Ebook: International Crisis Management: NATO, EU, OSCE and Civil Society

World affairs - especially as they pertain to Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security - have changed significantly in recent years. The present book is an attempt to reflect on several dimensions in which these changes are impacting the field of conflict studies and international crisis management theory and practice. As it was not possible to cover all aspects of the many events that have influenced these changes, we decided to focus mainly on the situation in Ukraine, since we consider this the most important security-related milestone in recent years for the wider region.

A theoretical breakdown is the first step to understanding the whole concept of the conflict management process, with its different stages, terminological discrepancies, and various explanations. An analysis of the theories dealing with conflict management and their relevance for multilateral security institutions is presented, as well as various approaches to conflict management throughout the conflict cycle. Moreover, the book focuses on the concept of conflict transformation and the importance of identity in conflicts. International organizations are one of the most important tools for dealing with crisis management, hence the roles of NATO, the EU and the OSCE are analyzed, and information provided on their activities and available tools in this field. The role of civil society, the promotion of human rights, activities related to the democratization of society, and the promotion of universally recognized values in (post-) conflict regions in the various stages of the conflict cycle, could not be omitted. Although our focus was mainly Ukraine-related issues, readers will find here valuable information on situations in other countries as well, such as the Republic of Moldova, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Belarus. Towards the end of the book, analyses of possible future developments and new aspects of crisis management are presented, including challenges and opportunities both for the relevant international organizations and for research in this field as such.

The authors of these texts are recognized authorities within their fields of expertise. Hence we are more than happy that they have shared with us their views and ideas regarding the core issue of the book - crisis management and the role of international organizations and civil society in this regard. It was an immense pleasure to read these chapters and we are sincerely grateful to each of them for contributing to this book.

Samuel Goda, Maksym Khylko and Oleksandr Tytarchuk

This paper analyzes theories of conflict management and their relevance for multilateral security institutions in coping with continuing violent conflict in the Euro–Atlantic region. It begins with an emphasis on the “diagnosis” of conflicts, noting that tools for conflict management must be adapted to the particular circumstances of each conflict, even while drawing on general principles of conflict management. It then surveys the range of conflict management approaches through the cycle of conflict – prevention of violent conflict, management of escalation, crisis management, negotiation of cease-fire and other peace agreements, peacekeeping and peace-enforcement, resolution of the underlying drivers of conflict, post-conflict peace-building, and finally promotion of reconciliation between former enemies and the construction of stable peace. It concludes with some implications of this approach for the special role that multilateral security institutions – in particular NATO, the OSCE, and the EU – may play in the prevention, management, and resolution of violent conflicts in the contemporary Euro-Atlantic security environment. The focus here is on facilitation, mediation, monitoring, and peacekeeping roles for multilateral institutions.

The rapid deterioration of Russia–Ukraine relations in 2014 has reopened a discussion amongst European policymakers and experts about whether Putin's Russia can still be considered a reliable security partner. Russia's flagrant violation of the Budapest Agreement in annexing Crimea seems to indicate the opposite. Retrospectively, it looks as if Europe and Russia have missed their chance to transform the previous Cold War order into a trusted relationship. A new East–West conflict is on the rise, as even the mutual deterrence vocabulary of the past has re-entered the political stage. It is difficult to imagine how this conflict could be ‘de-escalated’ without tackling the underlying motivations and mutual perceptions on either side. Certainly, mistrust can hardly be negotiated away if the facts seem to tell the opposite tale. The current crisis management needs to be complemented by conflict transformation efforts. This paper elaborates how conflict transformation can help rebuild trust through cooperation.

This chapter argues that identity related questions have so far been ignored in conflict resolution practices, but, because antagonistic identities constitute the main obstacle for achieving sustainable peace, finding a way to facilitate identities is essential. This would require rethinking the whole conflict resolution process, with an emphasis on transformation rather than on resolution. Furthermore, instead of interest-based negotiation, switching the emphasis to conflict transformation would also call for seeking out new forms of problem-finding dialogue which would enable the transformation of identities, collective memories, and narratives of the past.

