Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Philip Remler x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
Author:

The feeling is widespread in the West that the post wwii normative international order has been under severe challenge since Russia’s seizure of Crimea, now exacerbated by statements from the American president casting doubt on the institutions that underpin that order. Is there a future role for osce mediation as this order erodes? Study of the Ukraine crisis in light of other protracted conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union shows that the same challenges have existed for a generation. Because the conflicts were small, however, the international community chose to accept a fiction of convenience to isolate them from an otherwise functioning international order: the narrative that the separatists sought independence, not (as in reality) a re-drawing of post-Soviet borders. This isolation is under pressure both from the new experience in Ukraine and from the extension of ever-greater Russian control over the separatists, amounting to crypto-annexation, despite a backlash from Moscow’s clients, including in Armenia. There is little likelihood of a resolution to the Ukraine crisis, including Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and prospects for mediation to resolve the conflicts remain dim. However, continued talks may resolve some humanitarian issues and provide a release valve to prevent pressures boiling over into renewed open warfare.

In 2015 the present author published an article outlining some effects of the Ukraine crisis on protracted conflicts in the osce area and on osce mediation in those conflicts. 1 He has been asked to revisit his assessment of that time in light of subsequent events in world politics (in particular the advent of a new administration in the United States) and in the region. The new developments give little cause for optimism that settlement in any of the conflicts is closer. Rather, the question for the osce is whether the international community, in view of the challenges posed by the Ukraine crisis, should continue to engage in the fictions that have allowed it to manage the conflicts since their beginnings in the collapsing Soviet Union.

Full Access
In: Security and Human Rights
Author:

Aspects of the Ukraine crisis present enormous problems for the future of osce and other international conflict mediation. Annexation, “hybrid” warfare, the proliferation of non-recognized separatist polities, the absence of a shared baseline of facts and, therefore, the sharp divergence of narratives, and perhaps most of all, the development of fortress mentalities – all of these have challenged the “Helsinki acquis” on which the osce is based. Developments in the protracted conflicts – greater Russian control over three of the separatist polities to the point of crypto-annexation and the spread of the idea that democracy and human rights are no more than tools of Western imperialist domination – affect the way in which the osce and its mediators are perceived. The cycle of Russian assertiveness and Western response has created a self-reinforcing spiral that consolidates alliances among those who share a fortress mentality, is used to justify past actions, discourages “weakness” in the face of pressure, and encourages ever more aggressive responses to it. In the face of this discouraging picture, osce mediators should build on the remaining areas of co-operation – especially on the Karabakh conflict – and emphasize osce impartiality. The osce has always been a “big tent,” a forum of diverse equals, none of whom has a perfect record on democracy and human rights. Criticizing and being criticized is not, therefore, a “double standard,” but a dialogue that enriches all participating States.

In: Security and Human Rights