Veranstaltungseinladung

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

Das International Institute for Peace (IIP) und der Verein ÖTZ "Gemeinsam für Europa - ÖTZ-Österreichisch Türkische Zusammenarbeit" möchten Sie herzlich zu folgender Veranstaltung einladen:

„DIE TÜRKEI UND ÖSTERREICH – Ein Monat vor dem Verfassungsreferendum“

Moderation:

Hannes SWOBODA                                          Präsident IIP, Vizepräsident ÖTZ (Wien)

DiskutantInnen:

Georg KARABCZEK                                         Österreichischer Wirtschaftsdelegierter (Istanbul)

Duygu ÖZKAN                                                  Außenpolitische Redakteurin, „Die Presse“ (Wien)

Barbara PUSCH                                               Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeitern an der Helmut Schmidt Universität Hamburg

Albert ROHAN                                                  Berichterstatter der „Unabhängigen Türkeikommission“

Safile USUL                                                      Journalistin, Politikerin CHP (Istanbul)

Für die Einladung als PDF klicken sie bitte hier

Inhalt:

Die Beziehung zwischen der Türkei und Österreich war schon lange nicht mehr so angespannt wie heute. Während die lange gemeinsame Geschichte beider Nationen das kollektive Gedächtnis prägt, wird die diplomatische Beziehung vor allem durch aktuelle Ereignisse, wie dem Türkei-Referendum am 16.April 2017, vor neue Herausforderung gestellt.

Neben der bedeutenden Rolle der Türkei als geopolitisches Bindeglied zu den Nahost-Konflikten in Syrien und im Irak gewinnt die Türkei vor allem als Schlüsselstaat für eine erfolgreiche Bewältigung der sogenannten „Flüchtlings-bzw. Migrationskrise“ als Partner für Österreich und die EU an Bedeutung. Die Türkei ist mit ihren fast 80 Mio. Einwohnern, aber auch ein großer und wichtiger Handelspartner.

Ein angespanntes Fundament auf dessen Basis das Verfassungsreferendum der Türkei einen Gradmesser für die zukünftige Entwicklung der Türkei und ihrer Beziehungen darstellen könnte.

In welche Richtung entwickelt sich die Türkei und wie kann Österreich mit dieser Entwicklung umgehen? Kann die Türkei zukünftig als Stabilisator in der Region eine wichtige Rolle für die europäische und österreichische Außenpolitik einnehmen und inwiefern könnten Wirtschaftsbeziehungen einen Beitrag dazu leisten? Welche Rolle spielt hierbei die Zivilgesellschaft in beiden Ländern?

In dem Podiumsgespräch sollen diese und weitere Aspekte des komplizierten Beziehungsgeflechts beider Staaten beleuchtet werden.

Datum:                    Mittwoch, 15. März 2017                               

Zeit:                         18:00 Uhr

Ort:                          International Institute for Peace (IIP)

                                Möllwaldplatz 5/2, 1040 Wien

Die Veranstaltung findet auf Deutsch statt

Sie finden die Veranstaltung auch auf unserer facebook Seite: www.facebook.com/events/1804596406530947/

Um Anmeldung unter office@iip.at wird gebeten

Im Anschluss lädt das IIP auf ein Glas Wein

Sarah Glidden - Rolling Blackouts

Reading and Conversation with Sarah Glidden

ROLLING BLACKOUTS - IM SCHATTEN DES KRIEGES

Reportages from Syria, Iraq and Turkey

Cartoonist and journalist Sarah Glidden accompanies two reporters as they research potential stories on the effects of the Iraq War on the Middle East and, specifically, the war’s refugees.

SARAH GLIDDEN was born 1980 in Boston, Massachusetts. She studied drawing and painting at the university of Boston. 2006 she started to draw her first comics. Her first novella “How to understand Israel in 60 days or less” was published in the USA by the famous comic company Vertigo. The self-published mini comics she made about that experience won her a 2008 Ignatz Award for "Promising New Talent”. The reportages of Sarah Glidden are published in various US magazines and newspapers as well as on online portals.

Moderator:

Heinz Gärtner                         (IIP, International Institute for Peace, University of Vienna)

Discussant:

Sarah Glidden                        Journalist and Cartoonist

Cengiz Günay                        (OIIP, Austrian Institute for International Politics)

Hannes Swoboda                   (IIP, International Institute for Peace)

Date and Time:                     Tuesday, February the 28^th 2017

      06:30pm

Venue:                                   International Institute for Peace (IIP)

                                               Moellwaldplatz 5/2

                                               1040 Vienna

Language:                             English

Registration:                         office@iip.at

Following the event, the IIP invites to a glass of wine

 Glidden_Lesereise_Flyer.pdf (147,5 kB)

Dear Sir or Madam,

The International Institute for Peace would like to draw your attention on the panel discussion below, organised by the Karl-Renner-Institute and the SPÖ, supported by the OIIP, the IIP and the University of Vienna.

