LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR NEXT YEAR'S CORFU

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000291

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/03/2019
TAGS: PREL RU OSCE
SUBJECT: LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR NEXT YEAR'S CORFU
DIALOGUE ON EUROPEAN SECURITY

Classified By: Casey Christensen for reasons 4.(b)&(d)


1. (SBU) Summary. At the final session of the Corfu
Process under the Greek Chairmanship participating States
sought to identify ways in which the European security
dialogue could advance next year under Kazakshstan's
leadership. Most comments welcomed the constructive tone of
the discussions so far and urged a focus on conflict
prevention, resolution and management, pointing to the
protracted conflicts where progress was necessary but not
sufficient to advance security in Europe. In their
interventions, PermReps also touched upon Kazakhstan's
planned summit, the Russian European Security Treaty draft
and a renewed focus on transnational threats. The Russians
embraced the Ministerial's results but also pointed to their
draft security treaty anticipating "substantial" replies to
it. End summary.

2. (C) The Greek OSCE Chairmanship convened December 17 a
final wrap up Corfu Process (CP) discussion among PermReps to
take stock following the Decision and Declaration on the CP
at the December 1-2 OSCE Ministerial and look ahead to the
next phase under Kazakhstan's Chairmanship starting in
January. Planned in some haste, the session was designed as
Greek Ambassador Marinaki told us earlier in the week to put
the right spin on the Ministerial and provide "some guidance
and direction" to the Kazakhs as to where they should plan on
taking the dialogue. It was also intended to clarify to
PermReps how the PC and FSC would work together to support
the CP discussions ahead.

3. (U) Opening presentations were made by Ambassador
Marinkaki for the CiO (and incoming FSC Chair),Ambassador
Cliff (UK) as FSC Chair and Ambassador Abdrakhmanov
(Kazakhstan) as the incoming Chair. Summing up what the CP
had accomplished thus far, Marinaki pointed to an improved
atmosphere and an increasingly common vocabulary about the
challenges facing European security. She saw the dialogue in
2010 tackling three thematic blocks ) security in Europe,
security of Europe and the OSCE itself ) and she felt it
should aim at more concrete proposals for remedies rather
than the more theoretical discussions which characterized the
first phase. Ambassador Cliff urged tight coordination
between the PC and FSC in supporting the CP and drawing from
the Athens Ministerial tasking to the FSC he focused on
three ways in which the CP and the FSC would interact:
addressing key security challenges including arms control and
CSBMs; exploring ways to improve implementation of the Code
of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security and
contributions to improving OSCE instruments in crisis
management. Ambassador Abdrakhmanov said Kazakhstan's plans
for a summit would be a key reference point in the work of
the CP, citing the Ministerial Decision's mandate to produce
an interim report by June 2010. He suggested that CP
sessions would be held around once a month and promised to
produce a notional calendar of meetings by early January. He
said he will look to the Secretariat to produce regular food
for thought papers and would plan on input from
nongovernmental experts and representatives from other
regional security organizations.

4. (SBU) In their interventions most of the PermReps recalled
that the point of the CP was to restore trust and confidence
as a means to improving European security. They repeated the
mantra that the dialogue should be anchored in the OSCE and
encompass all three dimensions. Sweden pressed for it to be
"Vienna-based but not Vienna-centric." A number of
delegations commented on the Kazakh desire to make the CP one
of the main topics of a possible summit next year with most
insisting that identifying substance had to proceed any firm
agreement on a summit. France, however, turned the argument
around and said that the firm prospect of a summit would
generate the necessary political will to ensure the CP
contained substance.

5. (SBU) Several PermReps commented on Russia's proposed
European Security Treaty, particularly Moscow's timing just
before the Ministerial for sharing a first draft. If our
task is to restore trust and confidence, the Dutch Ambassador
said, then this Treaty proposal won't do it, although it
could represent a step in a process leading to such an
eventual result. Others seemed a bit more dismissive; Canada
termed the treaty draft a "possible input" to a comprehensive
process. Russia reversed the priority of efforts, framing
the CP as a valuable platform for exchanging views on the
Treaty draft.

6. (SBU) Gaining a sense of the topics, rhythm and goals for
the CP next year was a key objective for many delegations.
They welcomed the Kazakh's intent to present a detailed work
plan early in the New Year, pointing out how important it
would be for planning purposes and the inclusion of
representatives from capitals. A majority felt the

USOSCE 00000291 002 OF 002


indicative list of topics included in the Ministerial
decision would serve as a good basis for progress. Many
echoed the Greeks' call for concrete proposals and ideas,
with some suggesting the June interim report might be
accompanied by at least several PC decisions ratifying
specific ideas and proposals.

7. (SBU) Several delegations touched on the importance of
the U.S. ) Russian cosponsored Ministerial decision on
transnational threats in the context of the CP. While they
felt the CP needed to grapple with traditional security
issues, including arms control and CSBMs, the Ambassadors saw
a focus also on transnational threats as adding a needed dose
of reality and relevance to the process. Belgium, for
example, stressed the immediate value of focusing on issues
such as terrorism, trafficking, climate change and energy
security. Canada highlighted the importance of OSCE work on
Afghanistan citing that country as a key source of a number
of transnational threats.

8. (SBU) Russian Ambassador Azimov hailed the successful
outcome of the Ministerial and said the CP Decision and
Declaration reinstated security dialogue as the main focus of
the OSCE's work and it has reconfirmed the importance of
comprehensive security along with inclusiveness and
transparency. The CP also demonstrated, he continued, that
the dream of a Europe whole, free and at peace is still
elusive. He felt the CP would give a special emphasis to
arms control and CSBMs, and provide a strong intellectual
impetus to strengthening the 1999 Vienna Document and the
CSBM Program of Action. He also saw the CP as a way to
improve OSCE's effectiveness, correct "distortions" in human
dimension activities and enhance the role other regional and
sub-regional security organizations could play.

9. (SBU) The U.S. intervention applauded the Ministerial
outcome and said we expected the CP to extend areas of
agreement and contribute to consensus building. We urged a
very concrete approach and suggested the first Kazakh Corfu
session, presumably in late January, focus on conflict
prevention and resolution and we cited our October proposal
on a possible new mechanism as something worthy of further
consideration. We also noted the expected interplay next
year between CP themes and ongoing OSCE work, noting
transnational threats, tolerance and energy security in
particular, and urged some thought be given as to how to
manage it. Finally, we laid out some expectations for the
interim report in June, suggesting that it should provide us
with a clear understanding on the root causes of insecurity
in Europe and a better perspective on effective ways to
address them. We concluded by positing that the CP could
represent a renaissance in the OSCE's work and goals.

10. Comment. Given the festive season and the sense of a
successful Ministerial in Athens a fortnight earlier
Ambassadors were in a good mood over prospects for the CP.
The bonhomie, however, was somewhat tinged by persistent
concerns about how and how fairly the Kazakhs will manage
their Chairmanship. Most delegations see the next six months
as another step in a long-term process that will confirm the
pertinence of existing institutions and commitments while
generating an enhanced understanding of differing
perspectives. Kazakhstan,s list of indicative topics for
this next step in the CP due in early January will be an
important benchmark in measuring expectations of how far and
how fast we may go in this process.
FULLER