Report - COMMON PURPOSE Towards a More Effective OSCE

OSCE's parlamentariske Forsamling
(2. samling)
OSCE alm. del - Bilag%
Offentligt
COMMON PURPOSE
Towards a More Effective OSCE
Final Report and
Recommendations of the
Panel of Eminent Persons
On Strengthening the Effectiveness of the OSCE
27 June 2005
Offentligt
OSCE Alm.del - Bilag 96
OSCE's parlamentariske Forsamling 2004-05 (2. samling)
• 1•‘...)
•, .--.,-"rfl ;r
,... f• ,.-blii.-.,- ;i.,,.11,11
, , ,.;$ ;:•-........ , k..,. .!. . It
?,:, ' ':.1 ,,:a• 4
1! , • j,.. 1, .
: .,i..-;
...f.
1i--. -'
v.- ' ""
1.. ,..., ...
COMMON PURPOSE
Towards a More Effective OSCE
Final Report and
Recommendations of the
Panel of Eminent Persons
On Strengthening the Effectiveness of the OSCE
27 June 2005
Contents
Introduction: A Mandate for Change 5
1 The OSCE's Position, Role, and Approach 7
1.1 Adapting to a new security paradigm 7
1.2 Strengthening unity of purpose and effectiveness 8
1.3 Relations with other international organisations and partners 10
1.4 Comparative advantages and focus 11
2 Improving Comprehensive, Common and Co-operative Security 13
2.1 New threats and challenges —
the need for a cross-dimensional perspective 13
2.2 The Politico-Military Dimension 14
2.3 The Economic and Environmental Dimension 15
2.4 The Human Dimension 16
3 The Structural Response 19
3.1 Strengthening the OSCE's identity and profile 19
3.2 Improving consultative and decision-making processes 20
3.3 Clarifying the roles of the Chairman-in-Office
and Secretary General 22
3.4 Enhancing field operations 23
3.5 Strengthening operational capacities 25
Annex I: Acknowledgements 27
The Panel 27
Panel Meetings 28
Panel Support 29
Panel Guests 30
AnnexII: The Panel's Mandate 32
NOTE: Additional information on specific OSCE themes, provided in the explanatory
boxes, does not reflect any opinions or recommendations from the Panel or individual
Panellists.
Introduction: A Mandate for Change
E
urope is going through a dynamic period of transition. It has experienced
significant political and social changes. Much of what has been agreed since
1975 in Helsinki has been achieved. There has been substantial progress
on the path of establishing democratic institutions and market economies. The
Cold War division lines have disappeared. The OSCE has contributed to this
progress.
New threats to international security and stability have emerged. Different his-
toric backgrounds, the uneven pace of integration, economic growth and dem-
ocratic development have led to the emergence of new problems in achieving
comprehensive security.
Although the OSCE's ability to adjust in a flexible manner to the changing
security environment is generally appreciated, its relevance, effectiveness and
strategic orientation have been questioned. In 2004, most members of the Com-
monwealth of Independent States issued the Moscow Declaration and then the
Astana Appeal to OSCE partners with a number of criticisms and suggestions
for reforming the OSCE.
The underlying concern is whether the OSCE is living up to the expectations
of building a Europe "whole and free", or whether new dividing lines are being
drawn. Is the OSCE losingits focus and its relevance? Has it been applying double
standards? Is there an imbalance between the dimensions and an exaggerated
focus on countries East of Vienna? Does a real political will exist to make use of
the Organization to solve problems related to the region's security issues? Such
questions are being asked at the highest level.
Several Chairmanships have given reform a high priority. At the Ministe-
rial Council in Sofia in December 2004, OSCE Foreign Ministers expressed
their awareness of the need for a broad and thorough debate on reviewing and
strengthening the role of the OSCE. They expressed the belief that the OSCE
could be more effective, and therefore decided to establish a Panel of Eminent
Persons on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the OSCE. This was followed up
by the Slovenian Chairmanship through the appointment of the signatories.
Common Purpose 5
The mandate of the Panel is to give new impetus to political dialogue and pro-
vide strategic vision for the OSCE in the 21st century, to review the effectiveness
of the Organization, its bodies and structures, and to provide recommendations
on measures to effectively meet the challenges ahead.
The Panel has not reviewed global threats and challenges. This has already
been comprehensively addressed, in the OSCE context, through the OSCE Strat-
egy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the Twenty-First Century.
The Panel briefly assessed the strategic role and position of the OSCE in the
European security network, considered how this role can be more clearly de-
fined and further strengthened, and provided recommendations on how this
could be done.
These recommendations are designed to contribute to the High Level OSCE
Consultations, to strengthen the long-term effectiveness of the Organization, for
the benefit of improving security through co-operation in the OSCE area. The
Panel trusts that the participating States will find its recommendations useful
and that the outcome will contribute to revitalising the Organization.
Nikolay Afanasievsky/Vladimir Shustov
Hans van den Broek
Wilhelm Hdynck
Kuanysh Sultanov
Knut Vollebaek
Richard Williamson
Miomir 2tdul
6 Common Purpose
1 I The OSCE's Position, Role,
and Approach
1.1 Adapting to a new securityparadigm
1. The OSCE is an integral part of "European" security, including both
the Transatlantic and Eurasian dimensions. In the network of Euro-
pean security organisations it is distinguishable by its broad member-
ship, its comprehensive mandate and its activities in its field operations.
The OSCE is the only regional Organization for co-operative security
issues in which States from Vancouver to Vladivostok participate on
equal terms. The OSCE's comprehensive approach to security is based
on high-level political dialogue and a broad range of flexible institu-
tions and instruments. The OSCE has a comprehensive approach to
security, clearly expressed in a series of agreements and supported by
instruments in all dimensions of security, to which all members have
agreed. This combination has made the OSCE a useful service provider
in all fields.
