Reform of the OSCE: An unlikely alliance between Russia and the United States?

For many years the Russian Federation has been demanding reform of the OSCE which was accused of double standards, a disproportionate focus on problems “east of Vienna,” and an unbalanced interest in human rights issues to the detriment of harder aspects of security in the OSCE area. Russia now seems to have a new ally in the urge for reform of the OSCE, namely the United States, which is even threatening to leave the organization if its reform demands are not met. Although both countries don’t have similar goals in this reform debate, there are still some striking similarities.

This became clear when the U.S. delegate at the latest OSCE Ministerial in Vienna demanded a “real, serious change” of the organization. This statement was not delivered by the U.S. Secretary of State, but by his representative Brendan Hanrahan, a Senior Bureau Official of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. The brief statement indicated a surprising overlap with complaints about the OSCE which have been voiced by Moscow and its key allies for several years.

One criticism made by the U.S. is that the OSCE is an unbalanced organization which pays too much attention to trivial or politicized issues, or, as Mr. Hanrahan put it, “ideological projects that many of our societies have rejected or reversed, from opposing common sense asylum reform, to misguided efforts to eliminate fossil fuel.” The US is clearly in favour of pruning the Christmas tree that the OSCE has become over the years as a result of participating States expanding the working agenda of the organization.

This echoes a critique that Moscow has made of the OSCE for years, namely a disproportionate focus on human dimension issues at the expense of the organization’s core security mandate. The Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized already at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 that the OSCE had been designed “to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request.” This, however, in his view did not mean “interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.” At that time, Putin also stressed that the original balance within the OSCE to address all aspects of security has been “destroyed.” In Putin’s words, efforts were made “to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries.”

The American views expressed at the recent Ministerial are strikingly similar. The representative said that “(t)he OSCE has rightly stood up for human rights and freedoms for generations. That is not the same as dictating national social policy. The OSCE must stop treating transformation of domestic political life as one of its core functions. The important work of monitoring—whether of borders, elections, or reforms—can only be effective with the full cooperation of the states involved. This is a forum created to prevent wars; it is not an international ombudsman.”

Instead, the U.S. has called on the OSCE to “work on pressing security issues like conventional arms control and border security, and counter threats like terrorism, money laundering, and trafficking”.

Another point emphasized by the United States is the need for dialogue. In recent years, there has been little meaningful dialogue in the OSCE, particularly by participating States who have argued that there can be “no business as usual” since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, delegations from EU states have had instructions not to talk to their Russian and Belarusian counterparts. This undermines the OSCE’s raison d’etre as a forum for dialogue. The United States, which, under the Trump administration, has been quick to renew dialogue with Moscow declared at the Ministerial Council in Vienna that “(t)he OSCE must also stop sidelining the very actors whose presence is essential for peace. A conflict involving Russia can only be managed by engaging Russia. That is a practical reality, and not an endorsement of any government’s conduct. The OSCE could calm crises because all parties were represented and it sought to resolve conflicts.”

Such statements are a dramatic departure from the position of previous American administrations which have, for example, championed human rights and accountability of states to live up to their OSCE commitments. The shift in US policies brings Washington closer to many of Moscow’s long-stated criticisms of the organization. This – as witnessed in the recent National Security Strategy – could drive a wedge between the US and its traditional European allies. It also risks undermining the OSCE’s role as an organization that had been the symbol of human rights and freedoms for many citizens of authoritarian states in the OSCE area. It would also imply an end of the OSCE acquis which are often referred to as a ‘community of values’ and a ‘community of responsibility’. It could also weaken political support and resources needed for OSCE institutions and field operations.

At the same time, OSCE participating States should take seriously the American criticism of the organization, not only because it would be a fatal blow for the organization if the US withdrew from the OSCE, but also because the organization certainly needs to be reformed. After all, there have been calls for reform since at least the Corfu process of 2008, yet little meaningful change has happened. The Americans are also threatening to block the OSCE budget until their demands are met, which would continue to hamper the organization’s operability. It is clear that at present not only the Russians are demanding reform, but also the Americans, although the Russians are not threatening to leave the organization.

In short, the American intervention at the recent Ministerial Council is a wake-up call that shows traditional allies that the United States is changing course – which could have a serious impact on the OSCE. At the same time, Washington’s call for reform should be heeded. The challenge will be to preserve the OSCE’s founding principles and commitments while changing with the times. The world has changed dramatically in recent times. To survive, the OSCE will have to follow suit.

Dr. Arie Bloed is a former professor of public international law and a long-standing expert on the OSCE.