Special Representative
To:
PA President
and
PA Secretary General
PC Brief Week 49, 2015
This week, there were – in Belgrade - meetings of the Permanent Council (PC), the Forum for Securi-
ty Co-operation, the Preparatory Committee (PrepComm), the three topical committees, and many
other informal meetings, all of them in drafting format, during the Ministerial Council Meeting (MC).
The MC offered an opportunity for a number of important bilateral meetings between Foreign Minis-
ters. Beyond that, despite bit efforts by the Serbian Chairmanship, it had a sobering result. Delega-
tions had spent hours in negotiations on more than 20 drafts, but could reach agreement only on two
texts regarding terrorism, one on drugs, another one on youth and a statement on the Transdniestrian
(=Transnistrian) Settlement Process, reducing comprehensive security to isolated aspects of the first
dimension.
This was the outcome despite the fact that most drafts had been watered down to the least common
denominator, without any political significance and hardly any substantive operative taskings. It had
been expected that there would not be consensus on a Political Declaration or a political statement on
Ukraine, but the lack of any acknowledgement of the Helsinki Plus 40 Process, or the Special Moni-
toring Mission in Ukraine, as well as the failure to agree on a declaration on migration or the finaliza-
tion of unfinished business from Basel, contained in drafts on religious tolerance, torture or Gender,
made the result fall below even the most pessimistic expectations. Not to speak of the failure to agree
on sustainable development, water management, freedom of speech and assembly, or the protection
of journalists. Not even a largely uncontroversial text commemorating the 30th anniversary of the
Chernobyl disaster was adopted. In a last minute effort, the chairmanship put 13 compromise drafts
on the table, only one of which was adopted.
Mostly, the disagreements were not about pertinent substance of the subject matter. Largely non-
controversial texts were taken hostage for other drafts, or there was a fight about hardly related addi-
tions or deletions that adversaries in ongoing conflicts had put forward in order to provoke the respec-
tive other side and to score points (which only experts in the ministries will understand). To this added
the controversy about the autonomy of the OSCE's executive institutions. All in all, this burlesque had
little to do with the organization's objective of creating common security; rather, it exposed the weak-
ness of multilateral bureaucratic decision-making and reflected the degrading maturity of the interna-
tional community. The incoming Chair in Office, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, must have real-
ized the degree to which the negotiation process has become a playground for petty “diplomatic”
games, and how Herculean is the task of putting this organization back on its feet, despite the opti-
mistic statements he made to the media.
At the same time, two working weeks before the expiry of the deadline, there is no consensus among
participating States about the adoption of the 2016 budget. During the MC, Azerbaijan had proposed
a draft decision on the ODIHR, which would have subjected the conclusions and recommendations
from ODIHR Needs Assessment Reports to consultations with the country holding elections and, in
case of disagreement, for review by the Permanent Council. Since – unsurprisingly - this draft was not
adopted, disagreement about the funds of the autonomous institutions will continue to be a major
stumbling block for the ongoing negotiations.
Andreas Nothelle
Ambassador, December 4, 2015