2. The old dividing lines of the Cold War no longer exist. As a conse-
quence, the role of the OSCE, like other security organisations, is be-
ing adapted to this new security paradigm. While the OSCE, during
the last 15 years, has continued to prove its value through its ability to
respond adequately to new threats to European security, the Organi-
zation's agenda and its set of operational tools needs further improve-
ment.
3. A rapidly evolving European and Eurasian landscape requires an or-
ganisation like the OSCE to play a constructive role in preventing the
emergence of new dividing lines. Recent events show the need for the
Common Purpose 7
OSCE to manage and resolve crises, prevent conflict, and strengthen
comprehensive security, regional co-operation and foster peace. Un-
resolved conflicts in the OSCE area are a concern to all participating
States. States in which official institutions and their capacity to gov-
ern are still developing can benefit from OSCE assistance. Terrorism,
trafficking (in particular in human beings), corruption and organised
crime all profit from instability, which in turn has an impact on the se-
curity of all participating States.
Unresolved conflicts
In several parts of the OSCE region,there are unresolved conflicts{the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
the Georgian-Ossetian conflict,the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict and the Moldova-Transdniestrian
conflict) where major fighting took place inthe late 1980s and/or the first half of the 1990s. The
hostilities have all but ceased, although no long-lasting solutionhas been reached between the"'
parties concerned. The OSCE has been called onto assist infinding peacefulsolutions, a specific
task which varies from issuetoissue, according to the individualmandates agreed by the relevant
decision-making bodies of the OSCE.
4. The OSCE's consensus-based decision-making and co-operative ap-
proach make it a forum where all participants come together with an
equal voice. It integrates all States with an interest and stake in Euro-
pean security. In that respect, it is a necessary, yet underused forum for
comprehensive political dialogue on issues with an impact on security
and co-operation across a vast area.
5. As a privileged member of the OSCE family, the Parliamentary Assem-
bly can make a specific contribution. In particular it can play an im-
portant role in raising awareness of OSCE principles and commitments
notably in national parliaments of participating States.
6. The relationship with NGOs is important and should be further devel-
oped. NGOs can provide useful information and be valuable partners
in processes of broad consultations.
1.2 Strengthening unity ofpurpose and effectiveness
7. OSCE values and commitments are the bedrock on which the Org-
anization stands. They constitute the principles and standards on the
basis of which States participate in the OSCE. Therefore the most im-
portant step towards a stronger and more relevant OSCE is a firm re-
commitment to the standards and political commitments its leaders
have signed up to since 1975. All OSCE commitments, without excep-
tion, apply equally to all participating States. Any action undertaken in
accordance with one such commitment should be consistent with all
8 Common Purpose
other commitments. Raising awareness of OSCE commitments, and
their full implementation by all participating States will enhance the
profile of the Organization and the understanding of its relevance.
The OSCE at a glance
The OSCE is an "Organization" onlysince
1 January 1995, and it retains the underlying
framework of the earlier "Conference" on Secu-
rity and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which .
first metin:1973. The CSCE is best known for the
Helsinki Final Act signed on1 August≥1975, and
the so-called "Helsinki process" that played an
important role in inspiring human rights activists
and fostering detente in•the 1970sand 80s.
The CSCE was conceived at the height of the
Cold War as a diploMatic mechanism to bridge
the positions of the three blocs NATO, the War-
saw Pact and the non-aligned or neutral statea.
Its membership was broad in order to include all
States with a stake and interest in European se-
curity: from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Follow-
ing the end of the Cold War, the CSCE was trans-
formed into an organisation to assist States in
the process of post-communist transition to'de-
mocracy and market economy and to help all
Participating States to address new threats and
challenges to security.
The so-called "three dimensions" — politico- •
military, economic & environmental, and human
-- (corresponding to the."three baskets" of the
CSCE's Helsinki Final Act) still define the OSCE's
unique and comprehensive approach to security.
Similarly, the processes of dialogue, negotiation
and co-operation, based upon consensusjemain
as the Organization's mode of decision-taking
and its operational practice. •
An active partner in the network of
European security organisations and a regional
organiSation under the United Nations Charter,
the OSCE can claim a leadrole in addressing
issues within the four phases of the ".conflict
cycle" — early warning, conflict prevention, crisis
management and post-conflict rehabilitation
affecting any of its States. The main political
arenas of the OSCE are the Permanent Council
(ambassadors in Vienna), the Ministerial Council
and Summits. The Forum for Security Co-
operation in Vienna oversees the mi►itary section
of the first dimension.
8. To increase the effectiveness of the OSCE, the Organization needs to
create a stronger sense of common purpose among its participants, to
make States feel that they have a stake in the Organization and that
they are treated as equals. Such a development could be realised along
the following lines:
a) While retaining its comprehensive approach to security the OSCE
should focus its work on those areas where it has comparative ad-
vantages and can add value;
b) Strengthening trust and confidence between participating States as
well as between groups of States is of crucial importance. The OSCE
should play its role as an organisation for equal and even-handed co-
operation and assistance in maintaining security and stability, and
all OSCE instruments should be applied in this spirit;
c) Identifying agendas, priorities and topics consistent with fostering
compliance with OSCE commitments;
d) The work of the Secretariat, Institutions and field operations of the
Organization must be coherent and consistent with priorities of the
OSCE set by the participating States so that the Organization has a
common focus and external profile;
e) The basic priorities and action plans must have a long-term
Common Purpose 9
perspective and be in line with the evolving security environment;
f) A stronger focus and coherence of action would shape a stronger
OSCE identity with a common perception of the OSCE's goals, both
internally as well as for the general public;
g) Stronger political leadership and management of the Secretariat,
Institutions and field operations of the Organization should contrib-
ute to the desired coherence and long-term relevance and applicabil-
ity of basic principles, while the different Institutions should retain
their ability to make independent evaluations and take programmat-
ic initiatives in accordance with their respective mandates.
