Evaluation of the OSCE and its Final Act

On 3 July 1973, a conference on security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE) opened in Helsinki. It continued at Geneva from 18 September 1973 to 21 July 1975 and was concluded, again at Helsinki, on 1 August 1975. . . . The Conference adopted a Final Act which consists of the following main parts: questions relating to security in Europe; cooperation in the field of economics, of science and technology and of the environment; questions relating to security and cooperation in the Mediterranean; cooperation in humanitarian and other fields; and follow-up to the Conference.

The fi rst part, dealing with security questions in Europe, contains a 'document on confidence-building measures and certain aspects of security and disarmament'. This chapter of the Final Act-the only one directly related to military issues-consists of a preamble and the following sections: prior notification of major military manoeuvres; prior notification of other military manoeuvres; exchange of observers; prior notification of major military movements; other confidence-building measures; questions relating to disarmament; and general considerations. . .

As can be seen from the above exposition, most provisions of the document on confidence-building in Europe are so vague and non-committal that it may be diffi cult to ascertain whether they are actually being fulfilled. The only provision which is couched in concrete terms is that concerning notification of major military manoeuvres. In assessing it one should bear in mind that this is not a legally binding commitment; as stated in the preamble, the measure envisaged "rests upon a voluntary basis". Nevertheless, it is a declaration of intention solemnly adopted by the representatives of the participating states at the highest possible level. And since the parties expressed their conviction of the political importance of prior notification of major military manoeuvres for the "promotion of mutual understanding and the strengthening of confidence, stability and security", and accepted the "responsibility of each of them" to implement this measure, the document carries a potential for exerting pressure on non-observing states. . . .

It seems paradoxical that a conference convened with a view to strengthening security in Europe devoted relatively little attention to military matters, in spite of the fact that the participants had admitted the "complementary nature of the political and military aspects of security". They chose to pay only lip service to the need for disarmament, when it is obvious that without arms control détente will be deprived of real substance. . . .

In spite of these deficiencies, the undertaking to notify can, if scrupulously implemented, signify a modest first step towards openness in military affairs and help to disperse the myth that secrecy is necessarily an asset for the security of states.

Previous Table of Content Next