AM 66 CC/OSCE (95) 3 Original: English
SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
POSITIONS FOR DISCUSSION OF FUTURE ACTIVITIES
presented by Lord Lucas of Chilworth (United Kingdom) Acting Rapporteur
International Secretariat May 1995
1. De facto, over the past five years the work of the Sub-Committee has focused on Central and Eastern Europe, although this was not obvious from its title.
2. The subject we have embarked upon in 1995 - "Security implications of the opening of borders" - is not limited to that geographic area. Indeed, the first meeting in The Hague (2-3 March 1995) had much more to do with Western than with Eastern Europe, blurring the distinction with the overall work of the Civilian Affairs Committee.
3. It seems important, in the work of the Sub- Committee as well as in the work of the full Committee, that our approach towards problems remain focused mainly on their security aspects to avoid duplicating work that is being done by other parliamentary and inter-parliamentary organizations elsewhere.
4. For example, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament both tackle important aspects of the "The security implications of the opening of borders", such as illegal immigration, asylum issues, Schengen, etc. However, there seems to be room for original - and relevant - work on organized crime for the following reasons: (i) no other inter- parliamentary organization is equipped to work on those issues; (ii) co-operation in this field at EU level raises important problems of accountability, given the fact that the European Parliament has very limited powers on "Pillar 3" of the Maastricht Treaty (Co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs); (iii) there is a pressing need for co-operation on those issues with our Central and East European partners.
a. Should the work of the Sub-Committee on the OSCE remain limited to Eastern and Central Europe?
b. Should we take into account the fact that there is now a Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, which did not exist when the Sub-Committee was created? What about the European Parliament, whose role is increasing?
c. Should the Sub-Comittee be renamed?
d. What criteria should distinguish the work of the Sub-Committee from that of the full Committee?
e. Should the Sub-Committee - or the full Committee - pay more attention to developments at EU level?
f. At a time when NATO is struggling to find a new identity, to what extent should we try to draw public attention to the "new security threats" and explore NATO's relevance in those fields?
Carolyn BUTLER North Atlantic Assembly
3 Place du Petit Sablon Tel (32-2) 513.28.65 B - 1000 Brussels Fax (32-2) 514.18.47