The OSCE ...... or NATO?
Many of the Problems we have now are due to the gradual neglect of the OSCE or Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe.
This was an initiative that was meant to establish a working relationship of Security from Portugal to Vladivostok and a way forward in the post-Cold War World Order.
Originally conceived between European Countries, America and the Soviet Union, as Sergei Lavrov says it could very easily have continued with post-Soviet Russia.
Indeed, in conjunction with the CFE or Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty - signed by western European, former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Countries - it would have acted as a Guarantee against where we are now. Because everyone is in it - including Ukraine and Georgia - Russia would feel no Threat to it's Security.
Thus, there would be no War in Ukraine, while the Dynamic affecting the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement would have been very different.
It would also have had other effects far beyond the Lisbon-Vladivostok Corridor.
The enmity with Iran wouldn't exist because as an OSCE Partner Russia would use it's substantial Leverage with Tehran while Relations with China would be more inclusive than fractious. Even North Korea would see the Writing on the Wall and adjust accordingly.
So instead of green lighting NATO expansion President Bill Clinton and others like the UK Prime Minister and German and French Leaders ought to have been working to develop the OSCE.
The CFE Treaty was adapted at a Conference in Istanbul in 1999 so former Soviet States could ratify it on a national rather than soviet Basis.
The Arrangement began to unravel in 2007 when Russia cited NATO enlargement and how it increased Weapons in signatory Countries as the reason for their suspending it. They mentioned Missile Systems in Poland, Bases in Romania and other things which rendered the Treaty meaningless.
NATO responded by criticising Russian Troop presences in both Moldova and Georgia.
This was before the Georgian War of 2008, which gave Russia some justification for being there as Peacekeepers when Georgian Artillery began firing at South Ossetian Villages and the enclaves Capital Tskhinvali. Even the EU found in a subsequent enquiry against the Georgians for deliberately targeting Civilians and dubbed the episode a War Crime.
The Moldovan Story goes back to the Transnistria War where ethnic Russians - backed by Ukraine - fought for independence against the Romanian Moldovans, and it could be argued that Russian Soldiers were there to act as guarantors, particularly as the Chisinau Government were veering towards Europe and maybe even NATO.
As the War in Ukraine began after the Russian Military Operation of 2022 there were fears in Moldova that they might become the "next Ukraine", and even Sergei Lavrov once mentioned this. It was because of Moldova's proximity to Odessa.
Except, shouldn't this have been added to the Reasons why Zelenskiy ought to have ratified the Istanbul Communique in April 2022?
The Treaty guaranteed Ukraine's possession of the famous Black Sea port, and thus, a sizable buffer between Moldova and the Russian held Oblasts of the Donbas and Crimea.
Any Russian Troops in Transnistria would have been bound by the Treaty, while Fears surrounding their Presence and Moldovans position in European-NATO Geopolitics ought to have been the subject of further negotiations and a Treaty.
As these formed Lines that should never be crossed the World becomes increasingly dangerous as each one becomes fainter by the Month, or erased completely.
NATO expansion effectively cancelled the CFE Treaty as Member States increased their Military beyond it. An Irony probably not lost on Russians who see it as akin to Germany violating the Versailles Treaty when it expanded it's Armed Forces in the 1930's.
One Problem President Trump has with anyone who has been paying attention is how he was the one who walked out of the INF Treaty - and then did the same with the JCPOA Deal with Iran. The latter was a Deal with Tehran that they should curtail their Nuclear Program in return for Sanctions relief. Because he did this, not only were Sanctions reapplied, we are now in the very ambiguous position of having to guess what Iran's Nuclear program might be doing. The latter is proving very dangerous, with Trump deploying Aircraft Carriers to the Region and rattling a very large Sabre.
None of this would be happening if he hadn't left the JCPOA.
Not helped by the growing Iranian enmity with an Israel that does have the Bomb.
Meanwhile, Russian fears of western Militarism shouldn't be underestimated.
It took heaps of reassurance from a plethora of western and NATO Leaders to convince Gorbachev to support German reunification. Everyone, from James Baker to Margaret Thatcher, Manfred Woerner to Helmut Kohl, and French Leaders, all told him "not one Inch eastward"!
Despite nearly 45 years of liberal democracy in the Bundesrepublik or West Germany, Gorbachev was still wary of how a unified Germany would bring NATO further east and nearer to his Border, such was the impact of Operation Barbarossa on the Soviet/Russian Psyche.
