Interview: A dialogue of common values and commitments

In this interview, Ambassador Yves Doutriaux, Head of the French Delegation to the OSCE, answers questions about the role of the CSCE/OSCE in the 15 years since the signing of the Charter of Paris, which the Summit produced, and about the future of the OSCE.

Q: The Charter of Paris was signed in the wake of the revolutions that swept through the nations behind the "Iron Curtain" and the collapse of communism. It is a very optimistic document which talks of relations "founded on respect and co-operation" and "a new era of democracy, peace and unity in Europe". Given the conflicts that erupted shortly thereafter, was it right to be so optimistic?

Fifteen years ago, the Charter of Paris marked the establishment of a new Europe of human rights, democracy and freedoms. How can one reproach the optimism and hope of the leaders and the peoples of this new post-Cold War Europe!

Nevertheless, the signatories of the Charter of Paris did not underestimate the difficulties of the transition to democracy. This is why there is an appeal to protect the identity of national minorities. This is why they refer to dangers threatening the stability of our societies (violations of territorial integrity, external pressure, terrorism, drugs...). Finally, this is why they created instruments such as the Conflict Prevention Centre or the Council of Senior Officials that could call supplementary meetings to debate urgent matters.

Q: How well, in your opinion, did the CSCE/OSCE and its participating States handle those conflicts of the early 1990s and their aftermath? What more, if anything, could have been done by the participating States to avert them?

In retrospect, one must admit that not everything that could have been done was done to prevent major conflicts in former Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus or in Moldova. It is helpful to mention that CSCE/OSCE decisions are made through the consensus of all participating States. Our Organization does not have the power to impose measures, in contrast to the UN Security Council that may appeal to Chapter VII of the UN Charter to sanction parties responsible for aggression.

We did learn the lessons of the bloody conflicts of the nineties: in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2001, the OSCE, in partnership with the European Union and NATO, reacted very fast to prevent an inter-ethnic conflict, first by quickly deploying observers in the sensitive regions. In other instances, OSCE missions continued to play an active role in reducing tensions. For example, recently the Mission to Moldova contributed to an agreement for the re-opening of schools in Transdniestria that use the Latin alphabet. The Mission to Georgia strengthened its presence in South Ossetia to contribute to the reduction of tensions between Ossetians and Georgians. In 2005, the Office in Bishkek assisted the Kyrgyz authorities after the uprisings that followed parliamentary elections.

Q: The signing of the Charter of Paris marked the start of the institutionalization process which transformed the CSCE into the OSCE. Fifteen years on, are the OSCE's institutions and field operations equipped to deal with the new as well as the more traditional challenges facing the Organization?

The Charter of Paris created the Summits, the annual Ministerial Councils, the Council of Senior Officials, later replaced by the Permanent Council, and the Parliamentary Assembly. Today, as part of the normal adaptation process of any organization, we are engaged in an exercise of strengthening our institutions and restructuring our Secretariat. We have to adapt in order to respond to the challenges that threaten our region - terrorism, human trafficking, anti-Semitism, racism, and organized crime, among others.

Q: What, in your view, are the CSCE/OSCE's most significant achievements since 1990? What remains to be done?

The OSCE is a unique forum for political dialogue among the 55 participating States who may bring up all the issues that concern them and that threaten our common security. Our dialogue is based on values and commitments that have been developed and refined since the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris: for example, the 1990 Copenhagen Document on elections or the 1991 Moscow Document on the human rights mechanism. The OSCE election observation experience is unique and serves as a reference throughout the world.

Equally, we adopted very significant politico-military documents: the 1999 Vienna Document on confidence-building measures, the Code of Conduct on the democratization of armed forces, the documents on small arms and light weapons and conventional munitions. At the Istanbul Summit in 1999, we signed an agreement on adaptation of the Treaty for Conventional Forces in Europe. Finally, we need to mention the effective implementation of the Open Skies Treaty.

