Speech by Secretary  of State Torstila: Helsinki to Helsinki: Future of the OSCE

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Secretary of State Pertti Torstila

The Finnish OSCE Chairmanship 2008
Helsinki to Helsinki: Future of the OSCE

October 15th, 2008
Washington DC

Check against delivery

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am grateful for this invitation to present my thoughts on ‘the road back to Helsinki’.

How does a diplomat who was closely involved in the Helsinki Process of 1975 and is still in the business see the OSCE of 2008 after 33 years? What's left of the original idea and what have we learnt during the past decades? Should the concept of the present European security structure be changed or is it still valid? An idea of a new security treaty for Euro-Atlantic area has been put forward by Russia. Is there a road back to Helsinki?

I would be tempted to say that there is no road back to Helsinki, but there's no road away from Helsinki either. The Finnish capital has changed as has the world around it. We are no more living in a world of the Cold War. The military alliances are not confronting each other, there are no neutrals, there's no Warsaw Pact, there's no more communism. More than anything, our Organization (OSCE) itself has changed almost beyond recognition. We are no longer the travelling conference that we once were, hopping from one capital to the next. The OSCE is a solid international organization which has its important place in the family of meaningful institutions. We have just proved our relevance in the midst of the present conflict in the Caucasus.

And not everything has changed. There are lessons and points which should not be forgotten and which have remained true since 1975. Even today, the Helsinki Final Act remains the basic rule book guiding the interaction of participating States, acting as a compass of their behaviour in all instances. The original OSCE architecture, the three pillars or "baskets" of the Final Act: building security comprehensively with military, economic and human components underpinning each other, are today equally important as they were 33 years ago. Our list of principles, the Helsinki Decalogue ranging from respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity to non-use of force and peaceful resolution of conflicts remains valid. These commitments form the bedrock of the OSCE's work. The OSCE, as the CSCE before it, presents a unique vantage point from which to observe trends in relations among participating States and, more widely, to examine security developments across Europe.

This is the angle that I wish to take today. I will start by reviewing briefly with you the evolution of the CSCE and the OSCE, before turning to explore the state of affairs today across the OSCE area.

Change and adapting to new circumstances were written into the genetic code of the CSCE, and it has ruled the growth of the OSCE also over the last fifteen years. This process of change and adaptation has been gradual, but it has been ceaseless.

There was, first, a pioneering phase, when the the Helsinki Process emerged a key forum to prevent conflict across the European continent. Launched in 1975, the CSCE was in sync with its times. Given the nature of security needs during the Cold War, the focus then fell on developing a framework for arms control and CSBMs. This proved useful, and it provided the foundation for the rapid advances that occurred in these areas during the 1980s and 1990s. Alongside the security focus the human dimension, the III Basket of the Final Act did its inescapable work.

The Helsinki Final Act was deeply innovative for the cross-dimensional concept of security that it developed. The Final Act set out the idea that the protection of human rights, fundamental freedoms and liberal democracy, combined with healthy economic and environmental governance and political-military co-operation between States were essential, mutually reinforcing pillars of a single, comprehensive concept of security.

The 1990s saw a period of a unique consensus between the participating States about how to take forward the broad concept of security developed in the Final Act. We had learned that security begins inside States and within societies and that strong democratic institutions and healthy societies are the best quarantee of conflict prevention. The OSCE participating States all agreed in the 1990 Paris Charter that good governance should be defined as governance that protected fundamental freedoms and that democracy was the means to exercise these freedoms. This included freedom of the media and protection of minorities.

The OSCE adopted an ambitious framework of commitments, created institutions and field operations to help participating States comply with them. This phase in the 1990s seemed to be one when ‘all good things were coming together at the same time.’

The 1990s was not all good and not without its moments of crisis, witnessed sharply in the wars of the former Yugoslavia. Still, the OSCE proved remarkably resilient and it achieved tangible results in helping to transform the continent into the open, vibrant and dynamic area we know.

The OSCE developed as a niche organization combining a forum for security dialogue with tools for the promotion of democracy through election monitoring, crisis management and field operations. The message endured, and was shared by many other international organisations, the Council of Europe, the EU and NATO.

Since the late 1990s, we have entered a third age. The OSCE has become an organ to mirror the difficulties of the transition process within the large land area it covers, of the resurgence of tensions among its participating States and of emergence of new threats.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is difficult for an inclusive and value–based organisation to do better than its constituent parts and the OSCE is no exception to the rule. A brief overview highlights this.

The OSCE has a proven track record of responding flexibly and efficiently to the changing needs of its members. Created as an instrument of détente, fashioned then in the new tensions of the early 1980s, the Conference set the stage for fostering and managing the collapse of the Cold War walls in a peaceful manner. It was transformed into a more formalised organization, with specialised institutions and long-term operations on the ground, actively involved in building security throughout the OSCE area.

Today, in addition to the ambitious mandates it inherited from the past, the OSCE is retooling again as an innovative forum for international co-operation in areas such as counter-terrorism, anti-trafficking, policing, the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons and border management.

More than simply adapting, the Organization has been reloaded on several occasions, taking on new shape in reply to new challenges – coming to life, first, as a forum to keep dialogue alive during renewed Cold War tensions, then becoming a tool for managing peacefully its end, and shifting then to emerge as a major pan-Eurasian framework for support to democratic transition and stability building in new and fragile states.

