The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is facing a crisis of relevance that calls into question its ability to perform its core mission. Originally established during the Cold War as a forum for dialogue between East and West, the OSCE has, over time, lost much of its effectiveness. Today, Europe is witnessing the erosion of both cooperation and security, with open dialogue all but disappearing.
For decades, the OSCE was seen as a pillar of Europe’s security framework. Yet, recent years have exposed the organization's inability to resolve major conflicts, especially in the post-Soviet space. Perhaps the most glaring example is the OSCE's handling of Azerbaijan, where a clear policy of double standards has taken root. The collapse of the OSCE Minsk Group and its failure to resolve the Karabakh conflict highlight how international organizations have drifted from their intended purposes, often becoming tools for preserving the status quo rather than fostering real change.
The Minsk Group: A Mechanism to Freeze the Status Quo
Established in 1992, the OSCE Minsk Group was tasked with facilitating a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Yet, over the course of its three-decade existence, the group made little tangible progress. Instead, the Minsk Group effectively endorsed Armenia’s occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory, including Karabakh and seven surrounding regions. This cemented the status quo. Despite multiple UN Security Council resolutions demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces, the Minsk Group maintained a "balanced" approach—placing the aggressor on equal footing with the victim.
Rather than resolving the conflict, the Minsk Group became a tool for keeping the situation frozen. It exerted pressure on Azerbaijan, not as part of a genuine effort to achieve justice, but to maintain a fragile equilibrium. For decades, the group ignored the ongoing violations of Azerbaijani rights, choosing not to take concrete actions to restore the country’s territorial integrity.
This failure reflects a broader systemic issue within the OSCE itself: an institution increasingly incapable of confronting modern security challenges. Mired in political games and internal contradictions, the OSCE finds itself paralyzed. As conflicts rage and the global security landscape becomes ever more unstable, the relevance of the OSCE as a mediator and peacekeeper is being seriously questioned.
In today’s world, where crises demand decisive and impartial intervention, the OSCE’s unwillingness to move beyond its outdated mechanisms raises significant doubts about its future role in European security.
Double Standards and the OSCE’s Crisis of Legitimacy
A core challenge facing the OSCE—both within the Minsk Group framework and more broadly—has been its policy of double standards. Despite being an international organization tasked with upholding justice, the OSCE’s actions have been inconsistent. When it came to Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories, the Minsk Group consistently refrained from decisive intervention. But as soon as Azerbaijan sought to restore its territorial integrity, the pressure on Baku intensified.
Western analysts have also called attention to this imbalance. James Wilson, an expert on international security, observes: "The OSCE advocated for dialogue while turning a blind eye to Armenia’s occupation and the widespread human rights violations inflicted on Azerbaijan. This undermined its legitimacy as an impartial international arbitrator." Essentially, the OSCE failed to maintain neutrality, prioritizing a delicate balance between conflicting interests over the enforcement of international norms.
Political Motives of Key Powers
The Minsk Group’s inability to achieve peace was further complicated by the political motivations of its key members. France, with deep historical ties to Armenia, consistently adopted a pro-Armenian stance, much to Azerbaijan’s frustration. While the United States presented a more neutral front, it never committed the necessary diplomatic resources to resolve the issue.
Political analyst Vasily Kuzmin noted: “The Minsk Group transformed into a platform for political maneuvering rather than peace negotiations. The major powers involved were more interested in protecting their own influence in the region than achieving lasting peace." These geopolitical interests, according to experts, were central to the Minsk Group's failure to bring about a resolution.
The 2020 War: The Minsk Group’s Demise
The 2020 Karabakh War revealed the stark ineffectiveness of the OSCE and the Minsk Group. During the 44-day conflict, Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity through military means, without any involvement from the Minsk Group. The subsequent peace deal, brokered by Russia, left the OSCE and its mediators entirely sidelined. This effectively marked the end of the Minsk Group as a viable mechanism for conflict resolution.
Political expert Thomas de Waal encapsulates the situation: “The Minsk Group lost all relevance once Azerbaijan independently settled the conflict. After more than three decades of inactivity, its collapse was inevitable.”