We set up effective field missions, which are active in very diverse areas in the different dimensions of the OSCE (conflict prevention, destruction of munitions, the fight against corruption, police training, inter-ethnic dialogue, democratization and human rights).

What is it still to be done? A lot. Democratic governance that ensures full security is necessarily a slow and possibly bumpy process. In addition, all our participating States are confronted with new threats that the OSCE can help to counter. Our Organization offers a framework for exchanging good practices, sharing technical assistance, and promoting the implementation of international instruments.

Q: Interestingly, although the Charter was drafted at a time when terrorism did not figure as prominently on the international radar as it does today, it did nonetheless condemn all forms of terrorism. Could more have been done by the CSCE/OSCE to follow this up at the time to help combat terrorism, and if so, what?

The signatories of the Charter of Paris expressed their determination to eliminate terrorism through bilateral and multilateral co-operation. In 2003, the Action Against Terrorism Unit was set up within OSCE's Secretariat. The OSCE found 'niches' by promoting the implementation of international instruments for combating terrorism and developing and exchanging models of good practice in very specialized areas: container security, airport security, travel documents and the use of Internet by terrorist groups (a French proposal).

Q: Is the Charter of Paris - and indeed the Helsinki Final Act - which are both very much documents of their time, still relevant in the 21st century?

The Helsinki Final Act proved its strength in spite of the prevailing scepticism in 1975. The Charter of Paris laid the foundations of a new Europe more united and more democratic. The commitments to which we subscribed have never been more relevant than they are today. The Panel of Eminent Persons, set up to advise on the OSCE's reform, proposes rightly that the 55 participating States reaffirm their support for these fundamental commitments.

Q: The Charter also mentions co-operation with the other international actors in the fields of security democracy, human rights and so on. What role is the OSCE best suited to playing alongside them? Does it have unique capabilities that enable it do things that other international organizations cannot?

The OSCE is a unique regional organization because it groups together a very large number of participating States and because it has the competence to deal with all aspects of security. It set up field missions, institutions and mechanisms with different mandates, intended to support participating States in different areas (elections, legislative assistance, minority protection, media, the response to new threats...). As the only regional organization in the sense of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, the OSCE works complementarily with other regional organizations, such as the Council of Europe or the European Union. I'd like to point out that many OSCE participating States belong neither to the European Union nor to the Council of Europe.

In fact, there is plenty of work to do and our different regional organizations, each with its own different mandate, work in harmony to respond to the numerous threats that confront our countries.

Q: The last Summit of OSCE Heads of State or Government was in 1999. Does the lack of a Summit since then hamper the OSCE's effectiveness or credibility in any way?

It's useful to recall that the Foreign Ministers of our countries meet annually to define our priorities and strategies. In spite of the absence of a Summit since Istanbul in 1999, the OSCE has developed its activities along many lines: the adoption of documents and strategies to combat the threats of the 21st century or to promote good governance, the creation of an Action Against Terrorism Unit, the setting up of a Special Representative on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, commitments of the participating States to fight anti-Semitism and racism and the adoption and implementation of agreements on the destruction of munitions.

Starting from the recommendations of the Panel of Eminent Persons, the OSCE is today engaged in an exercise of strengthening its effectiveness to reinforce the confidence of all its participating States. A Summit will be welcome in due course to endorse all OSCE's achievements and to plan the future.

Q: Finally, what are the wishes of your country, France, for the forthcoming Ministerial Council in Ljubljana and for the future of the OSCE beyond that?

We hope it will be possible to re-state in Ljubljana all our commitments and to re-establish the confidence of all States in the Organization. We hope that the 55 States can agree beforehand on their percentage of financial contribution to OSCE's budget for the years ahead. The stakes are high. We trust the Slovenian Chairmanship of 2005 to lead us towards consensus at the coming Ministerial Council. My Delegation is actively supporting this process, in concert with our European Union partners. We have full confidence in the Belgian Chairmanship of 2006 to help us carry out the decisions that will be made in Ljubljana.