EVENT NOTE: Invitation to the Panel Discussion

The Challenges for the OSCE and the Role of the Parliamentary Assembly

Time:                 Wednesday, 22 February 2017, 6.00 – 7.30 p.m.

Venue:               Parliament, Abgeordneten-Sprechzimmer   

 Dr.-Karl-Renner-Ring 3, 1017 Vienna

Contents

The recent outbreak of violence in Eastern Ukraine made clear that this conflict will remain one of the most important challenges for the OSCE. The main task is to prevent further escalation and to push for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. In a broader perspective, it is essential to rebuild trust in the OSCE and between its member states so that the largest panEuropean security organisation will be able to play the role that it is assigned for. The Austrian Chairmanship is confronted with these manifold challenges. But what can be expected realistically within the next few months? What can the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly contribute to minimize tensions between member states and to reestablish cooperation and trust between members?

Opening Remarks:

Christine MUTTONEN            President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; Member of the Austrian National Council, SPÖ

Discussant:

Vedran DZIHIC                        Austrian Institute for International Affairs, Vienna

Kent HÄRSTEDT                    Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (tbc)

Christian STROHAL                Austrian Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs,

         Special Representative of the Austrian Chairmanship of the OSCE 2017

Moderator:

Stephanie FENKART              Director, International Institute for Peace (IIP), Vienna

Language:                            English

Registration compulsory

Karl-Renner-Institut F 01-804 08 74

post@renner-institut.at

ADMITTANCE ONLY WITH A PRINT OUT OF THE INVITATION BELOW (PDF DOCUMENT) AND AN IDENTITY CARD

 INVITATION HERE 

A New Peace Structure for Europe
and the Role of the OSCE

(An outlook on the Austrian Chairmanship of the OSCE)

to open pdf please click here

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which emerged as a result of the Helsinki Process, is the largest security organisation in the Northern Hemisphere and a true pan-European one. In recent years, the OSCE member countries have been facing multiple crises. However, many of these challenges, such as transnational terrorism, global migration crisis, and other hybrid threats are not confined to OSCE member states only, and go beyond the mandate of the OSCE.

Another problem is the ineffectiveness of existing institutions and security mechanisms in Europe. Only a limited number of countries takes part in the decision-making processes. Especially the Ukrainian crisis has exposed this deficit. In the light of this, the OSCE can offer opportunities for finding consensus, provided that it will be adapted to the new challenges. In order to create an enhanced and sustainable peace structure for Europe, cooperation on key issues must be strengthened and decision-making must involve all countries in the region.

In the light of the Austrian OSCE presidency in 2017, the main goal of the conference in Vienna was to discuss these challenges and questions and to focus on suitable and sustainable concepts for establishing a more peaceful common European (or even common Eurasian) security order in the future.

General recommendations

• In the aftermath of the refugee crisis, a political management in form of institutionalization is still needed.
• In the classical spirit of the OSCE, efforts should be made to restore the indivisibility of security in Europe as the central guideline, especially in the relations between Russia and the EP countries.
• The necessary building of trust between the OSCE member states should be addressed in a structured dialogue, amongst other things by revitalization of the arms control talks.
• Despite all its shortcomings, there is no other organization in Europe whose status and legitimacy is comparable to the OSCE.

1. The OSCE and the global migration crisis:
   challenges and responses

• Global migration and the refugee crisis are one of the most urgent new challenges which Europe faces today.

• Unlimited and uncontrolled migration accompanied by failed integration are serious security risks for Europe. Successful integration of the refugees who are granted asylum is of great importance.

• The countries of the Northern Hemisphere should try to reduce push factors for migration in cooperation with the countries of origin.

• The relationship between migration and development policies needs to be rethought. Development aid should be more and more linked to anti-migration policies.

• In the light of the influx and the integration of refugees, Europe needs a fact-based strategy in order to undertake the necessary institutional reforms and to build up capacities for ensuring social peace. A mixture of humanitarian realism, rule of law and human rights engagement could help to manage Europe´s migration challenges.

• The OSCE should play a decisive role in dealing with migration and its consequences. Migration is here to stay and affects all OSCE countries. It is a cross-border and multidimensional topic requiring a broad security approach.

2. The OSCE and contemporary security challenges

• Dialogue is needed more than ever to re-build trust, otherwise no meaningful cooperation will be possible.

• Due to the growing antagonism between the Russian Federation and the transatlantic security community, the culture of military talks was lost. One should reinstate them to avoid a serious confrontation between Russia and the USA.