Subsequently how could People be shocked when "Gorby" came down firmly in support of Putin over Ukraine, rather than condemn him? But then, he was the one who must have felt most betrayed when NATO did expand, being the Leader in the Kremlin when those pledges were made.
The OSCE - along with the supporting Treaties - was supposed to be how the World would be once the NATO-Warsaw Pact Stand-off ended. Even Vaclav Havel alluded to this when he suggested a similar Arrangement in 1990, saying; the Soviet Union should join NATO, or the Organisation be dismantled as it's Warsaw Pact Opponent no longer existed.
Moscow didn't join, but this was finally deemed unnecessary as the OSCE and Treaties of Paris and Helsinki would facilitate the alternative.
What we are seeing now is the consequences of all this being neglected.
Treaty's are crucial to maintain some semblance of international Law.
History shows us what happens when they are violated, the most significant being that of Versailles and Munich. The former restricting Germanies Military expansion, the latter meant to prevent it's geographical equivalent, violation of both resulting in WW2. Reparations being the formers Weakness and warned against by several People, including the Architect of the League of Nations Robert Gascoyne Cecil.
The subsequent War cancelled the Treaty's of St Germaine as Countries disappeared into the Reich.
In recent years the Oslo Accords died with the Zionist Bullet in 1995 and Nablus now has empty would-be Government Buildings, Gaza is reduced to Rubble, West Bank increasingly annexed and Palestinians decimated.
The CFE Treaty effectively cancelled by NATO expansion while the OSCE, with its origins in Helsinki and Paris, sidelined by it. The INF Treaty was rendered meaningless by further NATO deployment and development of dual purpose Weapons that could be turned into Nuclear Missiles. That finally died when Trump #1 abandoned it.
The JCPOA was meant to ensure Iranian cooperation in not developing Nuclear Weapons and Trump #1 abandoned that one too.
By her own admission former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said how the West used the Minsk Accords as a way to buy time to further arm and militarise a Ukraine that was being brought closer to NATO Membership.
And the very reason NATO expanded was because, while both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were given assurances it wouldn't there was no Treaty to ensure it.
There are others which have now become nominal as the Situation is anathema to their aspirations.
So, as these disappear or are made impotent by belligerence or contempt we could descend into a neo-dark Age like the time when arbitrary Powers could War with each other on a Whim.
This was a series of Treaties signed in Osnabruck and Munster in 1648 to end both the 30 year and 80 year Wars.
It was felt that if these continued there would be nothing left of Europe as all combatants would have fought each other to death and that had to end.
It established several principles ....
Ending religious Wars between Catholics and Protestants.
Foundation of international Law.
All of this being the premise upon which other Treaty's are built.
So, Treaty's are important to maintain a World Order that means Countries and their People can develop and live in Peace. Europe after WW2 enjoyed 40 years of it until the Balkans descended into Wars of the 1990's with the break up of Yugoslavia and the Transnistria War.
Compared to the Ukraine though these were very regional Conflicts that didn't draw the whole World into them. The Ukraine Conflict has caused Europe to move even further away from the Treaties that bound it, including it's very existence, meant to prevent War in Europe.
The Answer to that is a simple one, give them the resources ......
The OSCE - with its origins in Summits in Helsinki and Paris - was meant to be a Framework for how Security and Cooperation would happen in Europe after the confrontational Situation caused by the Warsaw Pact and NATO ended.
In other words, the end of the Cold War which saw the end of the Pact but not that of NATO.
Like the end of any major Conflict a huge amount of restructuring should happen after it, which means developing the OSCE with former Warsaw Pact Countries and the Soviet Union/then former Soviet Republics integrated with what would soon become former NATO Countries.
The end of the Cold War was the thing that defined the Era, like the end of both World Wars.
1918 saw the birth of the League of Nations, and the end of World War 2 the UN and the framework that would become the European Economic Community and then EU.
So the same Resolve should have happened at the end of a Cold War that had affected global alignments for 40 years. The Resources that had been used to supply it's stand off on both sides being channeled into the new Framework.
Thus, former NATO and Warsaw Pact Staff share the same Offices and Work Space.
And why would this have been impossible when you see how easily former Warsaw Pact and even Soviet Countries joined the EU and NATO from what they were before?
And they were staunchly anti western.
