Preview of the 2006 OSCE Ministerial Conference

Ambassador Fried: Let me make a couple of points about the OSCE and how we view the organization and how we see this upcoming ministerial.

The OSCE is the leading instrument, the leading multilateral organization for the promotion of democracy, human rights, as well as security in Europe and Eurasia. There is only one organization that is as active as the OSCE in fields of activity as diverse as election monitoring, including by the way in the United States; resolution and monitoring of the so-called frozen conflicts in the South Caucasus and Moldova; support for human rights generally through its missions; resolution and progress on issues of minority and community rights; monitoring the situation in various post-Balkan conflict states and territories such as Bosnia and Kosovo. If the OSCE did not exist we would probably want to invent it again, but it does exist and we value it very greatly.

One of the OSCE’s finest moments came after the flawed Ukrainian elections a couple of years ago where in Washington we waited to hear ODHR pronounce on those elections, and ODHR now creates the standard for judging elections in many countries. Its judgment of elections is not free and fair, it has major impact. It’s judgment that elections are improved, though not perfect, also has impact.

So the OSCE has carved out a place for itself which is important, it is unique, there’s no other organization with the flexibility to do what it does, and we’re looking forward to this Ministerial both to reconfirm support for the OSCE’s crucial missions and if possible, make progress on some of the critical and difficult to resolve frozen conflicts in Eurasia.

I should also express my appreciation for the efforts of this year’s Chairman in office, Belgian Foreign Minister [Karl de Hoecht]. He has been an activist and a creative, strong, Chairman in Office. I think perhaps his strongest moment came when he flew out to Georgia in the middle of a crisis caused by the arrest of accused Russian spies in Georgia and helped resolve that very dangerous situation. It showed what the OSCE can do. We needed someone to go in, the world needed someone to go in and help diffuse that crisis. He did so, he did so successfully. It shows what the OSCE is capable of.

Let me stop there and take your questions.

Press: What’s the main issue, the main topic of the meeting? Is there a burning issue that --

Ambassador Fried: There will be a couple of topics. There is going to be the issue of support for ODHR, the Office of Democracy and Human Rights. There will be an attempt to find a way forward on the frozen conflicts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That may seem obscure to the general reader of AP material, but I can assure you that like many issues if they go wrong, suddenly everybody’s heard of them.

We think it is critical that there be only peaceful solutions to these so-called frozen conflicts. We have been working with the Georgians, we have been working with the Russians on the possibility of confidence building measures to ease the immediate tensions and provide the basis for political resolution of these conflicts. Recognizing Georgia’s territorial integrity, which we do; but also recognizing that solutions have to take into account the interests of the people and all the different ethnic groups in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We may be able to make some progress in the Transnistria which is a break-away part of Moldova as well.

I understand, again, these things seem obscure, but if they go wrong they’re not obscure, and if they go right, it would be a major step forward. So we’re going to do what we can at this Ministerial.

Press: I have three questions, actually. Do you think there will be a final declaration by all OSCE members? I think there were [inaudible] three years. Do you think reform of the observation mission will be approved? And what can you tell us about the presidency of OSCE that Kazakhstan is asking for 2009?

Ambassador Fried: You’ve been doing your homework.

Press: Yeah.

Ambassador Fried: I can see very good. Let’s see. We hope to have a way forward on the issue of the Chairmanship in Office. I appreciate very much that Kazakhstan has put forward its candidacy. There are a number of candidates for 2009. We’re thinking about 2009, 2010, 2011, so we don’t have annual fights about this. But we certainly appreciate Kazakhstan’s interest and we’re going to try to find a way ahead.

The issue of ODHR and election monitoring. ODHR is effective precisely because it is effectively an autonomous organization which is not encumbered by massive bureaucracy or a consensus rule or various checks on its freedom of action. It’s done a very good job.

Press: [Inaudible]?

Ambassador Fried: No, now the Russians came up with some ideas, some of which frankly had merit. Over the past year the organization has been, the OSCE has considered some of these and other suggestions. So I hope that these are adopted, some practical ways in which ODHR’s functioning can be improved, but it’s critical that any of these changes not impede ODHR’s effectiveness, that they improve its effectiveness. There’s no reason to fix what isn’t broken. No organization is perfect, but it is ODHR’s strength that needs to be respected and protected.

