There are two channels for Western countries to participate in the regimet-ransition movements in the former Soviet Union States (FSUS): Interstate bilateral relationships on the one hand and international organizations for transition support like OSCE/CSCE (Organization/Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe), IMF and EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) on the other. These Transition-Support Organizations (TSO), which include FSUS as member states, had a common purpose during the 1990's: How to stabilize the transition to the new politico-economic regime (democracy and market economy). These norms, with the background of the Western ideas, are important even for the FSUS to establish the legitimacy of their rule.
TSO in this article, especially OSCE, can be defined as organizations that mainly use soft powers in contrast with a hard-power organization like NATO. Although they cannot operate with hard power or resources which can have immediate and forcible effects, TSO try to infuse values and institutions of democracy and the market economy through soft-power methods such as monitoring elections, dispatching long-term missions for peace-keeping, advising and financing for institutional reforms.
This article focuses on the following three points to examine the relationship between FSUS and TSO.
First, the article explains what Western norms like democracy have for the maintenance of politico-economic order in FSUS. TSO attempt to introduce and stabilize democracy and the market economy, and present the support programs for FSUS in accordance with these norms, while FSUS also define themselves as democratic countries. This article points out the “dogmatization” of democracy in FSUS. The concepts like democracy and the market economy are utilized politically in FSUS although they have estranged from the reality just as the concept of communism did during the Soviet era. On the other hand, FSUS also accepted the Western concepts because they are afraid of being marginalized in the international community.
This article also examines one concrete problem: How TSO have contributed to the maintenance of order in FSUS during the 1990's. At the beginning of the decade, economic TSO like IMF believed that FSUS would be able to shift their regimes smoothly if only TSO introduced some monetarist programs. However, the monetarist view can find few friends today in FSUS. TSO's task for the future in the region is to find an alternative policy that can take the place of the monetarism.
Third, this article examines how the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs is treated by TSO. As OSCE members declared at the Budapest Summit in 1994, the member states including FSUS welcome the OSCE missions to promote democracy. However, if OSCE or other TSO try to strengthen their current level of involvement, FSUS may demand a redefinition of the principle. In this sense, TSO is always in the process of transforming their structure and their roles.

抄録全体を表示