Following independent experts, Belarusan authorities started talking about the need to reform international organizations. Why is it necessary?

At the meeting with the OSCE Acting Chairman, first deputy PM, Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivych Dachych that took place on July 21 in Minsk Alexander Lukashenko stated that “OSCE could play a bigger role” in regulation of the Ukrainian conflict. At the same time Belarusan Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei noted that the Ukrainian conflict demonstrated that OSCE is in deep crisis and the problem lies in absence of trust between the countries-members of the organization.

How adequate is the criticism of the Belarusan authorities and how can the efficiency of the work of international structures be changed? Andrei Yahorau, Director of the Center for European Transformation answers the questions of EuroBelarus Information Service:

— It is obvious today that the whole system of international security, including OSCE, UN, and Council of Europe should be reformed. None of these structures are performing the functions it should. They can do nothing neither about the violations of human rights nor in regulating inter-state conflicts, nor with Russia that is directly violating the norms of international law in situation with Ukraine. And we can do nothing by some specific decisions in certain organizations. I.e. today we need to review the whole system of international safety anew. We need to gather some new conference of states in relation to reforms of the security system.

— Does it mean that we need to create new international structures? Or something can be done within the frames of those that are working now?

— I think that all created organizations have stopped in their development: they follow the principles that existed earlier but that do not correspond to the actual challenges. Here we rather need a new consensus between states about the new order of international security. So today we should discuss quite complicated issues related to contradictions that appeared in result of conflict between the commonly recognized human rights concept and the fact that the control of these rights’ observation is being led by international organizations at the super-state level. But being at this level, they can do nothing with the violations. Interference into the internal policy of the state is impossible due to the countries’ sovereignty. Here a paradox appears: on the one hand, the countries delegate appliance of international mechanisms to the super-national level; but on the other, states do not allow to intervene in their internal affairs and sovereignty. On the whole, it paralyzes the system of security in cases of its concrete violations.

— What about the variant suggested by Alexander Lukashenko: “If there is war, then the heads of states should have met quickly, discuss this problem and take some measures and decisions. If it doesn’t happen, at least honestly tell each other what they think of it”...

— In this case Lukashenko suggests using mechanisms that exceed the frames of international organizations. Basically, what he suggests means that international organizations have no real power, whereas heads of states do and some consensus between them can resolve problems. Perhaps, it does in some concrete cases. Because, for example, UN can do nothing in Ukraine’s specific case since Russia is blocking all its decisions. Something similar is happening during the meetings of the “Normandy Four”. Such format can work today; but it indicates that the international system of security is in crisis.

— Does the visit of OSCE to Minsk say something?

— I would consider it in the general logics of Belarus-West contacts development that has been taking place in the last 1.5-2 years. Now the renovation of Belarus’ dialog with the OSCE is related to the forthcoming elections; so the Belarusan authorities are interested in the most positive assessments possible.