It wasn't just Soviet Forces who went into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The former saw Hungarian Communist Forces support the Soviets while the latter was a coalition of Warsaw Pact Countries that included the Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary.
And how about before that when former Axis Countries joined NATO - starting with Italy in 1949 and West Germany in 1955? Only a few years before both were in a very hot War with their new NATO Partners.
More recently, almost all the Weapons and Equipment like the MIG29's and Artillery Pieces former Warsaw Pact Countries like Poland were giving Ukraine in 2022 were from the Cold War when they got them from the Soviet Union.
Any of those in my Age Group who were in their mid to late 20's at the end of the Cold War might have served in NATO or Warsaw Pact Militaries for the last 10 years of that Cold War. We were old enough to remember it but young enough to to be part of what would make things right as the division of Europe came to and end. The end of a European Civil War that started in 1914.
At least that's what some of us hoped for.
But that didn't happen and it became apparent that NATO expansion would usurp the OSCE and come to dominate the post Cold War Geopolitics.
And that expansion with the exclusion of Russia told Moscow who it was being set off against.
So the question I'm asking here is why, at the end of WW1 which saw the end of 3 Empires (German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian), the start of the Soviet Union, the creation of several new Countries in Europe and the League of Nations.
Or how the end of WW2 and 6 years of disruption to World Trade, a War that ravaged most of Europe, where some Countries still endured Rationing up to the 1950's, that saw a Continent divided, and millions of Refugees, plus the end of several more Empires and the expansion of 2 they could still find the Resolve and Resources to provide Marshall Aid, create the UN, and what would become NATO and the European Union, but they couldn't find similar for the OSCE at the end of a Cold War that had none of the above?
But had significantly shaped and defined the World for every year since the second would War.
If the same Resolve and Resources had been channelled into the OSCE they'd have secured Peace and we'd have avoided the Situation we are in now where the World is becoming more dangerous than it ever was even during any of the above Conflicts.
What I'm saying here is this .....
ReplyDeleteThat at the end of the Cold War NATO should either have been abolished because there is no 'enemy' for it to defend against or the Resources of both it and the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union be transfered into the OSCE.
After all, if - after WW1 - they could form the League of Nations, and -after WW2 - the United Nations, or Germany and Italy could end up in the same NATO Alliance as Britain, France, Benelux and America, and the DDR and other former Axis Countries be in the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia why couldn't former Cold War enemies be in the same Alliance after 1990?
The fact that former Warsaw Pact and even Soviet States could join NATO shows that this is possible. Most of their Equipment was from the Soviet and Warsaw Pact era.
The shift in allegiances in the Balkans is as ironic as it tragic.....and potentially dangerous.
As States in the former Yugoslavia they were all in the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) devised by Josip Broz, but after it's break-up most have joined NATO. Given NATO's activities in the Region in recent years and the growing enmity between their Members and the Serbs it ought to have made the case for the OSCE more urgent than ever. That or a continued Membership of NAM because of the ominous alternative.
That being how Russia will come down firmly in support of Serbia like they did in 1914.
Failing that, and in the interests of preserving Peace in Europe, rather than join NATO and thus encroach east towards the Russian Border any former Warsaw Pact Countries and Soviet States - including Ukraine - should have been told to join the Non Aligned Movement.
Allowing and even encouraging NATO expansion was President Bill Clinton's biggest foreign Policy Blunder - the result of which we are seeing now.
ReplyDeleteHe made very little secret of how it was done to exploit Russian weakness in the 1990's, while Moscow ended the Cold War on the understanding that the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet states would become and remain neutral.
The Claim that allowing many of those Countries to join NATO somehow promoted Peace in Europe is not only disingenuous it has also proved to be wrong. Starting with it's hostility to Serbia and continuing in Georgia and other Caucasus Countries, the War in Ukraine and now the Stand off in Scandinavia NATO expansion has done anything but promote any form of Peace. This hasn't just been confined to Europe as it has acted in Afghanistan and Libya while it has spread into Asia to confront China.
Almost from the very beginning Events in Transnistria ought to have shown World Leaders that there was still enmity between East and West as pro-Romanian Moldovans fought pro-Russian Transnistrians and what that could mean in a much wider Context with future provocation.
What happened in the Balkans was another example as a reunified Germany recognised independent Croatia against the advice of both Britain and France.