1.3 Relations with other international organisations andpartners
9. The OSCE's role as a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the
United Nations Charter has been influenced by the enlargement of the
European Union, NATO and the Council of Europe. This has led to
an increasing overlap in memberships, mandates and capacities. More-
over, the role of the OSCE and how it is perceived vary in the different
participating States, inter cilia depending on their relationship to these
other international organisations.
10. Managed well and taking into account the legitimate interests of all
participating States, co-operation and co-ordination with other actors
strengthen common and comprehensive security within the OSCE
area. The main responsibility lies with participating States to en-
sure that policy planning looks at European security organisations in
concert and not in isolation. The Panel recommends that:
a) The relationship with the UN should be further developed, taking
into account the ongoing discussions on the reform of the UN to
strengthen the complementarity between the UN and regional ar-
rangements, for example in the regional implementation of global
instruments, in conflict prevention and peace-building;
b) Pragmatic and even-handed co-operation should be enhanced be-
tween the OSCE and other regional and sub-regional organisations
especially in relation to crisis management, setting and implementa-
tion of norms, and operational activities;
c) On the basis of the Declaration on Co-operation endorsed in War-
saw on 17 May 2005 between the OSCE and the Council of Eu-
rope, further practical work should be carried out to fully realise the
potential of this co-operative relationship;
d) Being an independent Organization with its distinctive mandate,
10 Common Purpose
relations between the OSCE and other international organisations
in the European security network should focus on what the OSCE
does best and where its added value lies;
e) The OSCE's role and comparative advantages should be regularly
and systematically assessed as part of the agenda of the Ministerial
Council and the Permanent Council.
11. Since security in the OSCE area is affected by international develop-
ments, particularly in adjacent areas, the OSCE has a clear self-inter-
est in sharing its security-related expertise with its neighbours. The
OSCE should remain prepared to consider invitations to contribute as
appropriate to the development of security and democracy, particular-
ly in Partners for Co-operation and neighbouring States, and in special
cases outside the OSCE area.
OSCE's counter-terrorism activities
The OSCE has actively supported thework ofthe United Nationsand its specialised bodies in
the global effort against terrorism. ThiS support is most clearly reflected in the OSCE's work on
the ratification and implementation of the 12 Universal Anti-Terrorismi trumelits. The OSCE
facilitates capacity-building assistance.In January 2004, the OSCE and International CivilAviation
Organization (ICAO) hosted an unprecedented international crosed-door, law enforcementworkshop
on countering the threat of$houlder-fired missiles (MANPADs)to civil aviation. In May 2005, the
OSCE, in co-operation with the UNInter-regional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI),
organised another such event,this time on suicide terrorism.
1.4 Comparative advantages andfocus
12. Making use of its comparative advantages, the OSCE should bear in
mind its co-operative approach and should help States, at their request
and invitation, to help themselves in the agreed areas. Assistance in
capacity-building, with respect to implementing OSCE commitments
should therefore be a main aim of operational activities.
13. In some OSCE priority areas, such as police training, rule of law and
the fight against trafficking in human beings, the OSCE could take a
leading role.
OSCE police-related activities
The Organization'sinvolvementinpolice activities first began in Croatia during 1998 with advisory
and monitoring tasks.This developed into advising on police reform over the whole country.The
OSCE's role in the training of police started in 1999 with the Kosovo Police Service School-programme,
which has graduated some 7,000 police officers. OSCE then assisted in police-related activities
in ethnically mixed areas of southern Serbia, later extended to both the republics of Serbia and
Montenegro and introduced to thiformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In 2003,the Strategic
Police Matters Unitlaunched its first full-scale, long-term programme to assistthe police force in a
participating State, Kyrgyzstan.
Common Purpose 11
14. The OSCE is a norm-setter in areas covered by its comprehensive man-
date. When requested, the OSCE should assist participating States to
fulfil OSCE commitments. If asked, it could also encourage and assist
within its competence participating States to adopt and implement the
norms and standards set by other international organisations.
15. Under the prevailing circumstances and taking into account that the
priorities for OSCE co-operation with participating States may vary
from country to country, the Panel believes that the OSCE should give
priority to:
a) Enhancing political dialogue;
b) Early warning and conflict prevention;
c) Post-conflict rehabilitation including restorative justice and recon-
ciliation;
d) Arms control and confidence- and security-building measures;
e) The fight against terrorism, extremism and organised crime;
f) Promotion of police training, border management, the rule of law
and democratic control of armed forces;
g) Encouraging regional economic co-operation;
h) Promotion of tolerance and non-discrimination, including respect
for the rights of persons belonging to national minorities and pro-
tection of freedom of the media;
i) Election observation and the follow-up of recommendations;
j) Institution-building and the promotion of good governance;
k) The fight against trafficking in human beings, drugs and weapons.
12 Common Purpose
Improving Comprehensive,
Common and Co-operative
Security
2.1 New threats and challenges — the needfor a cross-dimensional
perspective
16. Since the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the CSCE/OSCE's commitments
and activities have traditionally been divided into three baskets, or di-
mensions. This has been a convenient way to cluster issues into subject
areas: the politico-military, economic and environmental, and human
dimensions.
17. The CSCE/OSCE early on recognised that security is comprehensive
and indivisible and that the dimensions are inter-linked. As UN Sec-
retary-General Kofi Annan writes in his report In largerfreedom, "not
only are development, security and human rights all imperative; they
also reinforce each other".