• Furthermore, a new commitment to conventional arms control on both sides is urgently needed. Since new technologies have had an impact on conventional arms during the last twenty-five years, we need a new generation of arms control regimes which is focused not only on states but also on criminal networks and new military technologies.  

• Protracted conflicts only have a chance to be resolved eventually if the OSCE focuses more on crisis prevention respectively conflict management and keeps communication channels between the conflict parties open.    

• Currently, the most important mission of the OSCE is in Ukraine. It plays an outstanding role in preventing further escalation of the conflict. There is a strong need for reforms within the organisation and the OSCE should be strengthened in the entire conflict cycle.

3. Development and status quo of the OSCE:

Thinking beyond

• One outcome in this session was the divide between those experts who thought that institutional changes within the OSCE could happen in 2017 and those who disagreed on that. This disagreement was mainly based on the fact that in several European states national elections were upcoming, and on a general scepticism towards the OSCE-framework. The minimum requirement with the outlook for the year 2017 should be to avoid things getting worse and make sure that there will be more cooperation.

• Smaller steps are better than big ones. Europe needs a common vision of its security architecture. At the moment, we rather have fragmented regional security visions.

• Within the Vienna document framework of conventional arms control, one should move from national inspections to impartial OSCE inspections.

• All NATO member states are also members of the OSCE. Therefore, NATO should support and encourage the OSCE as an organisation much more, given that the OSCE-organizational design is the only inclusive one (Russia and other non-NATO-states) which exists.

• The three priorities of the Austrian chairmanship:
  • to contribute to the solution of protracted military conflicts in the OSCE’s sphere of influence,
  • to fight against radicalisation and extremism,
  • to restore trust in the organisation.

• The OSCE and especially its chairmanship need to keep on looking for windows of opportunity for reform. We should concentrate on the potential of the OSCE while keeping in mind its limitations. Furthermore, we should look for opportunities to find more potential of the organisation in its daily work.

Conference
 

A New Peace Structure for Europe and the Role of the OSCE

Monday, November 14th, 2016
National Defence Academy, Vienna

List of speakers

Gudrun Biffl
Danube University Krems, Head of Dpt. for Migration and Globalisation

Erich Csitkovits
Commandant of the Austrian National Defence Academy

Xiaohui Du
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Vienna, Counsellor

Alexander Dubowy
University of Vienna, Coordinator of the Centre for Eurasian Studies; University of Vienna | Austrian National Defence Academy, Researcher at the Scientific Cluster for Polemology and Legal Ethics

Anton Eischer
Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports, Colonel, Military Adviser of the Republic of Austria to the OSCE

Stephanie Fenkart
International Institute for Peace (IIP)

Heinz Gärtner
Director of the Austrian Institute of International Affairs (OIIP); Professor of Political Sciences University Vienna and Danube University Krems

Heidemaria Gürer
Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, Head of the Department Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, Central Asia, Eastern Neighbourhood Policy of the EU, Eastern Partnership

Gustav Gustenau
Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports, Brigadier, Directorate for Security Policy; Liaison-person of the Ministry to the National Security Council

Angela Kane
Senior Fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; former High Representative for Disarmament Affairs (UNO)

Reinhard Krumm
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Head of the Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe, Vienna

Gerhard Marchl
Karl-Renner-Institut, Department of European Politics

Sergey Markedonov
Russian State University for the Humanities, Associate Professor, Department of Regional Studies and Foreign Policy; Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Expert

Florian Raunig
Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, Head of the Task Force for the Austrian OSCE Chairmanship 2017

Herbert Salber
European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia

Jan Sechter
Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Austria

Andris Spruds
Director of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs

Christian Stadler
University of Vienna | Austrian National Defence Academy, Head of the Scientific Cluster for Polemology and Legal Ethics; University of Vienna, Deputy Head of the Centre for Eurasian Studies; Member of the Expert Council for Integration at the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs

Christian Strohal
Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, Special Representative for the Austrian OSCE Chairmanship 2017

Hannes Swoboda
President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP) and of the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute for Prejudice Research and Prevention; former MEP

Fred Tanner
Senior Advisor to the OSCE Secretary General

Oleksandr Tytarchuk
East European Security Research Initiative (EESRI) Foundation, Member of the Board; Foreign Policy Research Institute at the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine (FPRI), Associate Research Fellow

Sergey Utkin
Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN), Head of strategic assessment section at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO)

Anton Varfolomeev
Associate professor, Higher School of Economics, campus in Nizhny Novgorod

Simon Weiss
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe, Vienna

Wolfgang Zellner
University of Hamburg, Deputy Director of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy (IFSH)

Cornelius Zimmermann
German Federal Foreign Office, Deputy Head of OSCE Task Force, German Chairmanship

