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