18. The OSCE's comprehensive approach to security, plus its comprehen-
sive mandate, are two of its hallmarks and greatest strengths. Globali-
sation, increasing inter-dependence and the emergence of new threats
to security in the OSCE region (including from non-state actors) have
led to a further blurring of lines between dimensions and make a nar-
row one-dimensional approach less relevant. A cross-dimensional per-
spective is therefore needed more than ever, both in terms of a concep-
tual approach and in leading to co-ordinated, pragmatic activities. Such
an approach underlines the crucial importance of all three dimensions
Common Purpose 13
in the context of comprehensive security. The OSCE is well-equipped
and well-positioned to take such a cross-dimensional approach and put
it into practice. Furthermore, effective multilateralism can enable col-
lective action to tackle trans-national and cross-sector challenges. The
Panel therefore recommends:
a) High-level, high-profile meetings on thematic issues could be con-
vened as necessary to focus attention on matters of relevance to all
participating States. For example, decisions on the venue of future
conferences on tolerance and non-discrimination should be decided
taking into account the geographical diversity of States with multi-
ethnic and multi-religious populations;
b) Cross-dimensional approaches should be reflected in all aspects of
OSCE activities, including meetings like the Economic Forum, the
budget, Programme Outline and public relations material;
c) In view of the specific structural and institutional set-up of the
OSCE, a cross-dimensional approach implies the need for increased
intra-Organizational co-ordination, particularly in relation to com-
bating new threats to security;
d) Cross-dimensional elements of strategies and projects should be
strengthened by close co-operation with other regional and sub-re-
gional organisations that offer complementary resources, capabili-
ties and expertise.
The OSCE budget cycle
The Unified Budget ofthe OSCEis financed by contributions from the participating States.The
..•approved budgetfor 2005 amounts to 168.6 million Et1fQS. In the 20.Q5 budget, the allocation for the
Secretariat and the Institutions represents 31per cent of the total resources,whereas 69 per cent
is allocatedto field operations. The budget process is programmatic.The main political priorities for
the following year's budget are discussed inthe Programme Outline. The Advisory Committee on
Management and Finance deals with budgetary matters. This body prepares budgetdecisions for
approval by the Permanent Council. In addition to the resourcesin theUnified Budget, participating
States may also donate extra-budgetary contributions to various projects. In 2004, extra-.budgetary
income amountedto 21.4 millionEuros.
2.2 The PoliticoMilitary Dimension
19. The OSCE has a well-earned reputation for dealing with the politico-
military aspects ofsecurity. The OSCE's infrastructure and work in dis-
armament, arms control and confidence- and security-building meas-
ures (CSBMs) play an important role in fostering security in Europe
and are an integral element of the OSCE's comprehensive approach to
security.
14 Common Purpose
20. As the OSCE's work in the politico-military dimension was geared to-
wards the military balances and strategic priorities of the 1980s and
early 1990s, it should be brought up to date to deal with the challenges
identified in the OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Sta-
bility in the Twenty-First Century.
21. Other fundamental documents dealing with the political-military di-
mension, like certain elements of Chapter III of the 1992 Helsinki Doc-
ument and the 1999 Vienna Document should be reviewed and brought
up to date where necessary.
22. The OSCE could share its expertise in this dimension with others fac-
ing similar threats, particularly at the sub-regional level. In turn, it
could if advantageous draw on the expertise and resources of others to
make the most effective use of available capabilities.
2.3 The Economic and Environmental Dimension
23. The Strategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimen-
sion offers a good opportunity for addressing common economic and
environmental challenges to security in the OSCE area. The OSCE will
never have the means and resources to be a major donor. Its niche is in
addressing economic and environmental aspects of security in a holis-
tic, cross-dimensional way that takes into account the comprehensive
nature ofsecurity as a way of promoting co-operation and conflict pre-
vention.
a) The OSCE should strengthen its capacities including those on the
ground to support and help in meeting local challenges by mobi-
lising international resources and expertise possessed, for instance,
by the World Bank, European Union, UN Development Program
(UNDP), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD), NGOs and others;
b) Such an approach would highlight the OSCE's possibilities as a co-
operative partner,anditwouldstrengthenthelinkbetween economic
development, inter-state economic co-operation, good governance
and democratisation. By linking international actors with significant
resources to host countries with specific needs, the OSCE could
promote a programmatic approach without unnecessarily (and
unrealistically) trying to develop and manage large-scale projects on
its own;
Common Purpose 15
c) The OSCE should promote sub-regional co-operation, for example
in south-eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia;
d) Activities in the economic and environmental dimension should re-
flect the OSCE's role as a comprehensive security organisation. A
good example is the Environment and Security Initiative, where the
OSCE adds value regarding the security aspect, whereas the UNDP
incorporates the development aspect and the UN Environment Pro-
gram (UNEP) the environmental aspect;
e) Environmental problems have important security aspects in fields
that the OSCE could address, inter alia the growing problem of en-
vironmental refugees and internally displaced persons;
f) Public-private partnership is crucial to achieve environmentallysus-
tainable growth. The OSCE should promote the UN's Global Com-
pact Initiative and similar initiatives.
2.4 The Human Dimension
24. In the human dimension, encompassing human rights (including na-
tional minority rights), the rule of law, and democracy, the OSCE has
developed comprehensive standards and commitments. OSCE partici-
pating States have agreed, for example in the 1991 Moscow Document,
that commitments undertaken in the human dimension are matters
of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not
belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned. The
OSCE has a progressive approach to protecting the dignity of the indi-
vidual. Human security in general, and the security of the individual in
particular, are seen as the individual and collective responsibility of all
participating States. Human rights and security are inseparable.
a) Monitoring of the implementation of human dimension standards
is a particularly challenging and in many situations highly sensi-
tive task. To encourage equal treatment and improve transparency,
OSCE monitoring should be done in an unbiased and more stand-
ardised way.
b) The OSCE/ODIHR's work on electoral monitoring and assistance
is an area where the OSCE has extensive experience and expertise
and is widely known. It is important to improve and further develop
a high OSCE profile on this issue to help participating States upon
their request to implement the commitments they have already
undertaken and to consider new commitments which correspond
to evolving election issues, such as the introduction of new
technologies.