Who would the Croats be pitted against if it wasn't the Serbs - and who has been the Serbs biggest supporters since before WW1? So while there was a Fault line in the Area around Moldova that became apparent in 1990 and again in 1992, there was another in the Balkans that proved to be devastating.
It's a Credit to the Leaders of Britain and France at the time who could realise the ramifications of some Policies in that Region.
Just how influential was our Man of Harlech during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?
ReplyDeleteHere's what Google has to say in response to that question;
"Sir David Ormsby-Gore, the British Ambassador to the U.S. during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, was a key confidant to President John F. Kennedy, providing critical, calm advice that helped avoid nuclear war.
He advised Kennedy to choose a naval blockade over an air strike and suggested moving the line closer to Cuba.
Key Aspects of Ormsby-Gore's Role:
Trusted Advisor: As a close friend of the Kennedy family, Ormsby-Gore was frequently present in the Oval Office and was often referred to as "our kind of ambassador".
Influence on Strategy: On October 21, 1962, he advised President Kennedy that a blockade was preferable to an immediate air strike, which he felt would cause excessive damage, a sentiment with which Kennedy and his advisors agreed.
Reducing Escalation: He recommended tightening the quarantine line to allow Khrushchev more time to reconsider his actions, which was adopted by the U.S. administration.
Secret Negotiations: He was privy to delicate information regarding the potential for trading U.S. missiles in Turkey for Soviet missiles in Cuba, offering a bridge for communication between the U.S. and UK governments.
Preventing Conflict: His calm influence is credited with helping to manage the crisis, acting as a vital, measured voice during the 13-day standoff.
Ormsby-Gore's deep, personal relationship with Kennedy and his strategic advice were crucial to the diplomatic resolution of the crisis."
Do Nuclear Weapons guarantee Peace .....?
ReplyDeleteNo they don't......
Within a couple of years of their use on Japan Nuclear Weapons did not deter the Soviet Union from their blockade of Berlin. Neither did they prevent North Korea - with Soviet and Chinese Support - from invading the South. They did nothing to stop the Warsaw Pact clampdown on the Protests in Poland and Hungary in 1956 and did not dissuade North Vietnam from pursuing their Aims - again, with Soviet and Chinese Support - in Indochina against Saigon, the French and Americans. The same applied in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the various Cold War Crises of the 1970's or the Soviets War in Afghanistan.
Indeed, it could be argued that they nearly caused World War several times during all this ....
General MacArthur wanted to use the Bomb on North Korea and China but, thankfully, was prevented from doing so by President Truman.
The Cuban Missile Crisis pushed the World to the Brink by mutually provoking both America and the Soviet Union. Khrushchev wanted Missiles in Cuba because America had them in Turkey, both of which would have rendered any early warning Systems useless by their Proximity, and there were People in X-Com who were prepared to launch a full scale pre-emptive Attack on Cuba in response to the Weapons that were there.
Nixon waned to use them on North Vietnam but cooler Heads prevailed.
More recently, the UK might have had the Bomb but it did not prevent the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, even though Polaris could very easily have been launched from a Submarine off the Coast of Buenos Aries.
It was the prospect of a Nuclear Strike by the West created during the Exercise "Able Archer" that year which nearly prompted a full Soviet Response.
Both India and Pakistan have Nuclear Weapons, but their continuing and occasionally violent Spat about the disputed Kashmir Region has never really ended.
Both China and the US have the Bomb but neither have prevented the other in the continuing Jostle over Taiwan. Nukes did nothing to prevent the provocatively unthinkable recently when the Speaker of the US Congress Nancy Pelosi crossed the diplomatic Line and recognised Taiwan as an independent country. The proverbial Third Rail in Sino-US Relations.
Israel now has Nuclear Weapons, but this has never prevented any incursions against them since, or the huge Iranian Response to their Assault last year (2025).
So it could be argued that the very existence of Nuclear Weapons might actually cause War and even the Doomsday Scenario. They induce a sense of Complacency which neglects other Solutions.
The Cold War started when Truman wanted to scare the Soviets by using a new Atomic Weapon in 1945, which merely hardened Attitudes and guaranteed that Moscow would begin work on their own Bomb rather than a Spirit of Conciliation between the former WW2 Allies.
It wasn't until the Missile Crisis of 1962 when the potential use of Nuclear Weapons became horribly apparent that work started to be rid of them with the first in a succession of Treaties governing them.
Have Nuclear Weapons even escalated Conflict?
