Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USOSCE200
2009-09-11 10:45:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

CORFU PROCESS GETS UNDERWAY

Tags:  PREL OSCE 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO3310
OO RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0200/01 2541045
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 111045Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6581
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/SACEUR POLAD SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000200 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2013
TAGS: PREL OSCE
SUBJECT: CORFU PROCESS GETS UNDERWAY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000200

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2013
TAGS: PREL OSCE
SUBJECT: CORFU PROCESS GETS UNDERWAY


1. (C) Summary: At the first informal meeting of the OSCE's
Corfu Process on European security, PermReps reiterated their
vision of the process and touched on the role of
international law in the OSCE area. Most agreed that the
process needed to remain firmly rooted in the OSCE, encompass
the three OSCE security dimensions (hard security, human and
economic) and that current OSCE political commitments, which
need to be fully implemented, should be as binding as
international legal obligtions. Stepping back to Russia's
original position, the Russian Ambassador proposed a second
security track that would result in a binding European
security treaty, but no other delegation offered support.
The CiO's conclusions further emphasized that there is no
agreement on "spheres of influence," that OSCE commitments,
norms and principles remain valid, and that implementation of
them is the next step to address. Subsequent discussion at
the NATO caucus reflected broad satisfaction at the course of
the first meeting and the process now underway. End summary.


2. (SBU) Greek PermRep Marinaki as OSCE CiO opened the first
of ten informal meetings of OSCE PermReps on September 8 to
undertake a dialogue on the "Corfu Process (CP)," a
comprehensive review of European security. In her opening
remarks she reiterated that the goal of the discussions was
to take a fresh look at the principles and commitments that
underpin European security with the possible outcome of a
decision and/or declaration at the December 1-2 Athens
Ministerial. Director of the OSCE's Conflict Prevention
Center, Ambassador Herbert Salber, then made a brief
presentation that traced the arc of OSCE's three stages of
development and the build-up of the acquis of international
and OSCE commitments in the security, economic and human
dimensions. His reference to his personal experience at the
OSCE in 1982 when the situation seemed "hopeless" but
eventually turned into a success struck a positive chord that
delegations repeated throughout the session.


3. (SBU) Most delegations reaffirmed generally shared goals
that the CP should be comprehensive, cover all three
dimensions and remain anchored in the OSCE. They also mostly
agreed that the existing body of commitments, notably those
from the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris and the UN

Charter, should provide an adequate basis for enduring
European security if only they are properly and appropriately
implemented. Such implementation, they stressed, requires
adequate political will. The majority of delegations also
drew little distinction between international legal
commitments and political ommitments in terms of how binding
they are on participating States.


4. (SBU) Striking a discordant note was the lengthy
intervention by Russian Ambassador Azimov. While
constructive in tone and appreciative of the CP, he repeated
Moscow's initial position before Corfu that there are two
separate, parallel processes: the CP and another one leading
to a European security treaty. The CP, he agreed, should be
comprehensive and anchored in the OSCE, and it will be an
opportunity for constructive debate and dialogue, but it is
neither a substitute nor a replacement for the EST. The EST
discussions, on the other hand, should be focused on hard
security, result in legal binding commitments, and be
launched at an international meeting of heads of state and
regional security organizations that the Russians will host
in Moscow.


5. (SBU) Azimov saw the CP as a three-fold process: to
better understand concerns; to identify problems and lacunas
(gaps) in the European security architecture; and to suggest
concrete measures to restore trust and bridge gaps in
security (i.e., the OSCE process as an "international
intellectual laboratory for the Euro-Atlantic region" in
devising ideas and solutions). He went on to say that the
OSCE could
enrich the dialogue on similar topics in other forums and
that Russia supports the Greek list of topics provided the
agenda is flexible and open for the possible introduction of
other topics. He surprised many delegates by saying that
Russia looks forward to a decision at Athens on the CP for
2010 which sets the agenda, particularly with bench marks.


6. (SBU) The Kazakhstani ambassador thanked the Greeks and
Finns for their work as CiOs and praised Medvedev's proposal
for paving the way to additional ideas. He also argued that
an incomplete understanding of the specifics of a region led
to negative experiences like the one Salber described in his
presentation when he headed up the OSCE Office in Kazakhstan
and said he found that Kazakh expectations were disappointed
by what they perceived as constant criticism and being pushed
to do things they did not want. (Comment: This "specifics
of the region" argument is used by Kazakhstan and other CIS

USOSCE 00000200 002 OF 002


countries to justify the lack of enthusiasm and/or readiness
for "western-style democracy" in their countries.) The
Kazakh ambassador also said that new approaches and attitudes
are needed to have a structured dialogue on European security
- not just fact finding. His reference to a "window of
opportunity" quickly became a mantra for other delegates. He
said that as incoming CiO, Kazakhstan will invest to take the
dialogue further, but argued that delegations must come to
the Athens ministerial with an "extensive list of issues to
develop further."


7. (SBU) Speaking in her national capacity but with the
support of other EU members, the Swedish Ambassador said that
concrete steps are important and that the process must be
comprehensive, transparent, and anchored in the OSCE. She
claimed that the existing structures had served Europe
well and that the aim of the process should be an "OSCE plus"
not OSCE "a la carte." The OSCE has a unique and
comprehensive set of norms, but strict adherence to or
implementation of them was the most important principle.


8. (SBU) In her summing up, Greek Ambassador Marinaki
stressed that what she heard from the discussions was the
continued validity and vitality of all OSCE norms and
principles - "there is no need to redraft them."
Implementation of commitments is lagging, she said, due to
different interpretations and applications. All commitments,
either legal or political, have equal standing and should be
accorded equal value and weight in implementation. Such
implementation, she concluded, requires political will
stemming from common purposes and goals - with an emphasis on
"common." She went so far as to state - while the Russian
ambassador was out of the room and the chair was empty - that
there is no agreement on "spheres of influence." The next
step will be to ask what kind of effective mechanisms are
needed to secure common implementation of commitments.

Chewing the Fat at the NATO Caucus


9. (C) The next day, September 9, at the NATO Caucus, Allied
Ambassadors reviewed Tuesday,s discussions and the outlook
for the second CP session on September 15. Although a few
expressed dismay at the Russian intervention insisting on a
second track of discussions leading to a binding European
security treaty, most, including the representative of the
Greek CiO, dismissed Azimov,s remarks as dutifully following
President Medvedev,s call for a treaty. The Greek
representative, going a step further, pointed out that such
an alternative process as Azimov sketched out required
partners, and, as the CP discussions demonstrated,
partnership was only to be found within the CP framework.
Several Ambassadors asked about prevailing attitudes toward
Russia,s proposal for a meeting of the Secretaries-General
of five regional security organizations (NATO, CSTO, EU,
OSCE, CIS) but most others dismissed the concept while
mentioning that if there is a gathering it should also
include the Council of Europe, which would
emphasize the priority placed on the human dimension of
security in Europe. Many delegates commented on the fact
that the tone of the discussion had changed and that even
Russia seemed to be participating in its own "constructive"
way. Russia may have started the CP process, but the
delegates now need to "own" it and make make proactive,
concrete suggestions. The UK summed up the more positive
view of the process by positing that Russia has reason to
have a good outcome in Athens and really has no alternative
to the OSCE: "We should have confidence in our positive
agenda; if they don,t like it, it,s their problem, not
ours."
FULLER