16 Common Purpose
c) Special attention should be devoted to election monitoringstandards
based on experience acquired. Criteria and methodology that ensure
objectiveness, transparency and professionalism should be further
developed and an approach taken that guarantees equal treatment of
all participating States. The existing handbook on election monitor-
ing and other election mechanisms and practices should be periodi-
cally updated with the active involvement of election practitioners
from various election monitoring bodies;
d) Participating States concerned and ODIHR should be encouraged to
pay more attention to post-election follow-up through dialogue and
practical co-operative support. In addition, after consultation with
the State concerned, ODIHR should report to the Permanent Coun-
cil (PC) on election follow-up.
e) The OSCE should build on its work on tolerance and non-discrim-
ination, and promote this theme across its full range of activities.
ODIHR and other Institutions should make effective use of the data,
information and existing analytical capacities of other international
organisations and research institutes.
f) The OSCE should restructure the role currently played by the three
Personal Representatives on tolerance and non-discrimination, in-
corporating the work of the Personal Representatives into the struc-
ture of the ODIHR in a suitable way.
25. If a Human Dimension Committee is established (see para. 32), the
Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) could be reduced
to a maximum of five days. Upon invitation, the HDIM could be held
outside Warsaw every second year in order to raise its profile and
increase the sense of ownership among participating States.
Common Purpose 17
3 ( The Structural Response
26. In order to improve its effectiveness, the OSCE requires structural re-
form. A number of changes are necessary to address the issue of the
Organization's profile and identity, its management and leadership, its
decision-making processes, how its field operations are run, and its op-
erational capabilities.
3.1 Strengthening the OSCE's identity and profile
27. The Panel believes it is important to raise the awareness of the OSCE in
the participating States.
28. The OSCE's development from a conference to a full-fledged interna-
tional organisation must now be completed, finally making "participat-
ing States" into "member States".
29. The OSCE's standing as an international organisation is handicapped
by its lack of a legal personality. The lack of a clear status also affects
OSCE personnel when stationed in crisis areas without the protection
that diplomatic recognition would give them.
30. The Panel therefore recommends that:
a) Participating States should devise a concise Statute or Charter of the
OSCE containing its basic goals, principles and commitments, as
well as the structure of its main decision-making bodies. This would
help the OSCE to become a full-scale regional organisation;
b) Participating States agree on a convention recognising the OSCE's
legal capacity and granting privileges and immunities to the OSCE
Common Purpose 19
and its officials. Such a convention would not diminish in any way
the politically binding character of OSCE commitments.
c) The OSCE's profile among other international organisations would
be raised by focusing more clearly on a limited range of priorities,
giving a more public and long-term face to its leadership, and en-
couraging a stronger sense of ownership among its participants.
d) To make itself more accessible the OSCE should provide to the pub-
lic a better understanding of what is happening within the OSCE.
More efforts should be made to publicise and explain the impor-
tant work of the field operations. Admission of the press or public to
meetings of the Permanent Council should be considered more of-
ten. Deepening further the engagement with NGOs would also help
to spread information about the OSCE's contributions to compre-
hensive security.
e) A long-term strategic perspective based on established OSCE strat-
egies would be useful in order to improve planning and continuity
and reduce the chance of priorities changing annually. This could be
enhanced by giving the Secretary General a stronger role in ensur-
ing consistency and continuity of OSCE priorities.
f) The Permanent Council should play a leading role in adopting politi-
cal priorities and planning activities of the Organization in accord-
ance with Ministerial Council decisions and translating them into
budget programmes.
3.2 Improving consultative and decision-makingprocesses
31. The OSCE should actively use its potential as a forum for equal, mean-
ingful and high-level political dialogue among all participating States.
32. One of the OSCE's strengths is its inclusiveness. This should be fully
reflected in its consultative and decision-making bodies. In order to
make these bodies more inclusive, inter-active and transparent, involv-
ing all participating States more actively and effectively, the Panel rec-
ommends:
a) To introduce a committee structure made up of three pillars cor-
responding to the traditional dimensions: a Security Committee, a
Human Dimension Committee and an Economic and Environmen-
tal Committee. Such a Committee structure, sub-ordinate to the
Permanent Council, would allow for more open exchanges, would
focus the agenda of the Permanent Council and would raise its pro-
file as a forum for political dialogue and decision-making.
20 Common Purpose
b) The Panel was divided on whether the actual tasks and functions
of the Forum for Security Co-operation (FSC) could be fulfilled by
the new Security Committee. One view was that the FSC should be
transformed into the new Security Committee. The other view was
that the FSC should be maintained with its autonomous status, ful-
filling its 1992 mandate with its agenda updated. The latter position
would mean that the new Security Committee would not substitute
for the FSC but would only fulfil the non-military aspects of the po-
litico-military dimension, not covered by the FSC.
33. The Panel further recommends:
a) To broaden the ownership of the participatory process by increas-
ing the number of participating States involved in chairing commit-
tees;
b) That the OSCE should codify, revise and bring up to date its rules of
procedure;
c) That consensus should be preserved as the rule for OSCE decision-
making;
d) That in order to prevent protracted debates over senior appoint-
ments, participating States with candidates should not abuse the
consensus rule by unilaterally blocking consensus;
e) That the countries that are blocking consensus should be identified;
f) That more effective use should be made of informal discussions, as a
part of the decision-making process;
g) That ambassadors-only discussions could be held in Vienna from
time to time, to encourage a more open exchange of views on sensi-
tive matters.
