IMPLICATIONS FOR OSCE'S HUMAN DIMENSION WITH A

C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000040 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/12/2020 TAGS: PHUM PREL OSCE SUBJECT: IMPLICATIONS FOR OSCE'S HUMAN DIMENSION WITH A 2010 SUMMIT Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Carol Fuller for reasons 4.(b)&(d) ¶1. This is an action request (please see para 11). ¶2. Summary and action request. During a briefing by the USOSCE Charge to the Vienna NATO Caucus February 10 on Kazakhstani FM Saudabayev,s meetings in Washington, allies expressed appreciation for the strong USG messages given. Reaction centered on how to deal with the OSCE requirement for a formal Review Conference to review implementation of all commitments ahead of an OSCE Summit. The USG priority on holding the Human Dimension (HD) portion of a Review conference in Kazakhstan has created confusion, and a difference of opinion, among allies. Although many recognize the value of some kind of HD review meeting inside Kazakhstan, there is no consensus on the value of holding both an HD Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw and a full review conference prior to a Summit. Delegations have been working hard to negotiate the 2010 meeting schedule and agenda for the HD and they worry that the USG priority for a review conference in Kazakhstan could complicate matters and undermine ongoing negotiations on the annual HDIM agenda. The situation is further confused by Kazakhstan's insistence on a Summit*which has not been approved yet by the 56 participating States (pS). We recommend holding a normal HDIM while also pushing for an abbreviated review conference including an HD component in Kazakhstan ahead of any summit (see action request para 11). End summary and action request. The Istanbul Precedent. . . -------------- ¶3. In explaining the USG position during the NATO Caucus, the Charge emphasized that the 1999 Summit had been preceded by a review conference, part of which occurred in Istanbul, which had had a positive impact on democratic developments inside Turkey. This visibility and access stimulated domestic civil society and enabled many NGOs to participate actively. In a separate meeting, the European Commission ambassador, who had attended the Istanbul Summit, told the Charge February 10 that the delegations had been &absolutely beleaguered8 by NGOs in Istanbul, interested in learning all about the OSCE and sharing their national concerns. Charge explained that a USG priority is to hold at least a portion of the review conference inside Kazakhstan itself. . . . May Not Be On Point 
 -------------- ¶4. Confusion ensued, with questions centered on three prinicipal concerns: - If, as the Kazakhstanis suggest, the planned summit is informal (for which there is no OSCE provision or precedent) would that negate the need both for a Ministerial or PC Decision to authorize it and to hold a review conference? - Should the Kazakhstanis agree to a comprehensive review conference that takes place at least in part in Kazakhstan, does the USG also want the two-week HDIM in Warsaw (currently scheduled for October)? - Will the USG also insist on a review conference that includes the other two dimensions, or will the ASRC in June (there is a draft decision to extend it from 2 to 3 days) and the Economic and Environmental Forum in October be sufficient? ¶5. Some ambassadors mentioned the obvious--that a full Summit had not even been agreed to yet. Although this was not done in Athens, it was noted that such a decision by Ministers could be done through a &silence procedure8 among capitals (Note: according to the OSCE rules of procedure a summit could also be agreed to by the Permanent Council). However, the Kazakhstanis are talking about an &Informal Summit,8--something undefined for which there is no OSCE precedent or provision. The Athens Ministerial Declaration on the Corfu Process (MC/DOC/1/09) noted the proposal for a Summit and tasked the Permanent Council &to engage in exploratory consultations to determine the extent of progress on the OSCE agenda to inform our decision.8 ¶6. The discussion then shifted to the value of a three-week review conference, such as that done in Istanbul, with delegations divided. Canada, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Norway all noted that a review conference in Astana was an &attractive8 idea. However, many delegations expressed concern that we are well into the negotiations over the HD agenda for the year, including the HDIM conference in Warsaw which the Kazakhstanis have promised to support, and that the insistence on a review conference may further complicate matters. Although the Kazakhstanis seemed to indicate that they could support both events, most delegations are doubtful that this would be possible logistically. The Chair of the HD Committee (Portugal) expressed concern that insistence on a review conference might shed doubt on the HDIM, which is already under attack by the Russians and its allies. In fact, Kazakhstan PermRep and CiO Abdrakhmanov told the Charge today that Russia had wanted to "kill" the HDIM and that Kazakhstan had refused, proving that it was indeed keeping its promise to protect ODIHR and the HDIM. ¶7. Delegations noted that the USG has not apparently made a priority of a review conference covering the other two dimensions prior to the Summit. Several stated that they believe the existing structures*the Annual Security Review Conference in June and the Economic and Environmental Forum later in the year*would be sufficient in those areas. ¶8. Background: OSCE procedures involving a Summit stipulate that no HDIM or Ministerial Council will be held in a Summit year. Instead, a 2-3 week review conference and a 1 week preparatory meeting will be convened to review implementation of commitments and prepare the Summit document. The Human Dimension Seminar, Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings, the Economic and Environmental Forum as well as the Annual Security Review Conference would be held as usual. ¶9. The most recent review conference ahead of the Istanbul summit was held in Vienna from September 20 ) October 1, 1999 (part 1) and in Istanbul from November 8-10, 1999 (part 2). There were altogether 14 working sessions on the human dimension, five on the econ/environmental dimension, four on pol-mil issues and five on OSCE activities, institutions, structures and instruments. NGOs were free to attend and contribute to working sessions on the human and econ/environmental dimensions, as well as for parts of the OSCE activities sessions dealing with lessons learned from field activities. A decision on the agenda and modalities of a review conference must be taken at least two months in advance. ¶10. Comment: The lack of a formal process concerning the Kazakhstani desire for a Summit has led to considerable confusion in all normal OSCE proceedings this year. Added to that is the pressure from the Russian Federation to reduce, not increase, activity in the human dimension area. A compromise solution which would allow the HDIM to continue in Warsaw and hold an abbreviated review conference in Astana could be a possible way forward. Canada has stated that &one of our aims is a normal year8*i.e., hold the line against possible reduction of OSCE principles, values and programs-and worried that trying to do too much might increase the problems we are already having. It is essential that we work with our like-minded allies to ensure not only a &normal8 year, but good outcomes. ¶11. Action Request: USOSCE requests Department concurrence to support holding a normal HDIM in 2010 while also and pushing for an abbreviated review conference including an HD component in Kazakhstan ahead of any kind of summit. FULLER