OSCE, The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe – the transformation, institutions and policing

Sophie Cheng

TransformationCold War: Dialogue and cooperation

• Helsinki process • Attempted to

foster détente • Political

dialogue and multilateral diplomacy between East and West

• Human and politico-military aspects of security

• Confidence- and security- building measures (CSBMs)

• First twisting point: the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union/ communism

Post-Cold War: Managing transition

• Strengthened and transformed, not eliminated

• Institutionalised• Field operations

(missions) launched

• Emphasised on early-warning and conflict prevention

• Concentrated on post-conflict rehabilitation in the Balkans

• Second twisting point: increased democratisation introduced to former Soviet countries and 9/11 terrorism

Post 9/11: Promoting integration

• New threats in international security

• The enlargement of NATO and the EU

• Reduces missions in EU covered regions

• Intensify missions in central Asia and the Caucasus

• Closer collaboration with UN, NATO, and the EU

• Counter-terrorism

• Policing capability

• “Horizontal” issues

• Shares experiences

• Organisational reforms

Institutions and Structures Chairmanship:- Chairperson-in-Office (CiO); Germany 2016

Participating States:- 57 States; more than a billion people; North America, Europe and Asia

Partner States and organizations:- 11 Mediterranean and Asian Partner of Co-operation states- key partner organizations : UN, EU, Council of Europe, and NATO

Summits:- periodic meetings of Heads of State or Government of OSCE participating States 

Ministerial Council:- decision-making and governing power lies with the Ministerial Council during periods between summits- members are the Foreign Ministers of participating States.

Permanent Council:- the main regular decision-making bodies of the Organization

Parliamentary Assembly

High Commissioner

on National Minorities

Secretariat

Representative

on Freedom of the Media

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human

Rights

Court of Conciliation

and Arbitration

Minsk Group

Institutions and Structures

Prevents tensions involved national minorities’ issues developed into a conflict

Provides operational support

Preforms early warning function via observing media developments and monitoring states’ commitments to freedom of expression and free media

Assists participating States to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; enhances dialogue among States, governments and civil society

Settles, by means of conciliation or arbitration, the disputes between States submitted

Works on conflict prevention and resolution; provides an appropriate framework for conflict resolution

Facilitates inter-parliamentary dialogue between those 323 members; strengthens the consolidation of democratic institutions

ODIHR and regional security threat • Combating hate-motivated crimes and incidents

• Countering organised hate groups

• Advanced operations and mediums: internet, music, symbols…

• Commitment: The 2003 Ministerial Council Declaration

• “Violent manifestations of intolerance threaten the security of individuals and have the potential to give rise to wider-scale conflict and violence”

• Law Enforcement Outreach Program (LEOP)

• Provides technical support and expertise: - adopts a ‘train-the-trainer’ and ‘police-to-police’ approach - recognizing that professional law enforcement training

• ODIHR: undertaken an initial research and analysis; conducted a series of consultations

• Informal co-operation: law enforcement agencies engaging in information, data, symbols and other intelligence exchanges

• A formalized network to facilitate increased co-operation between law enforcement agencies in investigating and preventing hate crimes

• Hungary and Spain: Pilot implementation -> Croatia: first in full implementation

Uzbekistan

Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Yerevan, Armenia

UkraineAstana,

KazakhstanSerbia

Skopje, the Republic of Macedonia

Montenegro

Kosovo

Albania

Kosovo: gateway to eastward expansion

• Traditional presence of Serbs and Albania in Kosovo • Increasingly violent nationalism built in these two ethnics • Early 1980s: Serbian encountered hostility from Albanian community• The Yugoslavia conflict: Albania Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) vs

Kosovo Serbs• NATO: lacked the resources or institutional knowledge to incorporate

peace- building activities • OSCE: has experience in institutional reform and market- economy

building. • 1992 deployed mission to Kosovo• 1999 Kosovo Verification Mission: monitored and observed the

ceasefire agreement of 1998• Worked with the UN: UNMIK

Kosovo Police School

Humane resources capacity Positive

development of civil society

Institution

building UNHCR; minority human rights

Human rights

Policing Kosovo: joint efforts

OSCE Mission in Kosovo (OMIK): UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK):