34. For a number of years, Ministerial Council meetings have been par-
ticularly difficult. The meetings (including the preparations thereof)
are perceived to have been overloaded with reports and decisions that
could have been dealt with by the Permanent Council. The Panel rec-
ommends:
a) Reviewing the preparations for the Ministerial Council and the tra-
ditional form of the Ministerial Council decisions. Concentrating
the official results in an agreed political communique might help to
regain the attention of the public for this central event in the OSCE's
yearly work cycle.
Common Purpose 21
3.3 Clarifying the roles of the Chairman-in-Office and Secretary General
35. In addressing the division of labour between the Chairman-in-Office
and the Secretary General, the Panel believes that it is necessary to
have a more precise definition of roles in order to increase effectiveness
and provide the OSCE with a clearer identity.
36. The role of the Chairman-in-Office should be to lead the political,
rather than the operational activities of the Organization. The Chair-
man-in-Office's most important tasks, to be performed personally or
through his/her representative, should continue to include:
a) Providing the executive political leadership of the Organization;
b) Preparing the Ministerial Council;
c) Preparing draft decisions and presiding over the discussions of the
Permanent Council;
d) Introducing new political initiatives and proposals for political prior-
ities for the Organization, to be submitted to the Permanent Coun-
cil;
e) Assisting the participating States in building consensus.
37. Building on the Sofia Ministerial Council decision on the Role of the
Secretary General (MC.DEC/15/04), the Panel recommends that the
role of the Secretary General should be further enhanced so as to
enable him/her to:
a) Be a public face of the Organization, to be able to communicate a
long-term, coherent identity of the OSCE and its operations;
b) Play a greater role in identifying potential threats to regional securi-
ty and bring them, after consultation with the Chairman-in-Office,
to the attention of participating States;
c) Be more actively involved in developing the operational aspects of
the OSCE's priorities;
d) Play a more active role in the operational management of field opera-
tions. As the development of events requires, the Secretary General
should report to the Permanent Council on field operation-related
activities;
e) Take the lead on OSCE's operational engagement in crisis situa-
tions;
f) Play a greater role in planning, by proposing multi-year objectives
(including a budget perspective);
22 Common Purpose
g) Play a more active role in co-ordinating OSCE activities, including
through the hosting of at least one meeting a year with heads of In-
stitutions;
h) Be the central point of contact for other international organisations
and NGOs for all aspects of operational issues relevant beyond the
mandate of individual OSCE structures and Institutions.
38. The enhanced and more active role for the Secretary General will
entail:
a) A continuous exchange of information and close co-operation be-
tween the Secretary General and the Chairman-in-Office;
b) The need for a strengthened Secretariat, organised to support the
Secretary General as well as the Chairman-in-Office;
c) Better pooling and channelling of existing information particular-
ly from OSCE Institutions, field operations and research centres as
well as improved processing of such information, including the de-
velopment of lessons learned and best practices.
39. The enhanced role of the Secretary General may necessitate the crea-
tion of the post of Under or Deputy Secretary General.
40. It may also entail the need for more resources to enable the Secretary
General to effectively carry out his/her mandate.
3.4 Enhancingfield operations
41. Field Operations remain an innovative and operational aspect of the
OSCE's work, and deserve special attention. They are an asset and
where possible should be even further improved.
OSCE field operations
Since 1991, the CSCE/OSCE'has deployed over 20 field operations(or missions) at the request of the
host countries.Currently,there are 18 field operations based in 16 host countries, with a total staff of
3,390(1/3 seconded, 2/3localrY employed).The'missions are deployed across the Balkans, Eastern
Europe, the southern Caucasus and Central Asia. The biggest missions are concentrated in the
Balkans. Although varying greatly, allmission.mandates share the fact that they are negotiatedwith
the host country requesting an OSCE.presence and must then have the approval:of the full Permanent
Council. All existingmandateshave ii durationof 12months or less, except one(OSCE Centre in
Ashgabad) that is at present unlimited. Currently the largest field operation is the OSCE Mission in
Kosovo (OMiK)whith,although declining, stillaccounts for about half of all expenditure on field
operations and one third of all OSCE staff deployed in the field.
Common Purpose 23
42. The Panel makes the following recommendations for improving the ef-
fectiveness of field operations:
a) Mandates must ensure that the objectives of the mission are clear
and agreed between the OSCE and the host State;
b) Mandates should normally not be fixed for more than one year and
could be renewable depending on the specific tasks and on the out-
come of consultations with the host States;
c) To improve guidance and facilitate the regular evaluation of the
work of field operations, realistic benchmarks should be established
for measuring progress and duration of implementation of the man-
date;
d) In order to strengthen accountability and political oversight Heads
of Mission should personally present a report at least twice a year to
the Permanent Council. In addition, they should also hold regular
meetings with informal "Friends of ..." groups, where these exist;
e) The Secretary General should take the lead role in the operational
guidance of field activities;
f) Heads of Missions should submit regular and spot written reports to
the Secretary General with a copy to the Chairman-in-Office;
g) Field operationsshould receive more specialised support, particular-
ly in relation to all phases of capacity-building projects, from OSCE
Institutions including more effective use of short-term staff visits;
h) Special attention should be paid to the issue of local staffing, partic-
ularly in order to build up national capacity to deal with issues cov-
ered by OSCE field activities, address salary discrepancies, and en-
courage staff rotation.
i) To take into account the broad spectrum of new threats and chal-
lenges and their cross-dimensional nature, the OSCE could consider
developing a new type of thematic mission that could look at a spe-
cific issue in one country, or to ensure coherence in the work in a
broader regional/sub-regional context.
j) The Panel underlines the importance of the process of selection of
Heads of Missions being transparent and as competitive as possible.
The nominations should be made by the Chairmanship in consul-
tation with the Secretary General and the host country. To improve
the actual situation, the Panel recommends making Heads and Dep-
uty Heads of Mission posts open to public competition with sala-
ries paid from the core budget of the OSCE. This could increase the
professionalism of such posts and open them up to a broader pool of
candidates.
