OSCE LEGAL PERSONALITY, ROUND 4 - MINOR MOVEMENT; CIO TO

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000291 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS FOR L/EUR AND EUR/RPM E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OSCE KTIA SUBJECT: OSCE LEGAL PERSONALITY, ROUND 4 - MINOR MOVEMENT; CIO TO ANNOUNCE HOW TO PROCEED WITH RUSSIAN CHARTER REF: USOSCE 211 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: At the June 14-15 round, much of the initial discussion, as in Round 2, centered on whether the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should be granted privileges and immunities (P's and I's) and if so, what kind. Many states voiced reservations against doing so, with Canada, Germany and UK indicating inability to agree to P's and I's for the PA. There was some possible flexibility in including the PA or PA staff under the definition of Persons Performing Tasks for the OSCE, though the PA rep expressed reservations. There was renewed discussion on members of field operations and whether their P's and I's should differ from those granted to the Secretariat. The UK and others fought strongly for the principle that there be no distinction whatsoever. As in past rounds, despite considerable discussion on these and other issues, there was little discernible progress toward compromise, but rather a frustrating sense that the WG was developing more alternative language, rather than coming to closure. At the very end of the Friday session, the Russian del noted that it had circulated a draft charter and asked the Spanish CiO that it be discussed in the appropriate forum. It stressed that the GOR would not join consensus on the convention without a charter. A representative from the CiO said it was currently studying how best to proceed with the proposal. The next round is scheduled to take place July 5-6. End summary. -------------- Article 16 (new) -- Immunities for OSCE PA -------------- ¶2. (U) At the latest round, chaired by Dutch Ambassador Ida van Veldhuizen-Rothenbuecher and by Austrian MFA Legal representative Helmut Tichy, Denmark tabled a draft for a new Article 16 that would grant P's and I's to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, noting that its members were often sent abroad to do work for the OSCE, such as election monitoring, and thus needed protection in exercise of these functions. UK noted that Article 15 already granted P's and I's to Persons Performing Tasks for the OSCE, which should cover such functions as election monitoring, and that the government of Denmark also granted specific P's and I's to the OSCE PA, which was headquartered in Copenhagen. In light of this, he asked whether it was really necessary to grant the PA additional P's and I's. Germany contended that the mandate for the convention did not cover the PA. Canada supported the UK's position and reiterated that the PAs of various international organizations operating in Canada did not enjoy such P's and I's and stated that the headquarters agreement with Denmark should offer sufficient protection. ¶3. (U) OSCE PA representative Nothelle sharply took issue with these views and asserted that the PA was very much a part of the OSCE and that the headquarters agreement was not sufficient. Germany said its reading was that Article 15 did not cover the PA as this covered only "experts on mission." The UK disagreed, saying it covered people who were not formally part of the OSCE but who did work for it on a short-term basis (such as election monitoring). The real question was whether Article 15 failed to address the functional needs of the OSCE PA and if so, how they could be addressed. ¶4. (U) Dr. Tichy said that if it were decided that Article 15 was sufficient, there should be an explicit reference in it to the OSCE PA. Germany said P's and I's should only be granted in those clear cases where the members of the PA were going for a specific reason and for a specific time; if a PA member decided to go to another OSCE State on his own, s/he could in no way be considered an expert on mission and should enjoy no P's and I's. Nothelle agreed that in such a case, a person would not be covered. Russia said coverage by Article 15 would be problematic as those covered would be parliamentarians; as such, they represent not only the OSCE but also the parliaments of their respective countries. Tichy proposed amending Article 1(j) (Definitions) to expand "Persons Performing Tasks for the OSCE" to include members of the OSCE PA. When the text was circulated on Friday, Nothelle sharply objected, saying that the language made it sound as if the PA were not a full part of the OSCE. Armenia, as it had in previous rounds, agreed and noted its strong support for the PA. The Chair noted that this was an attempt at compromise given that there was little support for Article 16 and asked to discuss the proposed text in July. -------------- Article 14 bis -- Members of Field Operations -------------- - ¶5. (U) There was discussion on whether to expressly exclude field operations staff members from national service, after the UK - consistent with its view that there should be no distinctions between OSCE officials and field operations staff -- proposed inserting language taken from Article 14 (OSCE Officials). After a USOSCE 00000291 002 OF 003 confused discussion about draft evasion by host state nationals, US representative L/EUR Peter Olson noted that the discussion was moot, since in para 2, States are not obliged to grant their own nationals such P's and I's. Russia and Armenia were not convinced this was enough and pressed for the clause to be kept out. ¶6. (U) When discussion resumed on this issue on Friday, the U.S. said it was important to compare Article 14 and 14 bis and the P's and I's granted OSCE officials in general and those granted to field operations staff. He said that one of the very few cases where distinguishing between the P's and I's afforded OSCE officials and those afforded field operations staff was that P's and I's should be granted to members of field operations only in the countries where the operation was established and when traveling to other countries on official business. Thus someone who was working in Central Asia would not be granted immunity from arrest if he were vacationing in France, for example. Russia and Canada agreed. The UK, Germany and Sweden said, however, that it was important to treat all officials the same, whether from the Secretariat in Vienna or the field operations, otherwise there would be different levels of protection. The UK clarified its position saying that the limits in 14 bis should be in 14 as well. Belgium also said some language should be added to 14 that would limit its scope. The Chair asked Tichy to draft chapeau language to that effect. -------------- Social Security Schemes/Tax Exemption -------------- ¶7. (U) The Chair invited Dr. Gerhard Spiegel from the Austrian social security administration to discuss various plans, as these are mentioned in paras 4, 6-7 of Article 14 (OSCE Officials). He recommended that any references be simply kept to exempting OSCE officials from payment into the social security system of the host country or any other participating State, provided they are covered by the social security scheme of the OSCE. Following that, there was discussion of tax exemption for OSCE officials. -------------- -------------- Article 19 - Provisional Application of the Convention -------------- -------------- ¶8. (U) Tichy said the proposed language states that a State may declare at any time that it will apply the convention provisionally. After short discussion, agreement was reached. -------------- Russian Draft Charter Enters the Ring -------------- 9.(U) Just before the session ended, the Russian del noted that it had circulated a draft charter and asked the Spanish CiO that it be discussed in the appropriate forum. It stressed that the GOR would not support a convention without a charter. It asserted that, as the OSCE currently was merely a "club," legally, the GOR could not grant legal personality without also specifying the organization's structures. A representative from the CiO said it was currently studying how best to proceed with the proposal and said it would announce its decision soon. 10.(SBU) As in past rounds, despite considerable discussion, there was no discernible progress toward compromise, but rather a frustrating sense that the WG was proliferating alternative language, rather than coming to closure. The formal introduction of the Russian charter does not ease the sense that these negotiations could be the start of a long road to nowhere. Dutch Chair van Veldhuizen-Rothenbuecher told USOSCE on June 18 after the conclusion of the fourth round that she acknowledged the WG at this point was still drafting new language but that starting in July, she wanted to start pressing the group to make compromises. Her goal was to have a finished draft by October, in time for consideration by the Madrid MC. She also recognized that the Russian position on a charter could complicate negotiations on a convention. However, she contended that it would be best to not reject the Russian draft outright but to play along for now, otherwise it might provoke the RF to become obstructionist. Canadian Ambassador Gibson told us separately that she also personally believed the draft should not be shelved immediately but added that if the RF really wanted to negotiate a charter, it should get an MC decision, as was done last year for the convention WG. ¶11. (SBU) Comment: Many of the missions we have spoken with informally would seem to support this go-along position, despite our arguments that this could lead to a slippery slope. The real test will likely come in the fall, in the run-up to Madrid, when work on the convention nears completion and Russia increases pressure on other States. End comment. USOSCE 00000291 003 OF 003 FINLEY