countries that are recipients of this traffic. It is a very complex issue that stretches across the OSCE agenda. It has obviously human rights implications, rule of law, security and economic implications. It really touches all things that we deal with. And you need to respond with different tools because we have to work to prevent it, we have to work with prosecutors, police, and customs. You work to assist victims as well. In the OSCE we have an action plan. Many countries have even implemented it and developed national legislation based on this plan. This is one way in which we operate. So, this conference will allow us to take stock of where we are and to have a discussion with experts to better understand what are the open issues, where we need to go next to prioritize what problems we still need to address.”

You probably know that Ukraine is eager to sign the Association Agreement with the EU in Vilnius. But one of the big obstacles for this is Tymoshenko case. In your opinion should this problem prevent EU from signing this document which makes Ukraine closer to Europe?

“The OSCE has no role in the relationship between the EU and Ukraine. But I think that it would be better for Ukraine to strengthen its own relations with its neighborhood. On the one hand, with Russia, on the other hand, with Europeans. Ukraine should take into account what the Europeans expect. This is what I heard when I went to Brussels. What I see interesting is that Ukraine is successfully chairing the OSCE – an organization that also promotes human rights and rule of law. In a way Ukraine can also use its hard work towards the Vilnius meeting. I think Ukraine is doing pretty well as OSCE Chair to profile its policy in a positive manner, also vis-a-vis the EU. In this way the chairmanship of the OSCE can help Ukraine in this process of getting closer to the EU. Of course, the decision in Vilnius is something that the EU will have to consider. As the OSCE Secretary General I really cannot express a view on that.”

Can you tell our readers about your opinion on Ukraine in general what impression did you have after coming here?

“The first time I came to Kyiv was in 1993. I was dealing at the time with former Soviet nuclear weapons. It was long time ago. I remember relations between Ukraine and Russia were complicated.

“I discovered Ukraine at that time. Now I find a lot of changes, positive changes. I see the city has grown and it is a beautiful place. People are open. The overall atmosphere is much better. Still there are issues, there is still work to be done, but in much better overall environment.”