24 Common Purpose
3.5 Strengthening operational capacities
43. The Secretariat, Institutions, as well as Personal and Special Represent-
atives all contribute to advancing the OSCE's agenda. However, there is
frustration among participating States, including Chairmanships, that
current structures are not optimal for putting the political priorities of
the participating States into operation. Against this background, the
Panel recommends that:
a) Participating States should resist the proliferation of structures in
the OSCE;
b) The appointment of Personal and Special Representatives should be
for a limited period of time and focusing on a specific issue. Personal
and Special Representatives should not build up separate operation-
al capacities; rather they should make use of existing operational ca-
pacities in the ODIHR, the Secretariat and field operations;
c) Employment should always be based on professionalism as well
as reflecting gender and geographic balance. Without making the
OSCE a career organisation, ways should be considered to enable
the Organization to retain staff (subject to regular assessment) for a
sufficiently long period in order to preserve continuity;
d) The Panel underlines the importance of a clear and transparent sys-
tem on the use of extra-budgetary contributions;
e) The Secretariat should be re-structured to take into account politi-
cal and operational changes, as well as reforms and changes in op-
erational priorities.
OSCE Secretariat, Inåtitutions and Representatives
The OSCE SecretariatiSlocated in Vienna and has approximately 300 staff members. In addition
to providing administrative support to the whole Organization, the Secretariat is home to the Conflict
Prevention Centre, the Office of the OSCE Co-ordinator of Economic and Environmental Activities, as
well as specialised units dealing with police-related activities, counter-terrorism, border issues and
anti-trafficking.
The largest Institution is the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHIR) situated
in Warsaw. The more than 100 staff members of this Office carry out activities relating to electoral
assistance and monitoring, human rights, democratisation, gender issues, migration, rule of law,
tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as Roma and Sintiissues.
An important conflict preventionInstitution is theOSCE's High Commissioner on National
Minorities, based in the Hague, devoted to preventing inter-ethnic conflict and promoting relations
between minority and majerity communities. The newest Institution, the 0SCE's Representative on
Freedomof the Media is based in Vienna and is concerned with prompting conditions for free, fair and
pluralistic media as well asreporting on cases of failure to meet commitments. In addition to these
three specialisedInstitutions,the Chairman-in-Office can name specialor personal representatives to
cover specific issues ar regions.
Common Purpose 25
Annex I: Acknowledgements
The Panel
Nikolay Afanasievsky, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Poland. He is
a CSCE pioneer, having served with the Soviet Delegation at the negotiations of
the Helsinki Final Act from 1973 to 1975. Later he served as the Ambassador of
the USSR and subsequently the Russian Federation to Belgium and then France,
as well as Deputy Foreign Minister.
For the final meeting, Ambassador Afanasievsky was represented by Ambas-
sador Vladimir Shustov, former Permanent Representative of the Russian Fed-
eration to the CSCE/OSCE.
Hans van den Broek, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands from
1982 to 1992, and member of the European Commission from 1993 to 1999,
responsible for enlargement and external relations. Presently he is Chairman
of the Boards of a number of non-profit organisations such as the Netherlands
Institute for International Relations, Clingendael, and the Carnegie Foundation.
Wilhelm Hotiynck, first OSCE Secretary General from 1993 to 1996, following a
distinguished career in the Foreign Service of the Federal Republic of Germany.
In 1999 and 2001, he was Personal Representative for Central Asia of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office.
Kuanysh Sultanov, Deputy of the Senate of the Parliament of Kazakhstan and
Chairman of the Committee on Social and Cultural Development. Ambassador
Sultanov previously served as his country's Ambassador to the People's Demo-
cratic Republic of China and non-resident Ambassador to Vietnam, Mongolia
and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Common Purpose 27
Knut Vollebaek, Ambassador of Norway to the United States. During his term
as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, from 1997 to 2000, he was Chairman-
in-Office of the OSCE in 1999. Ambassador Vollebaek has chaired the meetings
of the Panel as its Primus inter Pares.
Richard Williamson, a partner in the US law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe &
Maw. He has held a number of senior posts in his country's foreign service
includingAssistant SecretaryofState at the US Department ofState, Ambassador
to the UN Offices in Vienna, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and as
Ambassador and Alternative Representative to the UN for Special Political
Affairs.
Miomir 2uiui, Member of Parliament and Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Croatia, 2004-05. Previously he served as Croatia's Ambassador to the United
States, after having served as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the
Republic of Croatia to the UN in Geneva.