Contact and information

Austrian Institute for International Affairs, Heinz Gärtner, heinz.gaertner@univie.ac.at

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe, Vienna,
Simon Weiss, simon.weiss@fes-vienna.org

International Institute for Peace – IIP, Stephanie Fenkart, office@iip.at

Karl-Renner-Institut, Gerhard Marchl, marchl@renner-institut.at

University of Vienna | Austrian National Defence Academy, Scientific Cluster for Polemology and Legal Ethics, Alexander Dubowy, alexander.dubowy@univie.ac.at

Podiumsdiskussion

Die Zukunft von Frieden und Sicherheit:Die Rolle der OSZE

Termin Montag, 14. November 2016, 18.30 Uhr

Ort Landesverteidigungsakademie Wien Sala Terrena Stiftgasse 2a, 1070 Wien

Begrüßung:

ERICH CSITKOVITS BMLVS, Kommandant der Landesverteidigungsakademie Wien

Einleitende Worte und Moderation
HANNES SWOBODA Präsident des International Institute for Peace (IIP) und des Sir Peter Ustinov Instituts zur Erforschung und Bekämpfung von Vorurteilen; ehem. MEP

Keynote

EBERHARD POHL Auswärtiges Amt, Ständiger Vertreter Deutschlands bei der OSZE (angefragt)
CHRISTIAN STROHAL BMEIA, Sonderberater des österreichischen OSZE-Vorsitzes 2017

Podium
XIAOHUI DU Botschaft der Volksrepublik China in der Republik Österreich
GUSTAV GUSTENAU BMLVS, Direktion für Sicherheitspolitik, Verbindungsperson des BMLVS zum Nationalen Sicherheitsrat
HEIDEMARIA GÜRER BMEIA, Leiterin der Abteilung für Osteuropa, Südkaukasus, Zentralasien, östliche Nachbarschaftspolitik der EU, Östliche Partnerschaft
SERGEY MARKEDONOV Russische Staatliche Universität für Geisteswissenschaften (RGGU); Experte des Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)
FLORIAN RAUNIG BMEIA, Leiter der Task Force für den österreichischen OSZE-Vorsitz 2017

Inhalt
Anfang des Jahres 2017 übernimmt Österreich von Deutschland den Vorsitz in der Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa (OSZE), die derzeit bei der Bewältigung des Ukrainekonflikts eine bedeutende Rolle spielt. Gerade diese Krise und andere transnationale Herausforderungen zeigen nicht nur die Grenzen und Defizite der OSZE auf, sondern auch das Fehlen einer durchsetzungsstarken gesamteuropäischen (oder gar eurasischen) Friedens- und Sicherheitsarchitektur. Wie soll diese aussehen und welche Rolle kann hier die OSZE spielen?
Die Veranstaltung findet in deutscher und englischer Sprache mit Simultandolmetschung statt. Im Anschluss besteht die Möglichkeit zum Austausch bei Erfrischungsgetränken und Snacks.

ANMELDUNG unbedingt erforderlich:
Alexander Dubowy
Forschungsgruppe für Polemologie und Rechtsethik
alexander.dubowy@univie.ac.at

2016-11-02 Einladung_Podiumsdiskussion.pdf (111030)

OSCE: A New Chance to Offer Peace to Europe?

Hannes Swoboda
 

To whatever part of the world, especially in our neighbourhood, we look, we find a crisis. In Europe itself we have a multiple economic, social and political crisis. The election of Mr. Trump in the US is for many signalling an - until now - unknown challenge coming from that last world power. Besides, Russia has at least an economic crisis due to the combined effect of decreased oil and gas prices and some sanctions. Turkey is in a crisis of democracy and we find elements of a civil war especially in the east of the country. The Middle East as a whole is characterized by a nearly unprecedented crisis. In addition the refugee crisis is affecting many countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. And terrorism is affecting our neighborhood but also spreading into our main cities. 

Europe seems to be in the centre of all these crises and to be affected by nearly all of them. We should not hope that our neighbors, allies and counterparts will try to improve our situation and solve our problems. Maybe on the contrary some may even enhance the challenges and dangers for European security. Therefore, Europe has to come out of this dreadful situation by gaining strength and unity especially concerning the vital questions of foreign and security policy.

THE WEST AND THE EAST

Europe is not consisting only of the European Union, which will become smaller, once Britain will leave and in some way it is already halfway out. The EU has to look with a critical and open minded attitude at the developments of the last years especially after the break down of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and of communism as a dangerous and challenging force was seen and interpreted as a big victory of the "West". But the West - including the majorities in the successor states outside Russia - wanted more. They wanted a clear transformation of the societies of these countries according to the model of the West, a model which was even more liberalized and deregulated due to the victory of the "West" over the "East". It should be stated clearly, that European unification meant an accession to the EU and in principle to NATO to avoid a way back to the old order. The unification was to be realized according to the principle: "the winner takes it all” and the winner was the West. The West decided the criteria and principles of building a new Europe.