• Constructed local party structures• Carried out various pre-election

efforts • The municipal institutional process:

the Unit for Political Party Development (PPD) focused on smaller parties, citizen initiatives and ethnic minorities considerations in party structures

• Conducted the general registration of political parties as legal entities under Kosovo’s electoral laws (UNMIK regulations)

• Co-ordination role• Enabled bigger organizations and

NGOs to participate actively in

• Commenced Joint Interim Administration Structure (JIAS)

• Instituted UN administrators throughout the province

• The JIAS process: the political structure for local consultation and co-administration for executive and legal decision-making by UNMIK

• Aimed at replacing all self-appointed informal structures prior to the central elections

• Central institution-building measures: Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) and its Assembly Task Force

Aims: building democratic institutions and functioning parliamentary structures

Mixed success: they have contributed to the establishment of parliamentary assemblies and local governments as the first democratically elected institutions since 2000/2001However OMIK could hardly exercise more than consultative influence on UNMIK

Policing Serbia• Multiethnicity: Serbs (82.86%), Hungarians (3.91%), Bosniaks (1.81%), Roma (1.44%),

Croats, Montenegrins, Albanians, Slovak

• The dissolution of SRF Yugoslavia; civil wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Kosovo -> refugees influx

• A society in transition (from an authoritarian to a democratic) and encountering post-conflict

• Significant decline in public confidence in the police: was serving the political regime instead of protecting the people

• Greater distrust in the national minorities

• National origin concern: non-Serb police officers were excluded from the police

• Police reform: the Policing Diversity Project (2006) by the Law Enforcement Department of the OSCE Mission to Serbia, the British Council, and the Serbian Ministry of the Interior (MoI)

• Attempted to enhancing the relations between the police and the minority and vulnerable groups and improving multiethnic policing

• 4 ‘Ds’ – de-politicization, de-centralization, de-criminalization, and de-militarization

• Obstacles: strong nationalism and no strategy of national reconciliation; the system of values

Policing Serbia• The violence (between an Albanian rebel group and the Serbian authorities):

ethnic tensions, underdevelopment, high unemployment and institutional neglect

• “The OSCE’s role as an independent broker was essential in negotiating a path between a demoralised and outdated police force and a sceptical, untrusting public.” DOWNES & KEANE, 2006

• Serbian police reform: part of a peace plan for ending the conflict

• Boosting the number of Albanians in state institutions and in police officers

• Creating a multi-ethnic police element (MEPE) for the conflict region

• OSCE: overseeing its implementation; crisis stabilisation and managementPolice

training and education

Organised crime

Border policing

Police accountabili

ty Community

policing

Crime scene

management

6 priority areas in police reform programme

References • Bishop, J. (2008). Addressing hate crime as a regional security threat: an overview

of the ODIHR Law Enforcement Officer Programme. Security & Human Rights. 19 (2), p147-156. 10p.

• David J. Galbreath. (2007). The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. United Kingdom: Routledge Ltd.

• DOWNES, M. AND KEANE, R. (2006). Police Reform Amid Transition: The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Serbia. Civil Wars. 8 (2), pp.181–196.

• Kemp, W. (2004). The OSCE: Entering a third phase in its third decade. Helsinki Monitor. 15 (4), p254-262. 9p.

• Kešetović, Ž. (2012). Policing in multiethnic Serbia. Police Practice & Research. 13 (1), p59-70. 12p.

• Narten, J. (2006). Building local institutions and parliamentarianism in post-war Kosovo: A review of joint efforts by the UN and OSCE from 1999-2006. Helsinki Monitor. 17 (2), p144-159. 16p.

• OSCE (2016) http://www.osce.org/