OSCE Ministerial Council: Good Intentions, Scarce Decisions

 

In early December, Lithuania hosted the 18th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, the highest OSCE decision-making body, in Vilnius. The meeting was set to discuss the Organization’s yearly achievements and to provide a direction for its future endeavors.  It was also the last opportunity for Lithuanian OSCE Chairmanship before handing over its responsibilities to Ireland to facilitate the engagement of the participating states and to underpin the realization of a free, democratic, common and indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community. 

 

Interestingly, the meeting’s agenda was based on realistic prospects, not ambitions. The Chairmanship focused on securing the continuation of its major goals: to improve media freedom and ensure safety of journalists, promote equal gender rights and tolerance, achieve progress in solving protracted conflicts, increase the OSCE role in tackling transnational threats, and improve its involvement in the regional energy security dialogue. 

 

In addition to the foreign ministers from the 56 OSCE participating states, the meeting was joined by representatives of OSCE’s twelve partner countries from North Africa and the Middle East. They were invited to reflect on current events in the region and to discuss the future OSCE involvement in supporting democratic changes in post-Arab Spring countries. Alongside, a parallel conference was organized for the civil society representatives that focused on human rights and civil liberties violations in Belarus and other OSCE countries. Nevertheless, among all the topics discussed, the elections in Russia were the one to get the most attention and even sparked tensions between the American and Russian representatives. 

 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the Duma elections and expressed serious concerns over their freedom and fairness. She built the argument on the preliminary report released by the OSCE, which highlighted various attempts of stuffing ballot boxes, manipulating voter lists, and other rogue practices. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called Clinton’s remarks unsuitable for the meeting’s agenda, and that “the OSCE is not a place for public meetings like Hyde Park of Triumphalnaya Square, where speakers can just arrive to pour out their souls.” 

 

Their clash was a good example of the OSCE work realities. The Organization’s productivity is heavily dependent on its participants’ commitments and their understanding of OSCE’s functions. Ironically, it appears that the U.S. and Russia have a very different understanding and priorities set for the OSCE. The U.S. focuses on the Organization’s strengths to promote democratic values and support human rights, while Russia’s preference leans more towards reshaping the Organization’s structure with enhanced politico-military dimension and a reduced humanitarian side. Russia’s suggested model is widely opposed and attributed to its intentions to assume a stronger role both in the Organization and in the formation of OSCE’s regional security agenda. It is also hard to imagine that the participating countries would agree to limit OSCE's human dimension activities only because of Russia’s failure to guarantee a fair and free election, free media, and basic democratic and human rights principles.  

 

While Russia stands firm on its view towards OSCE’s future and a need for reforms, in some instances Moscow’s actions strongly contradict its position. At the ministerial meeting, Lavrov expressed his discontent regarding the Council’s decision-making process and called for a larger involvement of participating ministers in preparation of the summit’s final documents. But when the serious decisions were about to be made to strengthen OSCE’s capabilities and extend its functions, Russia once again became a frequent veto user. 

 

In Vilnius, only 10 of 30 suggested documents were approved while the rest, including the U.S.-supported Declaration on Fundamental Freedoms in Digital Age, were doomed to failure. Russia vetoed all the proposed statements that would have had an undesirable effect on its internal and external politics, including proposed statements on conflicts in Georgia and Moldova, the draft decisions on the problem of refugees and forcibly displaced persons, and the Ministerial Council’s political declaration. 

 

The meeting also triggered some misperceptions and the use of strong wording. After the bilateral meeting with his Lithuanian counterpart and OSCE’s Chairman-in-Office, Audronius Azubalis, Lavrov voiced his criticism for the Lithuanian side for misleading public statements noting that Azubalis asked for Russia’s apology regarding Lithuania’s occupation during Soviet times. Lavrov’s comment sparked widespread media attention, as this taboo issue was entrusted to a special commission of historians to reach a mutually acceptable position. 

 

However, despite the clash of opinions, the 18th Ministerial Council meeting stands out successfully. The leaders were able to find a common ground and affirmed their commitments towards several issues, including addressing transnational threats, preventing and solving conflicts, combating human trafficking, promoting equal opportunities for women, strengthening interregional transport dialogue, and strengthening OSCE’s role in Afghanistan and nations struck by the Arab Spring.  

 

The responsibility of implementing adopted decisions lies with OSCE’s upcoming Irish Chairmanship. While Ireland will undoubtedly build on the work of its predecessor and continue pursuing the Organization’s goals and principles, no major changes should be expected. It is obvious that as long participating countries and their ruling members do not overcome their differences and do not develop a common mindset towards the Organization, the Chairmanship will continue rotating with hopes that the next time it will be better. 

 

The next OSCE Ministerial Council’s meeting will be held in Dublin on 6-7 December 2012.