Yes, the West made some offers but they have been mostly based on existing Western institutions. As long as Russia was weak and looking for a new role in the world concert of bigger countries, Russia accepted to play a minor role in the shadow of the West. But things changed with rising incomes from oil and gas and with the rise of Putin as long term leader of the country. These changes were not so visible from the beginning and the West has been blinded by its expansion of the EU and NATO.

In addition two principles of organizing the world's order have been opposing each other. The West argued, every country may choose its international allies, as they choose their governments in free and fair elections. Russia became more and more insisting on the spheres of influence in - as they called it - the "Near abroad". But de facto, the democratic choice of the countries of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc was a choice which extended the sphere of influence of the West: the European Union and the US. This meant that the sphere of influence of Russia was heavily shrinking. A re-balancing of the power structure in Europe and the Caucasus without (!) an offer to include Russia in a wider economic, political and security structure was a vital mistake.

While there were some offers from the Russian side to think about a security arrangement in Europe - not knowing how serious and realistic these offers were - they were never tested by the West. Still, if we want to regain peace and stability in Europe, ideas and proposals for a new security structure beyond existing alliances must be developed. And yes, we do need a dialogue across the dividing line between the West and Russia. Dialog is not in contradiction to deterrence against unilateral actions. What has been agreed commonly upon from Helsinki to Paris and Budapest cannot just be put aside. But a new thinking about the Common European House will be necessary.

NEW SECURITY INITIATIVES

Primarily, we must reduce tensions and the danger of incidents between military forces of the West (NATO but also Sweden, Finland etc.) and Russia. The forces and some of the military activities are too close to each other and small incidents may raise new confrontations. We need new transparency and verification initiatives and therefore a modernization of the Vienna Document. We also need contact from one military to the other military to prevent unintended conflicts.

Secondly, disarmament should be anew on the agenda of the OSCE as the German foreign minister Steinmeier proposed. This concerns foremost the conventional arms. In addition to that we need also new negotiations between the US and Russia concerning nuclear arms.

Thirdly, the economic connectivity between the EU and Russia should be re-established. We should find ways to phase out sanctions as soon as possible. The best way to do that would be not only to implement the Minsk agreements but also to agree on long term procedures to deal with Crimea and the non-governmental controlled areas of Eastern Ukraine. Internationally observed referenda about the future of all these areas could be a way out.

The basic ideas of an economic free trade area between Vancouver and Vladivostok or at least between Lisbon and Vladivostok should be put on the table again. Negotiations between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union and countries associated to either or both of these unions should start to find a joint way forward.

Many of these proposals seem not realistic today, but we should start thinking in terms, which could change the reality before the reality is deteriorating our security situation in Europe. And with a new president Trump it may be, that we have to take things into our own - European - hands. Looking to the feelings and attitudes of many of our voters in Europe we should be aware of their interest in security and not we should not let new tensions arise.

MIGRATION: A SECURITY ISSUE?

Security as overriding issue in the minds of Europe's population must guide us also concerning migration into our continent. Migration as such is not endangering our security. Migration is a permanent element of developments in all parts of our world. But with globalization, especially of information via social media and the still vast gap in income and wealth, especially between the neighboring continents of Europe and Africa, migration will stay on the agenda. That will be so even after actual wars in the Middle East would stop, which will not happen very soon anyway.

Migration has to respect the interests and wellbeing of the countries which are "attracting" refugees. These are basically countries with nationally organized welfare states and new conflicts of sharing the welfare with the newcomers will automatically arise. On the other hand we must recognize the hardship and special situation of the refugees and we have to respect the basic norms of solidarity as expressed in international humanitarian law. If the migration flows are too big - without being able to define that in exact numbers - it would be no longer possible to keep the balance between respect for the "original“ populations interest and human solidarity for refugees. I speak of refugees and not of economic migrant - as difficult it is to make that definition.

One main element of a successful refugee and migration policy is to help to reduce the push factor. That means we must help to avoid wars, hunger and deprivation due to climate change etc. This can only be done by development partnerships with the countries concerned while being aware that sometimes these governments themselves are contributing to the push factors by ruthlessly exploiting their countries and its resources. However,  there is no other way to avoid mass migration and the dreadful consequences of supporting criminal gangs and death in the Mediterranean Sea.

In Europe itself we should establish a reasonable and practicable system of solidarity. While it would be wise that all countries should take refugees according to their size and economic power it would be much better to handle this issue much more flexible. A refugee fund with financial contributions from all member countries and donations to those countries which receive and care for refugees would be much more realistic and feasible.

