战略与国际研究中心-Policy-Brief-Number-9_7页_689kb

CSIS-IND TASK FORCE: Summary of the OSCE Astana Summit and Kazakhstan's Chairmanship Agenda

Core Content

The CSIS-IND Task Force was established in 2009 to assist Kazakhstan in shaping its OSCE chairmanship agenda and to strengthen U.S.-Kazakh relations. The Task Force produced a Policy Brief titled After the Astana Summit: More Questions than Answers, issued on December 17, 2010, following the OSCE Summit held in Astana, Kazakhstan, from December 1–2, 2010.

The summit aimed to revitalize the OSCE by addressing key issues such as collective security, peaceful resolution of protracted conflicts, crisis management, and transnational threats. However, the summit resulted in a Commemorative Declaration without a binding Action Plan, highlighting the deep divisions between Russia and Western states.

Main Viewpoints

1. OSCE's Challenges

• The OSCE is facing a critical juncture due to the lack of a unified approach to collective security and human rights.
• The Istanbul Charter (1999) aimed to create a "common security space" but has not been fully implemented due to Russia's non-compliance with the Adapted CFE Treaty.
• The CFE Treaty and Vienna Document remain key tools for military transparency and arms control, but their implementation has stalled.

2. Kazakhstan's Role and Proposals

• Kazakhstan, as the OSCE Chair in 2010, sought to renew commitments to the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and the Charter for European Security.
• It proposed enhancing crisis response capacities, addressing transnational threats (e.g., drug trafficking, cybercrime, terrorism), and reviving OSCE field missions in conflict zones.
• The country also aimed to strengthen the OSCE's role in Afghanistan, a strategic concern for Central Asia.

3. Summit Disagreements

• Russia opposed changes to the OSCE's crisis management mechanisms, insisting on unconditional consensus and veto power over decisions.
• The Georgian conflict remained a major point of contention, with the U.S. and EU advocating for the restoration of OSCE missions in Georgia and the respect for territorial integrity, while Russia defended its occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
• Russia also resisted human rights and democracy discussions, arguing that the OSCE had become unbalanced by focusing too much on the human dimension.

4. Human Dimension Issues

• The EU and U.S. emphasized the need for improved implementation of human rights norms and systematic peer review.
• Russia, however, viewed the human dimension as a threat to its sovereignty, calling for a reduction in OSCE's focus on this area.

5. Field Missions and Crisis Management

• The Russian delegation raised concerns about the effectiveness and coordination of OSCE field missions, particularly in NATO member states.
• They argued that OSCE missions should only operate with host country consent and that the organization should not overstep its mandate.
• The Kyrgyzstan crisis was cited as an example of the OSCE's inadequate crisis response.

Key Information

• The Astana Summit failed to produce a binding Action Plan, despite reconfirming the Helsinki Final Act.
• The U.S. and EU aligned with Kazakhstan's agenda, focusing on crisis response, conflict resolution, arms control, and transnational threats.
• Russia maintained a hardline stance, particularly on territorial integrity, human rights, and OSCE decision-making.
• The CSIS-IND Task Force is a non-partisan initiative supported by the Kazakh government, aimed at providing policy recommendations to enhance the OSCE's effectiveness.

Conclusion

The Astana Summit underscored the fragility of the OSCE and the need for renewed commitment to its core principles. The lack of a concrete Action Plan and the persistent disagreements over conflict resolution and human rights threaten the organization's relevance. The 2011 OSCE Chairmanship, held by Lithuania, will be crucial in implementing the Action Plan and restoring confidence in the OSCE as a platform for collective security and cooperation.