Security community, in the meaning as it is discussed within the framework of OSCE, can develop and exist only in case all the countries really reject implementation of force for achieving their objectives and be willing to coordinate their national interests with common needs. Such conclusion was expressed by experts while meeting on May 31 in the international conference “OSCE Security Community from Vancouver to Vladivostok: Reality or Illusion?” In the conference, main attention was paid to the issues of supranational threats, new challenges and non-military security in Euro-Atlantic space.
During the conference, the participants discussed OSCE’s capability to reach its defined objectives in strengthening security and formation of security community within the OSCE space, taking into account specific interests of separate countries. Political scientists and historians admit that different historical views expressed by individual states is one of the most significant obstacles to creation of so broad-scale security community.
Žaneta Ozoliņa, Professor of International Relations at the Department of Political Science, University of Latvia, indicated that one of the OSCE’s future tasks would be related to developing balance among all the countries’ rights and obligations within OSCE. Presently, while looking at OSCE, one does not have the impression that countries have equal weight in it. According to Ozoliņa, Russia has monopolized, to some degree, this organization. Thereby, positive transformation of OSCE has little chance. For example, in late 2008, Russia announced through OSCE its idea that new security architecture should be developed as an alternative to NATO. The political scientist said that the rest of the OSCE member states would have to be capable of uniting an opposing the Russia’s wish to predominate.
Antonijs Zunda, Professor at University of Latvia, co-chairman from Latvian side of the joint Latvian – Russian Commission of Historians, expressed his opinion that a real and objective international evaluation of the two totalitarian regimes of the 20th century and their crimes would be an important OSCE’s contribution to improvement of the dialogue and achievement of reconciliation on historical issues between Latvia and Russia. For example, organizing of a Nuremberg Trial Nr.2 for assessing the consequences of the Communist regime would be useful.
Andis Kudors, Executive Director at the Centre for East European Policy Studies, analyzed the differences in Russia’s and Latvia’s views on historical issues in the context of the policy, implemented by Russia. To his opinion, presently there are no indications of Russia’s readiness for reconciliation on historical issues. Kudors pointed out that popularizing of a specific historical interpretation in the Baltic countries is an element of Russia’s compatriots’ policy. According to the political scientist, the message, sent through the policy toward compatriots, which differs significantly from our state’s official position, crosses the frontier and impacts a part of Latvia’s society, thereby also the Latvia’s domestic policy processes, and hampers integration of the society.
Vineta Poriņa, head of Latvian Delegation in OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and Saeima deputy, stressed that presently the segregated education and media field in Latvia is the Russia’s testing ground for implementation of soft power, adding to split in society and thereby also security risks.
Experts indicated that security is possible when society is united. And a group of integrated individuals can form on the basis of joint values. Presently such reality does not exist either in Latvia or among the OSCE member states. So it can be concluded that the OSCE security community, stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok, is rather an illusion for the time being.
The conference participants supported the necessity to continue active work in European Parliament and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to promote reconciliation among countries on the basis of justice and responsibility. A closer cooperation among Saeima, European Parliament and Government is significant for achievement of this objective. In their turn, Latvian research centres and academic community are willing to add their contribution to the process of historical reconciliation by supporting the activities ongoing in European Parliament and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
In conclusion, Vineta Poriņa pointed out that Latvia has to do its homework – create preconditions, improve and intensify the cooperation among Saeima, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Presidential Commission of Historians, Latvian – Russian Commission of Historians, European Parliament, as well as all the interested representatives of academic circles in order to make joint efforts confirming the principle of legal succession which is questioned through the expressions of soft power. According to the deputy, more intensive joint work, regular discussions, repeated conferences, using the positive experience of the this particular conference, are necessary.
The conference was organized by Vineta Porina, Saeima deputy, head of Latvian Delegation in OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; Inese Vaidere, European Parliament deputy, with the support on the part of European People’s Party group in European Parliament and the Centre for East European Policy Studies.