OSCE: CREATING NEW CHANNELS FOR DIALOGUE AND SECURITY

The challenges for our security in Europe by a more assertive Russia, long term conflicts in our neighborhood and partly in connection with these conflicts, stronger refugee and migration pressures cannot be avoided. It is a question of how we can manage these threats. As the new US president Trump will not be willing to have that close relationship with Europe, the EU has to develop a more common and coherent strategy. Just to follow the ideas and ways of the past is not enough. New and stronger challenges ask for new and more concise strategies. The OSCE could be one of the instruments to develop and implement this new comprehensive strategy. Let's not forget it's the only organization where East and West permanently discuss issues concerning European security. Certainly, for the moment only small steps can be done. Besides, when looking at the dangers and possible confrontations, a preventive policy is urgent. But at the same time we have to start to think about a more comprehensive European strategy in order to prevent a further split through Europe.

What should be added to the official presentations of government’s position is to enlarge the security dialogue also by including the civil society. The success of negotiations on the fight against climate change at the conference in Paris in December 2015 was at least partly due to the strong and constructive involvement of the civil society. One should consider how to improve peace and security policies by civil society’s engagement.

EVENT NOTE

The International Institute for Peace (IIP)  and the International Center for Advanced and Comparative EU-Russia/NIS Research (ICEUR) kindly invites you to the following event:

ICEUR Master Class with Olga Romanova: CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION?

Date:                                     Monday, 31st of October, 6:30 pm

Venue:                                  International Institute for Peace (IIP), Möllwaldplatz 5/2, 1040 Wien

Registration:                         Please register at office@iceur-vienna.at or at T 01-786 32 08  

Language:Russian with German translation          

Introduction:

Hans-Georg Heinrich              Vice President of ICEUR

Lecturer:

Olga Romanova                     journalist and human rights activist, executive director of “Russia behind bars”               

In all countries, civil society is hallmarked by the specific structural and cultural properties of politics and society at large. Russian human rights activist and chairperson of “Russia behind bars”, Olga Romanova, presents her account of the sui generis civil society in Russia, taking the prison world as a point of departure.

Following the event, the IIP invites you to a glass of wine

VERANSTALTUNGSEINLADUNG

Das International Institute for Peace (IIP) und der Verein ÖTZ "Gemeinsam für Europa - ÖTZ-Österreichisch Türkische Zusammenarbeit" möchte Sie herzlich zu folgender Veranstaltung einladen.

TÜRKEI- EUROPA-ÖSTERREICH: Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen

Datum:                                  Dienstag, den 11. Oktober um 18:00h

Ort:                                        International Institute for Peace (IIP), Möllwaldplatz 5/2, 1040 Wien

Anmeldung:                          Aufgrund der beschränkten Platzmöglichkeiten wird

                                             um Anmeldung unter secretariat@iip.at  gebeten. Die

                                             Anmeldung wird von unserer Seite bestätigt.

Begrüßung und Moderation:

Dr. Hannes Swoboda             Präsident des International Institute for Peace (IIP),

                                           Vizepräsident des ÖTZ

ReferentInnen:

Dr. Cengiz Günay                 Senior Fellow Austrian Institute for International Affairs

                                           (oiip), Field of Expertise: Middle East and Turkey

Frau Aynur Kuytu                 ÖTZ-Präsidentin (Ankara)

Dr. Sabine Ladstätter            Direktorin des ÖAI und Grabungsleiterin Ephesos

Herr Christian Schüller          langjähriger ORF Korrespondent in Istanbul

Inhalt:

Selten sind die aktuellen innenpolitischen Entwicklungen in der Türkei so präsent in der

europäischen Öffentlichkeit diskutiert worden wie derzeit. Neben dem durchaus positiv

wahrgenommenen Kampf gegen den IS in Nordsyrien, dem völkerrechtlich fragwürdigen und

simultan stattfindenden Kampf gegen die kurdische YPG im selben Gebiet sowie im Osten

der Türkei, ist insbesondere die Rolle der Türkei als Schlüsselstaat und Partner in der

sogenannten „Flüchtlings-bzw. Migrationskrise“ als Schwerpunkt der Zusammenarbeit mit

der EU zu nennen. Doch insbesondere hier gibt es inhaltliche und materialistische Fragen in

Bezug auf Einhaltung und Ablauf des „Flüchtlingsdeals“, der zwischen der EU und der

Türkei im März 2016 geschlossen wurde, die jedoch aus den unterschiedlichen Perspektiven

auch unterschiedlich beantwortet werden können. Als dann am 15. Juli ein Putschversuch

durch Teile des türkischen Militärs mit dem Ziel die Regierung Erdoğan und Yildirim zu

stürzen scheiterte und der türkische Präsident den Ausnahmezustand verhängte, gefolgt von

einer Welle von Verhaftungen und einer starken Einschränkung der Grundrechte, meldete

sich auch der österreichische Bundeskanzler Christian Kern zu Wort und verlangte die

Beitrittsverhandlungen zwischen der EU und der Türkei zu suspendieren.

