ODIHR CHIEF: OSCE NOT IN CRISIS, DESPITE PERSISTENT HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGES
Jean-Christophe Peuch
EurasiaNet
June 24 2008
NY
Systematic election fraud, serious restrictions on independent media,
continuous limitations on the freedom of assembly and association,
increasing threats to human rights defenders, failure to prevent
torture and ensure free and accessible justice remain problems in
many parts of the geographical area spanned by the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Yet, those serious and persistent challenges to the implementation
of OSCE human rights commitments do not mean that the organization
is in a crisis.
In short, this is what Christian Strohal, the Austrian diplomat in
charge of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights (ODIHR), said in his final report to the Permanent Council,
the organization’s main regular decision-making body that brings
together ambassadors of all 56 participating states.
Strohal did not blame any specific country or government in his
mid-June address. "We’re not in the naming and shaming business," he
later said in an interview, adding he was convinced all ambassadors
in attendance, especially representatives of nations where basic
freedoms remain under threat, knew who he had in mind.
Strohal will leave office at the end of this month, after more than
five years spent at the helm of the OSCE’s human rights body. He
will be succeeded by Janez Lenarcic of Slovenia, who was designated
to take the reins of ODIHR for the next three years.
While noting progress made by OSCE participating states toward
improving election laws and administrations, the director of ODIHR
told the Permanent Council those positive developments were "still too
often devalued" by blatant falsification of election results, as well
as restrictions imposed on opposition candidates and independent media.
Electoral manipulation before, during and after election day remains
so widespread — particularly in former Soviet republics — that it
sometimes raises questions about the relevance of polls.
Yet, Strohal rejects the idea that ballots, even tightly controlled
by authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes, could be foregone
conclusions. "If elections were foregone conclusions, no one would go
and vote," he told EurasiaNet. "People do go and vote because they
want to demonstrate that they believe in democracy and democratic
principles. It does not mean that they believe they (those principles)
are fully realized, but they want to believe in [them.]"
Yet, indicators suggest much remains to be done in that respect.
Observers dispatched last April by the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE) to assess Georgia’s parliamentary election
campaign expressed concern at the generally "low level of public
trust" in the electoral process. An opinion survey conducted in the
wake of the May 21 Georgian legislative elections by the Tbilisi-based
International Center on Conflict and Negotiation showed only one-fourth
of respondents fully trusted the official tally of the vote. The
remaining 75 percent were either skeptical, or mistrustful.
Recent international election observation missions in Georgia
and Armenia have sparked widespread controversy, with defeated
opposition forces in both countries blaming Western monitors of
allegedly overlooking vote manipulation, intimidation of candidates,
and government pressure on independent media.
The controversy became particularly vivid after the January 5 Georgian
presidential ballot, when U.S. Congressman Alcee Hastings said what
he called the "demonstrative competitiveness" of the campaign had
allowed democracy to make "a triumphant step" — a statement that was
inconsistent with the first post-election joint statement released
by international observers and ODIHR’s previous interim reports. A
member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), Hastings was
appointed special coordinator of the short-term international election
observation team that monitored the Georgian ballot.
To avoid a repeat of this incident, the OSCE’s chairman-in-office
dispatched his special envoy, Heikki Talvitie, to Georgia ahead of
the May 21 legislative ballot. Talvitie’s main task was to ensure
that all organizations represented in the international election
observation team — ODIHR, OSCE PA, PACE, European Parliament, and
NATO Parliamentary Assembly — would speak with one voice.
"Talvitie succeeded in hammering out a fairly critical joint statement
that, we think, reflected the reality on the ground. But it was not
easy, in particular because OSCE parliamentarians were insisting
on a more positive assessment of the vote," an OSCE official told
EurasiaNet on condition of anonymity.
The official added that a seminar on elections would take place in July
in Vienna at the initiative of the OSCE’s Finnish chairmanship. The
purpose of the meeting is "to reflect on election standards and
observation missions," he said.
Election observation missions will also be discussed at the OSCE PA’s
annual session that will open in Astana on June 29. Yet, Strohal does
not believe the OSCE is facing a crisis of election observation. "What
we do have is a crisis of compliance with election standards in some
countries," he told the Permanent Council.
Citing administrative obstacles established by the Kremlin, ODIHR
decided not to monitor recent parliamentary and presidential elections
in Russia.
Strohal argues that the decision was not political. It was simply "a
response to a Russian decision" to impose impracticable conditions
on ODIHR’s observation mission, he says. Yet, the move did have a
political impact. For one thing, it added fuel to the ongoing dispute
among OSCE participating states over ODIHR’s mandate.
Calling the OSCE’s human rights body an "instrument" in the hands of
the West, Russia and another six CIS members states (Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) in 2007 put forward
a series of proposals that call for limiting the number of election
observers sent to monitor any given ballot and putting ODIHR under
the supervision of participating states through the Permanent Council.
The United States and most Western governments oppose the move,
which they see as an effort "to deconstruct the current framework
for election observation."
Citing the ODIHR dispute and "the re-emergence of a political East
and West" epitomized by Russia’s decision to suspend its participation
to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the German-based Center
for OSCE Research (CORE) earlier this year cautioned the organization
against finding itself marginalized. Among possible ways to avert
a crisis, CORE recommended that participating states engage in
discussions to find a new consensus on the OSCE’s politico-military
and human dimension agendas.
But, for Strohal, there is no need for such a debate. "It would take
years and you would [end up] with 56 different answers. And in every
[participating state] you would find dozens of other answers. So I’m
not sure whether this is really the most expedient way of looking at
ways to strengthen the joint feeling of responsibility for the common
values we have," he says, adding: "You haven’t seen any crisis if
you really think this is a crisis."
Although many countries have yet to translate all their OSCE human
rights commitments into reality, Strohal believes ODIHR has made
significant achievements since its creation in the early 1990s. "I
would argue that the glass is half-full, rather than half-empty,"
he says.
In Strohal’s opinion, the 35 years that have elapsed since Cold War
enemies gathered in Helsinki to open the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe — the ancestor of today’s OSCE — have proved
"a success story."
"It is an uneven success story, a multi-directional success story,"
he says. "Sometimes this is going backward, but overall I think this
is very much moving in the right direction."
Editor’s Note: Jean-Christophe Peuch is a Vienna-based freelance
correspondent, who specializes in Caucasus- and Central Asia-related
developments.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