ReplyDeleteYes they have and Events from the end of the 1950's to 1962 prove that.
There had been a 15 year stand off between the West and Soviet Spheres since the end of WW2. There were even hostilities during times when one was very close to the other.
Khrushchev once described West Berlin as "a Bone stuck in his Throat". There might have been the Blockade and then the Berlin Wall in response to all this.
America had a similar Attitude about Cuba after the Revolution and it became apparent they were Communists allied to the Soviets. There was the disastrous Bay of Pigs Fiasco, economic Warfare and even novel Ideas to despose Castro.
But neither led to whole Fleets facing each other off in the Atlantic like they did during the Crisis which was caused by the very presence of Nuclear Weapons close to each others Territory.
"Able Archer" in 1983 might have been seen by the Soviets as just another NATO War Exercise were it not for what was thought to be a first Strike Nuclear Attack until further Scrutiny showed it wasn't. Were it not for the better Judgement shown by a Soviet Lieutenant that Day civilisation would have ended 43 years ago.
This wasn't the only time the Soviets saved the World from the Abyss.
During the 1962 Missile Crisis a Soviet Submarine was being pummeled by American Depth Charges and the Captain was on the brink of using a tactical Nuclear Weapon. The Crews Political Officer talked him down and prevented Nuclear War.
Many have argued that Truman was wrong to use the Bomb against Japan.
It could also be argued that the Soviets would have forced Emperor Hirohito to sue for unconditional Surrender after they smashed the Japanese Armies in Manchuria and Mongolia. Japan had been hoping for a conditional Surrender via Moscow in the months before and had never faced the Soviet Army in Battle.
They very rapidly lost all the Territory they had on the north eastern Asian Mainland and it was obvious the Soviets weren't going to act as intermedaries.
So the use of the Bomb might have been unnecessary - even though the first Attack was before the Soviet Declaration of War on Tokyo. This is because their Invasion of Manchuko took months to prepare and Stalin had pledged a War on Japan as long ago as Yalta in February 1945.
So Truman might have begun a 45 year Spiral that could very quickly have gone into apocalyptic free fall.
Does GDP guarantee Victory?
ReplyDeleteNot neccessarily ......
It has been bandied about that Russia - for all it's size and population - has the GDP of Spain as it faces the Economic Might of the EU, America and Oceania.
Does that actually mean anything or can it lead to Hubris?
History suggests it does.
What was the GDP of North Korea when it fought the Coalition ranged against it that included Countries now in the G7? They might have had support from the Soviet Union and China but both were still recovering from WW2 while the latter had just fought a brutal decades long Civil War with it's own Nationalists. China in many Areas at the time was still more like a 19th Century agrarian Country. Certainly not the hitech, industrial and economic powerhouse it is now, and even during the "great leap forward" couldn't even produce Steel properly.
And then, what was the GDP of North Vietnam when they fought a former European Empire and then the wealthiest Country in the World?
During World War 2 the Germans - who saw themselves as the pinnacle of European Civilization - saw the Soviets as backward, Slavic Untermensch, Subhumans who would soon buckle to their Invasion of 1941. Despite their obvious advantages in Technology and chauvinistic zeal they were finally proved wrong.
How about the GDP of the Afghanis who did fight the Soviets to the point of withdrawal in the 1980's?
And what if a lot of that Wealth was generated by Resources from the Country you are now pitted against?
This is what Germany today is being made to realise as their Economy has stalled after the cheap reliable Fuel from. Russia stopped. The French Economy has taken a battering, while it's political Stage has been very volatile in recent years.
And this isn't just recent ....
What was the GDP of the Senones Gauls when Brennus invaded, occupied and looted Rome in 390BC? The Romans themselves were economically limited when they defeated the much wealthier Etruscans. Alexander's Macedonians were regarded as rather backward by some of the other City States in Greece and certainly by the Persians.
And the Mongols fought and conquered Civilization far wealthier - from the Han Chinese to the Gates of Vienna.
So, GDP doesn't necessarily guarantee a Victory in War.
Other lessons from History have not been heeded in the gradual collapse of Diplomacy in Europe and America.
For all their Christian Zealotry - even amongst other Christians - the Knights Templar had several Treaties with the Saracens, born from Pragmatism and in the interests of Stability. There were the Treaties of Ramla in 1192 and that of Acre in 1229 for example, and even they recognised their own Limitations and the need for coexistence.