Panel M etings
Date
17 February 2005
10-11 March
6-7 April
4-6 May
1-3 June
28 Common Purpose
Venue
Brdo pri Kranju, Slovenia
Vienna, Austria
Warsaw, Poland,
Brussels, Belgium
Vienna, Austria
The Panel was supported by, among others:
The Chairmanship-in-Office (focalpoint)
Ambassador Boris Frlec, Head of the OSCE Task Force, Ljubljana
Renata Marmulaku, Counsellor, OSCE Task Force
Tatjana Pirc, First Secretary, OSCE Task Force
The OSCE Secretariat
Walter Kemp, Senior Adviser, Office of the OSCE Secretary General
Keith Jinks, Senior Press and Public Information Officer
Hans-Michael Plut, Deputy Director for Conference Services
PersonalAssistants
Andrey Rudenko, Senior Counsellor,
Mission of the Russian Federation to the OSCE
(PA to Afanasievsky and Shustov)
Arjen van den Berg, Senior Policy Advisor,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague
(PA to Van den Broek)
Ricklef Beutin, OSCE Desk Officer,
Federal Foreign Office, Berlin
(PA to Håynck)
Akan Rakhmetllin, Head of OSCE Section,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Astana
(PA to Sultanov)
Tobias E Svenningsen, Adviser,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo
(PA to Vollebaek)
David Kostelancik, Deputy Political Counsellor,
Mission of the United States to the OSCE
(PA to Williamson)
Daniel RidiCki, Adviser,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Zagreb
(PA to Zu2u1)
Common Purpose 29
Panel Guests
Thefollowingpeople were invited to briefthe Panel:
Marco Borsotti, UNDP Representative in Baku
Ambassador Liviu Bota, Head of the Permanent Mission of Romania to the
OSCE
Pieter De Crem, Member of the Belgian Parliament
Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, OSCE High Commissioner on National
Minorities
Pieter Feith, Deputy Director for External relations and Politico-Military
Affairs, Council of the European Union
Walter Gehr, Project Co-ordinator, Terrorism Prevention Branch, UNODC
Professor Victor-Yves Ghebali, Graduate Institute of International Studies,
Geneva
Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, Chairman of the Board, The Centre for
Euro-Atlantic Integration and Democracy
Miklos Haraszti, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
Helga Konrad, Special Representative to the Chairman-in-Office Against
Human Trafficking
Ambassador Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office of the
Secretary General of NATO
Dimitar Jalnev, Programme Co-ordinator, Action Against Terrorism Unit,
OSCE Secretariat
Jan Kubii, Secretary General of the OSCE
Dr. Dov Lynch, research Fellow, European Union Institute for Security
Studies, Paris
Spencer Oliver, Secretary General, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Ambassador Roy Reeve, Head of the OSCE Mission to Georgia
Dr. Aaron Rhodes, Executive Director, International Helsinki Federation
for Human Rights
Klaus Schumann, Director General, Council of Europe Secretariat
Ambassador Peter Semneby, former Head of the OSCE Mission to Croatia
Ms. Daniele Smadja, Director Multilateral Relations and Human Rights,
Directorate General for External Relations, European Commission
Ambassador Christian Strohal, Director, Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights
Marcin Swiecicki, Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental
Activities
30 Common Purpose
Ambassador Margit Waestfelt, Head of the Permanent Mission of
Austria to the OSCE and Chairman of the Informal Group of Friends
on Improving the Functioning and Effectiveness of the OSCE Field
Operations.
Dr. Monika Wohlfeld, Deputy Director, OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre
Dr. Andrei Zagorski, Moscow State Institute for Foreign Affairs
Dr. Wolfgang Zellner, Acting Head, Centre for OSCE Research (CORE),
Hamburg
The Panel would also like to thank:
H.E. Karel De Gucht, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of
Belgium
H.E. Dr. Daniel Rotfeld, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Poland
H.E. Dr. Dimitrij Rupel, Chairman-in-Office and Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia
H.E. Jan Kubik', Secretary General of the OSCE
H.E. Daan Everts, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands to the OSCE
H.E. Mette Kongshem, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of
Norway to the OSCE
The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of
Germany, Principality of Liechtenstein, Kingdom of Norway, and the
United States of America for their financial support
All individuals, Institutions, Missions and Governments of participating
States that have briefed or assisted Panel Members during this process.
Common Purpose 31
Annex II: The Panel's Mandate
0&INe
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Ministerial Council
Sofia 2004
MC.DEC/16/04
7 December 2004
Original: ENGLISH
MC(12) Journal No. 2, Agenda item 8
DECISION No.16/04
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL OF EMINENT PERSONS ON
STRENGTHENING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OSCE
The Ministerial Council,
Determined to enhance the OSCE's capacity to address the challenges of the twenty-first cen-
tury as one of the pillars of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture,
Recognizing that the thirtieth anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, the fifteenth anniversary
of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe and the tenth anniversary of the OSCE provide with a unique
opportunity to reflect on the role of the Organization in a transforming Europe,
Realizing that there is a need to improve the Organization's functioning as well as its capabili-
ties for collective action, without diminishing its strengths and flexibility,
Mindful of the need to proceed further with this work in 2005 by taking broad and for-
ward-looking approach to strengthening the overall capacity of the OSCE:
I.
1. Decides to establish a Panel of Eminent Persons on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the
OSCE, in order to give new impetus to political dialogue and provide strategic vision for the Organiza-
tion in the twenty-first century;
2. Further decides that the Panel will review the effectiveness of the Organization, its bodies and
structures and provide an assessment in view of the challenges ahead. The Panel will make recommenda-
tions on measures in order to meet these challenges effectively;
3. Tasks the Chairman-in-Office to appoint the members of the Panel after consultations with all
participating States. The composition of the Panel, which shall have up to seven eminent persons with
knowledge of the OSCE, will take into account the diversity of the OSCE community, including from
participating States hosting field presences. Members of the Panel will have their costs covered by ex-
trabudgetary contributions. Secretariat support shall be provided by the OSCE Secretariat through ex-
isting resources. The Chairman-in-Office shall act as Focal Point for the Panel during its work. The Pan-
el shall present its report with recommendations no later than the end of June 2005 to the participating
States through the Chairman-in-Office. Specially convened High Level OSCE Consultations will be held
as a follow-up. The Permanent Council shall take a decision on the organizational modalities and the
timetable of such a specially convened High Level OSCE Consultation by the end of July 2005;
4. The Consultations will examine the report of the Panel as well as other possible contributions,
and will forward their conclusions and recommendations through the Permanent Council to the Minis-
terial Council meeting in 2005 for appropriate action.
II.
The Ministerial Council further tasks the Permanent Council, through the Working Group on Reform
and the Informal Group of Friends of the Chair on Improving the Functioning and Effectiveness of OSCE
Field Operations, to continue consideration of issues pertaining to improving the functioning of the Or-
ganization. The Chairpersons of the Groups will be available for consultations with the Panel of Eminent
Persons when necessary.
32 Common Purpose