The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held its 16th Annual Session in Kiev earlier this month. With 56 participating States the OSCE is the world's broadest-based international security body. Based in Vienna, its membership spans the geographical area from Vancouver to Vladivostok, and includes all members of the EU, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Russia, Canada and the US.  I attended as a member of the UK Parliamentary delegation making up part of the 320 strong Parliamentary Assembly

The final Declaration agreed at the close of the Assembly expresses support for all efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement of the 'frozen conflicts' in Moldova and Georgia based on the principles of territorial integrity. As part of its remit to oversee and monitor democratic elections it calls for improvements in the process in several countries but especially Belarus. The Declaration urges all OSCE participating States to sign and ratify the Energy Charter Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. It also calls for greater action on migration and against human trafficking, especially children, and for the dismantling of criminal networks which facilitate illegal migration. In addition, it contains provisions on women, peace and security; cluster bombs; environmental security; human rights and intolerance.

All that might sound mind numbingly boring or platitudinal or both until you remind yourself that only a few weeks before the Assembly gathered in Kiev, the democratic gains of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution were looking somewhat fragile. The President had dissolved Parliament and announced fresh elections. His actions were challenged by the Prime Minister. President Yushchenko decided to dismiss the prosecutor general, Svyatoslav Piskun, an ally of the Prime Minister. That in turn led to a dramatic storming of the prosecutor general's office on 24 May by riot police and Interior Minister Vasyl Tsushko, who claimed the President was usurping power.  President Yushchenko hit back by placing the 40,000 interior ministry troops under his direct command. Prime Minister Yanukovych then condemned his action, saying it violated the constitution. The interior ministry said it would defy the president's order. By the time we met in Kiev, a stand off had been achieved and agreement reached that the elections should go ahead. Analysts think they are likely to produce a similar outcome to the political groupings within the current parliament and the horse trading between parties and groupings will have to start all over again. But that is just the situation that more mature democracies have had to deal with for years. It isn’t exactly foreign to our own recent experiences here in Scotland.

It’s in that context that the importance of organisations like OSCE should be measured. The Ukrainian media were desperate to draw OSCE representatives into their local political disputes and get them to take sides but this was studiously avoided. The contribution that the Assembly could make to the Ukrainian situation was in reaffirming the underlying principles of security, co-operation, human rights, rule of law and transparent democracy.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a pan-European security body dealing with all stages of conflict, ranging from conflict prevention to post-conflict rehabilitation. Its comprehensive approach to security includes work on arms control, confidence and security building measures, human rights, election monitoring and economic and environmental security. All OSCE participating States have equal status, and decisions, which are politically rather than legally binding, are based on consensus. 

The OSCE came out of The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) which was established in Helsinki in 1973 as a forum for East-West dialogue. On 1 August 1975, a summit reached agreement on the Helsinki Final Act which established a set of ten principles (the Decalogue) governing the behaviour of the participating States towards their citizens and each other.

Following the collapse of communism, the CSCE was given an expanded role in helping the newly independent states of Europe and the Former Soviet Union make the transition to full democracies, by observing the development of human rights and the rule of law. The Budapest Summit held in 1994 agreed to change the CSCE’s name to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, A Secretariat and institutions were created to co-ordinate the increasingly significant work of the OSCE, including the Parliamentary Assembly of which I am a member.

Some would argue that with the expansion of both the EU and NATO to include about half the members of OSCE, that organisation might have become more or less irrelevant. Certainly it doesn’t have a high public profile especially in the UK. My own conclusions as a relatively new member of the Parliamentary Assembly are quite the opposite. The graduation of so many of its members to the EU and NATO marks the success of the co-operative approach to security and underlines the importance of the OSCE's role in engaging those states which are not candidates for the EU and NATO. Some of those states could potentially pose significant threats to future stability and secure. It would be wrong to abandon a job half done or reduce the number of effective forums at work in this field.

It is only with hindsight we can clearly see the role the predecessor organisation, the Security Conference and the Helsinki Final Act played in both moderating Soviet conduct in Europe and accelerating the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union

The OSCE is not just a forum for discussing principles. Post Kosovo there is a demand for people to monitor ceasefires, peace agreements and elections.
There is a growing realisation that we should value experts in human rights, minority issues and the importance of a free media. There is a growing role for those who can share expertise in policing, judicial and administrative reform and sound governance. The OSCE has been willing to adapt to those challenges and, as a consequence, has grown in size and resources many times over.

The argument that the best way to promote security is through co-operation has proved a very powerful one. It isn’t just about a crude exporting of democracy and markets but promoting security and co-operation, human rights and democracy within and across countries. Those countries where these values seem deeply rooted mustn’t become complacent about their own societies or abandon those countries who still have some way to go. It is in all our interests to keep the process going.