In welche Richtung entwickelt sich die Türkei und inwiefern können die EU und auch

Österreich einen Beitrag zur Stabilisierung in der Region leisten, die insbesondere mit

zunehmenden Terroranschlägen in der Türkei und damit einhergehenden sinkenden

Tourismuszahlen zu kämpfen hat? Welche Relevanz hat die Türkei für die österreichische

Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und diejenige der EU und inwiefern kann der Spagat zwischen

Krisenmanagement und Diplomatie überwunden werden? Welche Rolle spielt die Russische

Föderation in dieser Konstellation bzw. ist sie überhaupt ein relevanter Akteur?

Diese und andere Fragen werden namhafte Experten am 11. Oktober im IIP diskutieren und

analysieren.

Im Anschluss lädt das IIP auf ein Glas Wein.

Insecurity in the Gulf Region and the Levant

Hannes Swoboda
 

In the EU's - south eastern - neighbourhood it seems that we find much more insecurity today than some years ago. New competition between regional powers in the Middle East, the wars in Syria and Iraq, but also in Yemen and still in Libya do not increase the feeling of security in Europe. We actually can observe quite the contrary.

We should not forget - over our own grievances - that the killing of so many people and the destruction of so many cities brings so much trauma and hardship to the people who stay but also to those who flee. In the following I try to present some personal conclusions after an extremely interesting two days discussion with high level experts from the region, the EU, the USA and Russia at the Bruno Kreisky Forum with the support from the IIP.

1) The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a mixture of religious disputes and the fight for power and influence in the region. We can therefore observe a competition in leadership where especially religion is used with partly aggressive rhetoric but there seems to be also a competition concerning the attributes of national power, like e.g. economic power.

Who speaks for Islam and who is the regionally dominant state? Experts disagree about the relative weight of these two major influences. Some even say that this competition is necessary to improve in this cold-war-like situation. There is also the question, which country is the bigger for the other one and vice versa. It seems that Iran is the bigger – at least perceived - threat for Saudi Arabia than reverse.

An important question is, if the foreign forces like the West should be engaged into taking both powers seriously and try to convince them of cooperation instead of antagonism or if the West should just take this conflict not too seriously. I think the Obama strategy, which already was for a long time and actually still is also the European one, namely strengthening the ties with Iran in order to bring them into a regional dialogue, was and is correct. We need both sides to overcome their resistance to dialogue und coexistence.

Anyway, both principal opponents to each other are affected by the low oil price and that may trigger some pragmatic form of cooperation and might enhance the willingness to help to stop the war in Syria.

2) The Iran – Saudi-Arabia conflict is affecting the Syrian war enormously. The question if that conflict is a proxy war determined by foreign forces like Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia, respective by the Sunni and the Shiite forces and their allies or if it predominantly is a domestic Syrian war has to be answered, that it is both. It is certainly not only a proxy war, this view would underestimate the cruelty by the Assad regime and the willingness of opposition forces to get rid of that regime. One should not forget that this cruel war started after the inhuman and cruel reaction of the Assad regime to the first peaceful protests. We could not see such a brutal reaction in any other country of the Arab Spring. Experts, however, are still not sure how to end this war. The cases Libya and Iraq led to a very hesitant approach of the West and there is also the question if Russia and the USA would be able to end the war – a question which cannot be answered properly because it would deny all the internal factors leading finally to the situation as it is. A political rather than a military solution seems only possible within the Syrian regime, but we have to be clear that we cannot engage the regime and we will not be able to restore the status quo of 2011.

3) The Syrian war put the Kurdish question anew and with stronger force on the politi

cal and strategic table. But what we call the Kurdish question has to be seen with much more differentiation. There are many groups of Kurds and many different interests even inside the Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian and Iran Kurds. But it is true, that a very close relationship exists between the PKK and the Syrian PYD and its military wing. The Iraqi Kurds with their semi-autonomous regional government (KRG) are a factor of stability but are not able influence the other Kurdish groups crucially.

The most important question in this regard is: how to find solutions inside all the countries where we have bigger Kurdish communities and how to create conditions for close exchanges and cooperation between them across national borders. The question is how to handle intern rivalries on a local and regional level but also taking into account that the Kurdish groups do operate also in parallel structures which helped e.g. the Kurds in Northern Iraq to remain stable.  How could these solutions in the end enhance peace and rather than provoke new conflicts? The EU and the West in general have to go far behind the often uncritical and even romantic admiration for the PKK and its leader Öcalan amidst the Kurdish diaspora and some of their friends. Only then we can have a fruitful dialogue with Turkey – one of the most important regional actors. But this presupposes a return to a constructive position by President Erdogan, which we – unfortunately - cannot see at this moment.