The OSCE's Collapse as a Security Institution
The OSCE’s inefficiency, however, extends beyond the Minsk Group. In recent years, the organization has shown itself incapable of addressing new security challenges, particularly as tensions between Russia and the West escalate. The conflict in Ukraine further highlighted the OSCE’s growing irrelevance. In 2022, Russia refused to renew the OSCE’s peacekeeping mandate in Ukraine, accusing it of favoring Western interests and abandoning neutrality.
Fyodor Lukyanov, a foreign policy expert, points out: “The OSCE ceased being a neutral platform for conflict resolution long ago. It has become increasingly entangled in the political games between the West and Russia.” This reflects a broader trend of weakening international organizations, which are struggling to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.
The failure of the OSCE Minsk Group serves as a cautionary example of how international institutions can become hostages to the interests of powerful states, forsaking their original mission of upholding peace and justice. The organization’s double standards, chronic delays, and inability to take decisive actions have eroded its credibility. As global security frameworks unravel, the OSCE can no longer claim to be a major player. Azerbaijan, by asserting control over its own future and circumventing ineffective international mechanisms, has set a precedent for nations seeking to protect their sovereignty.
In a world where traditional security systems are rapidly eroding, the OSCE must either adapt or continue to fade into irrelevance.
A Financial Crisis: Survival on the Edge
The OSCE is not only grappling with political challenges but is also facing a severe financial crisis. Rising inflation has drained its resources, and since 2021, the organization has been operating on precarious "survival budgets." This fiscal instability severely hampers the OSCE's ability to respond effectively to international crises. European diplomat Michael Linhart highlights the gravity of the situation: “For an international organization, operating under such conditions is unacceptable. It severely limits its operational mobility.”
The financial difficulties are compounded by governance issues. Member states have yet to reach a consensus on the chairmanship for 2024, a concern that raises questions about the organization’s future leadership. This lack of clarity is further exacerbated by the absence of decisive appointments in the OSCE Secretariat and its human rights institutions. Without strong leadership and strategic direction, the OSCE risks sliding further into irrelevance on the global stage.
The OSCE's Unique Role in Geopolitical Conflicts
Despite these deep crises, the OSCE remains one of the few international organizations where dialogue between East and West still occurs. It serves as a rare platform where representatives from Russia, the United States, Ukraine, and other key global players can meet. Thomas Graham, an international relations expert, argues: “The OSCE remains a logical venue for negotiations aimed at peacefully resolving the conflict in Ukraine. Its extensive experience managing crises in the post-Soviet space makes it an important participant in these processes.”
In addition, the OSCE has set vital international standards in areas like minority rights and election monitoring. Western democracies continue to support the organization, viewing it as an essential tool for advancing global agendas and fostering constructive dialogue.
Who Is Weakening the OSCE?
Ironically, some of the greatest threats to the OSCE come from the very democracies that support it. These nations undermine the organization when they prioritize their strategic interests by supporting authoritarian regimes, disregarding the principles the OSCE was founded on. As Professor Michael Hager notes, “Democracies need to build a strategy for engaging with authoritarian states brick by brick, starting with mutual interests, such as combating climate change.”
This erosion of the OSCE's founding principles by its own members threatens to destabilize the organization further, making it harder to navigate the geopolitical complexities of today’s world.
The Future of the OSCE: Hope or Collapse?
In 2025, the OSCE will celebrate its 50th anniversary, but many analysts remain skeptical about the organization's ability to resolve its core challenges. Historian Mark Wright observes: “Even if the organization finds itself in deeper crisis by then, the principles of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement will remain a critical foundation for international relations. These are not just symbolic—they are the bedrock on which the system of international law is built.”
The so-called "Helsinki Decalogue," which includes core principles such as the sovereign equality of states and the non-use of force, continues to hold relevance today. These foundational concepts endure as essential elements of global diplomacy, even amid ongoing political conflicts and crises.
The crisis confronting the OSCE is symptomatic of larger issues plaguing the global security system. The organization stands at a critical juncture, and its future hinges on its ability to adapt to new geopolitical realities. As international affairs analyst Carl Schmitz points out:
“The OSCE can survive this crisis, but only if democracies and autocracies find common ground and collaborate on solving global problems.”
Time will ultimately reveal whether the OSCE can rise to meet these new challenges or whether it will continue its gradual decline into irrelevance.