OSCE, Alm.del - 2013-14 - Bilag 22: Nyhedsbrev fra Ambassadør Andreas Nothelle, uge 07, 2014

Thank you, Chair.Welcome to the representatives of DCAF in this meeting.Security Sector Governance Reform has been and will always be one of the Parliamentary Assem-bly’s priority concerns. The PA has passed numerous recommendations addressing all related is-sues, and we have cooperated closely with the Conflict Prevention Center, the Field Presences andothers in order to strengthen security sector governance. These recommendations are directlyaddressed to the participating States and to the executive structures of the OSCE. We have alsobeen directly involved in projects of assistance to parliaments of participating States and regionalawareness-raising and training projects of the field presences.We therefore value the efforts of the Swiss Chairmanship and of DCAF to reinvigorate the OSCE’swork in this area. We have a history of cooperation with the DCAF, which we plan to continue dur-ing this year’s Autumn Session in Geneva. Although these are not the only items we are workingon in the first dimension, we have consistently focused on parliamentary oversight, the Code ofConduct and other means of strengthening democratic governance in the security sector. In addi-tion, we have always stressed the cross-dimensional character of this work, by underlining theimportance of human rights protection in all security operations. Beyond the traditional work withthe military and the police, we have placed particular emphasis on issues related to the work ofthe intelligence community and the private sector. Both pose considerable challenges to oversightand democracy in general because of the lack of transparency that their work entails. All this andmore will figure on the PA’s agenda at our upcoming Annual Session end of June this year.In light of all this, we continue to be amazed by some methodological flaws of the study presentedtoday. I understand that it was the Chairmanship’s intention, when commissioning this study, tolist strategic deficiencies, weaknesses and other problems of the OSCE’s project work, and I under-stand that these weaknesses are to be found predominantly in those structures that report to thePermanent Council. We are, however, deeply disappointed that an important study that directlyaddresses issues of democratic governance was undertaken in total and deliberate exclusion ofthe PA. We are further surprised by the lack of diligence displayed by the authors when they claimthat the PA is only engaged in inter-parliamentary dialogue, and that it is not involved in opera-tional activities.Only a short look at our history and our Rules of Procedure would already have avoided this mis-take. Our Rules of Procedure determine what the purpose of our work is. The rules of the OSCE’sparliamentary institution have been mandated by the Heads of States and Governments at theirParis Summit. Listed among the objectives of the PA’s work are the following:1

“develop and promote mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflicts;(d) support the strengthening and consolidation of democratic institutions in the OSCEparticipating States;(e) contribute to the development of the institutional structures of the OSCE and of rela-tionsandco-operationbetweentheexistingOSCEinstitutions.”The DCAF concludes that most of the activities of executive structures consist of meetings aimingat awareness-raising. It then states that the PA is the main entity involved in awareness-raising. Inother words, as far as this activity is concerned, we are doing much the same as the rest of theOSCE. It is therefore contradictory for the authors to refuse to include the PA in the findings basedon the assumption that the PA is only an internal talk shop. I have also heard a lot about the needto include Civil Society in the OSCE's work on these issues. I would strongly suggest starting by in-cluding the elected representatives of our citizens.In the course of this project 170 persons were interviewed and several workshops held in Vienna. Ido not think it is asking for too much for researchers to verify such a radical hypothesis as claimingthat MPs are only talking to themselves by at least looking into some of the PA’s documents andby seeking to get in touch with me. We also believe that those from the Secretariat involved indesigning and assisting this study, beginning with the Secretary General, should have guided theauthors towards an inclusive approach. We had a vigorous internal discussion about this duringour Winter Meeting.We hope that in future we will continue our cooperation in a fruitful manner and in avoidance offurther misunderstandings of this nature.

Security Committee Meeting Monday, 17 February 2014