4) ISIS or DAESH seems to be on a retreat from dominating and "governing" bigger areas in the region. But the attraction of ISIS is predominately an ideological one rather than the effort to occupy certain areas. What will happen with the fighters they have attracted, including those from Europe, if their strongholds in the region disappear? Will they even step up their terrorist attacks against European targets? That could easily be and we must be prepared by better and closer internationally coordinated measures to fight terrorism. A scrutiny of targeted person's access to certain internet pages and asset freezes will be necessary. What is worrying about terrorist groups is actually not that they pose a real threat to the West but that they create an environment which is challenging Western culture and even basic international human rights. Besides, we have to be aware that governments always instrumentalized terrorists and that they still do. We might even have to consider that the terrorist organisations could be fought from within, which could lead to a success – although we do not have much influence on these developments.

However, without violating fundamental human rights we need to develop coordinated and coherent policies of preventing terrorist attacks as far as possible.

5) Unfortunately we will see for a longer time the dominance of military actions especially in Syria. But nevertheless we have to think about how to rebuild the country and with whom. Of course there are different opinions in how far representatives of the Assad regime or civil society elements who are close to and dependent of the regime should and could be involved in designing and developing Syria's future. Even recognizing how evil the regime is, there seems to be no alternative to find compromises with people whom one would not like to cooperate. The alternative strategy was implemented by the Americans in Iraq with dreadful results.

6) As there is for the moment no unified Syrian state existing, how should the new Syria be constructed? The question of decentralization or federalization is raised again and again in all these discussions. A lot depends on the successes of the Syrian army in Aleppo and other important areas. How can they regain lost territory?

But in all cases, a new construction along a bottom up approach with many cities and their regions gaining competences and power would be helpful to engage ordinary citizens in rebuilding their (!) country. The civil society in its organized but also unorganized form could play an important role. In addition it would need some strong national and international activities of building a viable infrastructure for the economic reconstruction. Fiscal decentralisation could empower groups and help them to move to a more sustainable form of cooperation.

7) Many are still disappointed by the West and especially the US abstaining from a military intervention. But the experience with the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have put a lot of restraint on Western powers and especially on President Obama. I have a strong sympathy for that hesitant position. Furthermore we have no viable strategy what to do with countries before collapse. Still, we need strong efforts to stop the war and prepare ourselves for the reconstruction of the country. With Russia and Iran supporting the Assad regime, that is not an easy task. But efforts should not be stopped.

Of course, as mentioned before, we need coordinated efforts to prevent terrorist attacks coming to Europe, once the battle fields in Syria and Iraq are no longer as ready and successful for ISIS. This must not be a general mistrust against refugees and Muslims, but a much targeted policy against certain individuals irrespective of their status and religious belief.

The Austrian Institute for International Affairs – oiip the US Mission to the OSCE the International Institute for Peace – IIP and the Scientific Commission of the Strategy and Security Board of the Austrian Army

cordially invite you to the Panel Discussion

Cooperative Security and the OSCE

With the end of the Cold War division in Europe the possibility of creating a genuine system of "cooperative security" on the European continent appeared to be feasible. Cooperative security seeks to replace competition among opposing blocs with a genuinely cooperative set of relations all states. Rather than relying on a classical balance of power or fixed alliances, cooperative security assumes that security is indivisible. It opened for the CSCE/OSCE the possibility to maintain cooperative peace and security within the large European region. The concept of cooperative security order failed to materialize, however. The OSCE-summit in Astana 2010 tried to revive the goal to build a true security community without dividing lines. The events in the Ukraine since 2014 appeared to draw new dividing lines and the OSCE failed to promote security and cooperation and subsequently proved incapable of producing a new European security order. The panel will ask whether and how the OSCE could revive the idea of cooperative security in Europe.

Panel:

Terrence HOPMANN:        Professor of International Relations at the

                                        Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Kate Marie BYRNES:        Deputy U.S. Permanent Representative to the OSCE and

                                        Deputy Chief of Mission to the U.S. Mission to the OSCE

Moderation:

Heinz GÄRTNER:              Director oiip, University of Vienna

When:        Monday, 20th of June, 2016
                 17:00 p.m.

Where:      Amerika Haus Friedrich-Schmidt-Platz 2 1010 Wien

Information and registration: Tel. (01) 581 11 06 or email: info@oiip.ac.at 

OSCE_Einladung.pdf (299107)