You had a third question. It was monitors, the Chairmanship in Office --

Press: A final declaration.

Ambassador Fried: Oh, yes. We have not succeeded in the past several years in issuing a final declaration. The issue has been the so-called Istanbul Commitments. In the 1999 Istanbul Ministerial the Russians agreed to certain commitments with respect to withdrawal of troops and equipment from its bases in Transnistria and Georgia. It has made considerable progress toward meeting its commitments in Georgia. This process is still going on despite Georgian/Russian tensions. The Russians and the Georgians, especially the Russians since they’re doing the withdrawing deserve credit for this. It should be noted. There has been some progress as well in Transnistria earlier with the withdrawal of equipment, I believe, is complete; but the withdrawal of the remaining Russian troops has been stalled. I regret this very much.

The record on Russia’s fulfillment of its commitments is not actually all that bad, didn’t meet all of its commitment sin Transnistria, but the record is not a zero, by any means. It’s made progress.

The trouble is that we’ve not been able to agree on language which reaffirmed the commitments. The Russians have resisted this so we’ve lost the chance for Ministerial declarations over the past few years. I wish I could tell you that we will get one this time, but I’m afraid we will not. It’s largely because of the same issue.

Again, I regret this, because in fact the Russian record is, if they have not met all of their commitments, it is not that they have done nothing and they’re still continuing to withdraw in Georgia, so I’m very sorry that this continues to be an issue.

Press: Back to the Kazakh candidacy and the US view of that. Why is the year 2009 too early? Why is 2011 the date at which you could [inaudible]? And what kind of things do you want to see from Kazakhstan to make that possible? What sort of specific reforms will you be looking for? Will these be voiced in terms of conditions on Kazakhstan?

Ambassador Fried: Well look, we are working with our OSCE partners including Kazakhstan. We appreciate their interest in the Chairmanship and we appreciate the fact that Kazakhstan in many areas has advanced reforms, particularly in the economic area. We want to encourage Kazakhstan to continue and deepen its reforms. I don’t want to get too specific because we’re still working out the formula. We want to do so in a way that respects and welcomes Kazakhstan’s interests. We also believe that all Chairmans in Office have to exemplify OSCE principles. No country is perfect, and that certainly goes for my own. We all are working constantly to form more perfect democracies, as it were. I don’t think the question of ultimata or checklists is quite the way to put it, but we do want to give Kazakhstan the chance to continue its reforms, and on that basis make a decision about the chairmanship. I think that we can find a good formula and I certainly hope so.

Again, we appreciate Kazakhstan’s interests in this. They are emerging, they are beginning to emerge as a real force for progress in a very difficult region and we want to encourage further progress.

Press: On terrorism, will it be a topic [inaudible]?

Ambassador Fried: The OSCE does have various security – It has other mandates, and the field of its expertise is very wide. It has conducted some work on counter-terrorism and can do more in this regard. It has high representatives on tolerance combating Islamaphobia, combating anti-Semitism, combating discrimination against Christianity and other forms of discrimination. This is all very useful work.

Again, the OSCE’s comparative advantage is its decentralized and relatively, hmm, in the world of international organizations shockingly unbureaucratic structures which allow it to carry out its mandates effectively even though the views of the many, the 55, 56 OSCE members, often vary widely.

Press: About the role of the ODHR, can we take from that you will quite firmly resist any kind of Russian attempt to water down those activities in the human dimension area?

Ambassador Fried: Well, there is, ODHR has a record of success and a record it should be very proud of in observing elections.

It’s findings are often embarrassing for governments when it calls an election like it sees it.

No government, and in this I certainly include my own, no government can declare itself off-limits to ODHR, either ODHR criticism or ODHR recommendations for improvement. We all have work to do. It is ODHR’s freedom of action, its ability to do its job, ability to make its calls as it sees fit, even though this is sometimes embarrassing to certain governments, which is its strength. We will resist any watering down of ODHR’s legitimate prerogatives.

We support ODHR. ODHR has a good track record of work, it has a track record to be proud of. No need to fix what’s not broken.

All right, a pleasure.