The lack of systematic and steady attention received by the conflict management paradigm has arguably been very costly to the EU and to the international community. The European Union and its Member States are now faced with a seemingly overwhelming number of problems. Illustrating with examples taken from post-Cold War developments in and around Europe, this chapter elaborates on the argument that conflict management remains an insufficiently prominent paradigm in EU external action. What is proposed is not that the conflict management paradigm alone should be at the centre of attention, but that it should be promoted more prominently in synergy with other policy perspectives.

Conflict management does not happen in a political vacuum, but is carried out in a more or less benign political environment. Therefore, the first part of this brief essay deals with the recently changed nature of the political relations between Russia and Western States, having shifted from a primarily cooperative to a primarily confrontational one. The second section introduces some principles for multilateral conflict management that are even more important in a confrontational setting, but much more difficult to implement. Finally, how conflict management works in practice and how typical difficulties can be addressed will be analyzed in more detail, using the example of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine.

Originally designed as a strictly defensive military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's role has evolved and broadened in the years since the Cold War. This chapter first reviews the history of NATO's understanding of conflict resolution and conflict management (CR/M), analyzing how the Alliance's strategic conception of its non-collective-defense functions has evolved from a vague awareness of the threats arising from phenomena such as state collapse into a fully comprehensive doctrine. It then discusses the items in NATO's expansive conflict management toolbox, one that includes a comprehensive range of political, civilian, and military measures as well as effective coordination procedures. Finally, it focuses on Ukraine as an example of what NATO can – and cannot – do during the different phases of the modern conflict cycle, reviews the Alliance's contributions to Ukrainian security sector reform, and concludes that political will is the essential ingredient in any successful CR/M effort.

This article focuses on the Dayton Agreement of 1995 that brought the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to an end, and served as a foundation to secure a stable environment within the country, providing a basis for its further stabilization and development. In the author's view, this Agreement represents quite a new strategic approach to solving international conflicts, with the partial delegation of the UN's legitimacy to regional arrangements, and the comprehensive addressing of political, legal, social, military, economic, and other aspects of social life. The author also believes that today, 20 years after the end of the war, BiH is still a sort of geopolitical laboratory with a comprehensive approach strategy in place, and with enough space to judge as to its results and overall effectiveness. The article argues that the comprehensive approach reified in the Dayton Agreement's implementation strategy has, in the case of BiH, resulted in a synergetic effect of its all parts, thus providing a solid basis on which to build the concept of a Model of Synergy as a theoretical contribution to the discipline of international relations. Through analyzing the engagement of three of the Dayton Agreement's key implementing bodies – namely NATO, the EU and the OSCE – the author demonstrates that the manner of their participation in the conflict resolution and conflict management process was through establishing their mutual synergetic cooperation.

This article offers a general perspective on the involvement of NATO, the EU and the OSCE in the handling of the Russia–Ukraine conflict in terms of interim lessons learned and best practices for exerting international efforts to bring peace and security in the region amid the ongoing deep European security crisis. The authors believe that Ukraine, as a host country, relies too much on international support in resolving this crisis, this being partially triggered by the ineffective policy of the same international players that are now being called upon for support. The authors consider the level of involvement and practical assistance of the above-mentioned organizations in solving the Russia-Ukraine conflict to be rather different than what is generally supposed, while the issue of there being competition between them is not regarded as a serious one. In the authors' opinion, the current efforts of all these organizations are oriented mainly toward crisis management activities related to stabilizing and legitimizing the situation, in order to bring about a formal opportunity to carry out their “business as usual” crisis management activities oriented toward “freezing” conflicts. With the above-mentioned evolving “hybrid” security context in mind, a set of practical recommendations is elaborated with the aim of maintaining a win-win approach and finding ways to work together more effectively, prevent a duplication of efforts, and reinforce the full coherence and synergy of collective actions and responsibility, especially on the ground.

This article considers the performance of activities by activities of civil society representatives in post-conflict regions. It analyzes the activities of organizations promoting human rights – activities related to the democratization of society and the promotion of universally recognized values of human rights. The development of civil society in the Republic of Moldova, in particular the current situation in Moldova's Transnistrian region, was selected on the grounds that it may be regarded as a genuine post-conflict region in the post-Soviet era.