In this light, it may be useful to see the OSCE less as an institution and more as a project – a project which is ongoing and which has been reinvented several times already.

Another reason why the OSCE may be understood as a project is because it has always been underpinned by a set of values. In the 1970s, these related to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the legitimate scrutiny over these by all CSCE States. After the end of the Cold War, the values underlying the Organization became explicitly those of supporting democratic governance as the only legitimate system of rule.

The CSCE/OSCE has always evolved as a result of interaction of an evolving set of values with the changing realities of international relations. In my view, it is this interaction of values and realities that has been the driving force behind the constant reinvention of the OSCE.

Today, the OSCE has become once again a forum where differences between key actors are exercised across a wide spectrum of issues, ranging from democratic transformation to arms control. The rise of tensions inside the OSCE reflects nothing more than those occurring outside the Organization across Eurasia. The front lines of the Cold War have been erased but we see new divisions taking hold. Old threats are taking a new shape and longstanding conflicts remain unsolved. Dialogue is now needed and we must use the OSCE to its full potential.

Dialogue is needed firstly, because States are acting against the framework of shared values and concomitant pledges which they themselves have made. National or ‘sovereign’ approaches to democracy and the rule of law are being proposed and there's resistance to more intrusive aspects of OSCE commitments. Clearly, democracy remains unfinished business in our area. There are real difficulties in consolidating democratic institutions, building the rule of law, and crafting a culture of democracy, inclusion and reconciliation. State-building remains incomplete in parts of the Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. Many states across Eurasia remain weak, facing real problems of governance and institutions.

Secondly, the framework for arms control created after 1990 is under challenge. The continuing deadlock in the negotiations concerning the CFE Treaty poses serious risks to our common security. The ripple effects of this are not yet clear, but this may herald the return of political-military questions to the forefront of Eurasian security developments. At the very least, opacity is likely to increase in military development across wider Europe. At most, new arms races – if not among Eurasia’s major powers, then among smaller parties to sub-regional conflicts – are no longer inconceivable. Parts of the Western Balkans remain caught in the throes of a difficult and tense post-conflict process. The situation could be complicated by the difficult beginning of the independence of Kosovo. Real differences have emerged between States on these issues.

Thirdly, the range of new challenges facing the OSCE participating States is increasing. I would simply note here the importance of security challenge arising from outside the OSCE area, which has perhaps never been as striking as it is today. The challenges arising from Afghanistan to the OSCE area are a case in point. OSCE states face an increasingly complex array of threats, which include trafficking, extremism, cultural rifts, uncontrolled migrations, and environmental degradation. These risks are often driven by non-state actors, such as international terrorist and organised criminal networks.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

Differences became especially sharp in Georgia in summer, leading to the eruption of an armed conflict. I am pleased to say that the OSCE was present and rapidly involved on the ground. The Organization proved itself an effective forum for permanent dialogue between major actors and lessening tensions through the immediate deployment of its monitors.

The OSCE has played and plays an invaluable role in Georgia, working at the forefront of international efforts to build a foundation for a lasting peace, halting the fighting, monitoring the withdrawal of Russian and Georgian forces and consolidating the basis for longer term stability across all of Georgia. The Finnish Chairmanship believes that the OSCE should be in the business of resolving conflicts and not only managing them, co-operating closely with the UN and the EU.

The OSCE monitoring team is now deployed in areas adjacent to South Ossetia but we consider it crucial that they are ensured safe and free movement throughout all of Georgia. The principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity is one of the ten principles on which the OSCE is based since 1975.

The talks in Geneva have now started. The OSCE has its role in these negotiations. The Finnish Chairmanship would like to see an international platform be created on the basis of consolidated UN, EU and OSCE efforts, to address the conflict in a comprehensive and inclusive manner, while respecting Georgia's territorial integrity. We believe that the implementation of the ceasefire agreement would be best followed up by a this kind of an international platform with the authority and the resources to deal with both conflicts - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The OSCE's role in these times of uncertainty and new challenges is more important than ever - not least because it is the only security organization in which all Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian States participate as equals. However, taking forward the achievements of the past into a new context requires responsibility and sustained efforts from all participating States. Without this, momentum may be lost and the legitimacy and authority of the Organization may evaporate.

The increasing interest towards the onerous task of chairing the OSCE as well as the Kazak Chairmanship in 2010 testify that there is interest and commitment to take the organization forward. The OSCE should seize this opportunity. We cannot assume today that past practices will continue to work; we cannot assume that customary approaches will always remain valid; we cannot assume that the successes of the past decades will always be replicated. The OSCE cannot be taken for granted.

During the Finnish Chairmanship we have witnessed two major changes in European security landscape: the declaration of independence by Kosovo and the armed conflict in Georgia. In addition, many important elections have been held in the OSCE area in the past months. We have done our utmost to react to the challenging events and constantly changing situations. At the same time we have pursued the goals set for the Chairmanship in the beginning of January, and this list is long.

The real test still lies ahead of us as Helsinki prepares to take the central stage during the OCSE Ministerial Council meeting, 4-5 December. I hope that participating States arrive to Helsinki with an open mind and use the opportunity to discuss OSCE's role as a regional organisation based on co-operative security and take decisions to guide our future work. We have a valuable tool in our hands. Let's use it.

Thank you for your attention.