FIREWORKS AT OSCE ELECTION MONITORING CONFERENCE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 002543

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: BE OSCE PHUM PREL
SUBJECT: FIREWORKS AT OSCE ELECTION MONITORING CONFERENCE


BRUSSELS 00002543 001.2 OF 002



1. (SBU) Summary: The Belgian OSCE Chairmanship focused its
attention on election monitoring at a conference in Brussels
on July 12. The technical theme was the need for continued
strict adherence to observation guidelines when monitoring.
The political message was that ODIHR remains the most
competent mechanism for election monitoring, but needs to
establish better coordination with other monitoring agencies.
Several speakers made a point of stressing that observations
are not meant to influence results but act as impartial
witness to aid in the transparency of the process. Criticisms
of Russia, both implied and direct, triggered a strong
reaction by the Russian Ambassador. End summary.


2. (SBU) On July 12 Ambassador Korologos attended the opening
of a conference entitled: "Building Democracy Through OSCE:
Electoral Assistance and Observation." FM De Gucht was
unable to attend the conference and deliver his keynote
address due to the passing of his father.


3. (U) Several speakers, including OSCE/ODIHR Director
Ambassador Christian Strohal, pointed out that the growing
number of election monitoring groups has caused
inconsistencies in post-electoral reporting. Belgian
Minister of State and member of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly,
Francois-Xavier De Donnea, discussed the need to unify
election observation processes through utilization of
standards drawn from the Copenhagen Commitments to free and
fair elections, and consensus-building in post-electoral
declarations. He went on to stress the need for election
observation in both developing and established democracies
stating that in today's climate election observation is a
necessary condition of a healthy democratic state. De Donnea
also proposed developing a system that opens the channels of
communication between qualified election monitoring
organizations. Note: De Donnea is conducting a review of
election monitoring for Belgian CiO De Gucht. He has observed
several monitoring missions throughout the year. End Note.


4. (SBU) The main event of the conference was an unexpected
exchange between panel members and Russia and Belarus
representatives. Strohal set the tone early with his
statement that while progress in electoral processes is
witnessed in many Central and Western European nations, in
the East a backslide is occurring. Implicitly criticizing
Russia, Strohal said many participating Eastern European
states and their allies are committed to the rhetoric of
democracy, but not to its full implementation.


5. (SBU) Following up with a more direct speech, President
Emeritus of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Bruce George, a
UK MP, directly attacked the behavior of Russia and CIS
electoral missions. In his opinion Russia and its allies want
to control ODIHR and has significantly interfered with ODIHR
missions. George went on to share his views on the
backsliding democracy in Russia. Russian Ambassador Vadim
Lukov struck back, charging ODIHR with being slanted toward
western preconceptions before ever entering a mission and
calling it an organization "intolerant to outside criticism."
He also insisted that a double standard exists and that
ODIHR is "blind in one-eye." Lukov's remarks were quickly
rebuked by George, with Lukov walking out for most of the
rebuttal. At the end of the exchange Lukov said such
criticisms were reminiscent of the Cold War.


6. (U) Parliamentarian leadership was also scrutinized. Anne
Bourlond, a Belgian observer on several ODIHR missions
remarked that when parliamentarians arrive a day - or hours -
before commencement of an election and depart immediately
thereafter, it only damages the credibility of missions and
becomes a burden to monitors in the field. The Belgians told
us OSCEPA Secretary General, Spencer Oliver, was invited but
declined to attend, apparently in protest that George had
been invited without consulting the OSCEPA Copenhagen office.
George, for his part, chided critics who devalue ODIHR. The
Belgians stressed the need for improved dialogue and
coordination between OSCEPA monitors and ODIHR; this was
supported by most speakers.


7. (SBU) A Belarus representative took up the Russian stance
claiming it is ODIHR that lacks transparency. He concluded by
inviting all members of the conference to attend a review of
the Belarus elections to be held in Vienna by Belarus.
Strohal made it clear he was, and still is, very happy to
discuss observed discrepancies in electoral practices with
Belarus officials. In response to why ODIHR found it
necessary to enlist larger numbers of observers in Belarus
and other eastern European state elections, Strohal stated
past experiences have proved it necessary in certain
countries with history of corrupt elections citing previous
election results in Belarus. He also reaffirmed the original
ODIHR report on the Belarus elections contained only what was

BRUSSELS 00002543 002.2 OF 002


directly observed, without embellishment.
KOROLOGOS
.