The fall of the Soviet Union led to a series of armed conflicts in the periphery, which later became frozen, only to perpetuate instability in the regions concerned. Moldova's region of Transnistria is a case in point. Following a brief war and a number of settlement proposals from Russian and Ukrainian representatives, the separatist entity continues to undermine Moldova's territorial integrity. Economic developments in Moldova, and especially in Transnistria, show that neither side is better off as a result of the secession. The Gagauz experience, albeit imperfect, is nonetheless a successful example of peaceful conflict settlement. Moldova's European integration ambitions offer increased incentives for cooperation. Thus, a pathway towards a political settlement becomes imperative, since for the past quarter century the status quo has been detrimental to both parties. Economic and geopolitical developments in the region present a window of opportunity. The Moldovan Government and Parliament need to be ready to capitalize on this rare chance.

Conflict management, especially when taking into consideration civil war or international violent conflict, can be effective and sustainable only when it is rooted in local social structures. Civil society actors can be agents of peace or, on the contrary, can bring about conflict escalation and violence. Economic and social development should be included in conflict management strategies. However, very often this becomes a dividing factor when development is not inclusive and its benefits are not distributed fairly. Disrespect for human dignity is often what escalates a conflict. On the other hand, education, employment, and prospects for a better life are what motivate people to build peace. Development organizations apply “Do No Harm” principles so as not to contribute to local conflicts by unfair distribution of resources or power. It is crucial to build peace via the action of local people who have already got the trust of their communities (community leaders, mobilizers, teachers, elders, etc.). Such people or organizations, especially if have done any kind of successful community development work before, have the potential to be “the connectors” in resolving the conflict. Peace can be achieved neither from outside nor from above. Nevertheless, conflict may serve as a catalyst to mobilize civil society. The growth of volunteerism and social activism in Ukraine serves as proof. International assistance in conflict management should focus on strengthening the local capacities for building peace.

This article is based on the field experience of the author. Examples are taken from two different countries and conflict contexts – Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Democracy is not just lack of tyranny and peace is not just lack of war.

The ongoing crisis in Ukraine has demonstrated the absence of an effective system of conflict prevention in Europe. The development of regional security arrangements within the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the European Union (EU) has not led to the creation of a comprehensive regional security architecture. But does this mean that the regional organizations have failed in providing security to their members and beyond? What instruments do they have to meet security challenges? And are the organizations perceived as serious security providers within former Soviet states, where they engage in conflict resolution and other security related activities?

This chapter discusses these questions by juxtaposing the actual and perceived capabilities of NATO, the OSCE and the EU in delivering security. First, it reviews the organizations' approaches in dealing with security challenges and their security related engagements in post-Soviet territories. Next, the chapter turns to how these European and Euro-Atlantic security actors are perceived within the post-Soviet space, the analysis of which concentrates on the relevant governments' positions vis-à-vis the regional structures and opinions of leading security experts from selected states. Methodologically, the study draws on a content analysis of these governments' statements and media reports, as well as semi-structured interviews with national security experts. A series of systematic interviews was conducted in Belarus and Kazakhstan, complemented by ad hoc problem-centered interviews with security experts from Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. All interviews were conducted anonymously in the period between September 2014 and October 2015.

The obstacles to sustainable peace building in Ukraine are enormous. The conflict scenario is problematic as it combines elements of traditional inter-state warfare with an intra-state conflict, while at the same time complex domestic challenges have to be overcome. This contribution discusses how and under what conditions conflict transformation and lasting peace in Ukraine can be achieved. It focuses on the challenges posed by asymmetric cyber and information warfare, and on the difficulties of promoting change under conditions of occupation and armed aggression. Divisions within society, both in Ukraine and within the international community, weaken the capacities of domestic and international actors to promote peace in Ukraine in spite of the external aggressor.

This chapter will address the role of certain European and Euro–Atlantic organizations in European security, in light of recent developments and with a view to the future. It is necessary to emphasize that this analysis will thus necessarily remain partial and lop-sided. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to take into account the role played by universal international organizations in conflicts on the “old continent.” Neither will it take into account other regional organizations such as the Council of Europe, or those institutions that have been established in the former Soviet area and which have played practically no role in conflict management (understandably, given the strong hegemonic dominance of Russia in the decision-making of organizations such as the CIS, CSTO or the EaEU).