Tweet
US Department of State
09 July 2004
United States Disagrees with CIS Statement on OSCE's Work
Human rights, democracy within OSCE's "comprehensive concept of security"
The United States "respectfully disagrees with the characterizations of OSCE
work" in a statement presented to the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe July 8 by nine of the 12 members of the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS), said U.S. diplomat James Cox.
"Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule
of law is at the core of the OSCE's comprehensive concept of security," Cox
said in remarks to the OSCE Permanent Council.
He added that the erosion of such activities "could have negative
consequences" for the organization's work on political-military questions,
such as the destruction of excess stockpiles of ammunition and weapons.
The CIS statement was presented to the council by the Russian delegation and
was endorsed by the Russian Federation as well as Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Moldova
gave conditional approval to the statement.
CIS members Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkmenistan did not sign it.
Following is the text of Cox's statement:
United States Mission to the OSCE
Vienna, Austria
http://osce.usmission.gov
STATEMENT ON CIS SUMMIT DECLARATION ON THE OSCE
As delivered by Acting Deputy Representative James Cox to the Permanent
Council
July 8, 2004
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the information provided to us by the distinguished Russian
ambassador on behalf of the CIS. However, let me make it perfectly clear --
the United States respectfully disagrees with the characterizations of OSCE
work contained in that document.
Over the past few years, CIS states themselves have contributed to the
expansion of OSCE work in the pol-mil [political-military] dimension. The
vast majority of OSCE states has made it clear that greater attention to
this important component of OSCE's contribution to Euro-Atlantic and
Eurasian security does not and must not detract from the unique and vital
role that the OSCE, through its field missions and ODIHR [Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights], play in promoting democratization
and respect for human rights.
As heads of state and government concluded at the Istanbul Summit in 1999,
and as we all agreed last year in the OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to
Security and Stability in the 21st Century, negotiations on which CIS states
took an active part, and I quote: "Respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, democracy and the rule of law is at the core of the OSCE's
comprehensive concept of security."
Furthermore, in those documents participating States declared, and again I
quote: "Field operations and the Secretariat are important instruments in
assisting all participating States to implement their commitments, including
respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law." The United States
stands firmly and squarely behind these statements made by the highest
political levels of our governments.
It is thus unfortunate that some OSCE states have expressed contrary views
about the OSCE, its institutions and its field missions at a time when the
field missions may be asked to undertake certain pol-mil dimension projects,
including channeling voluntary assistance to states to assist them with the
destruction of excess stockpiles of ammunition and small arms and light
weapons (SA/LW).
The United States believes that erosion of the activities of the missions in
key areas of democratization and promoting human rights also could have
negative consequences for the missions' ability to also carry out work on
these important pol-mil questions.
We believe that the review now underway of OSCE field operations and of the
work of the organization as a whole in working groups chaired by the
Canadian and Romanian ambassadors, respectively, should be the vehicles for
debate as to if, and how, the OSCE might be further strengthened so as to
maintain its comparative advantages in promoting stability and security
within and among participating States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov
09 July 2004
United States Disagrees with CIS Statement on OSCE's Work
Human rights, democracy within OSCE's "comprehensive concept of security"
The United States "respectfully disagrees with the characterizations of OSCE
work" in a statement presented to the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe July 8 by nine of the 12 members of the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS), said U.S. diplomat James Cox.
"Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule
of law is at the core of the OSCE's comprehensive concept of security," Cox
said in remarks to the OSCE Permanent Council.
He added that the erosion of such activities "could have negative
consequences" for the organization's work on political-military questions,
such as the destruction of excess stockpiles of ammunition and weapons.
The CIS statement was presented to the council by the Russian delegation and
was endorsed by the Russian Federation as well as Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Moldova
gave conditional approval to the statement.
CIS members Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkmenistan did not sign it.
Following is the text of Cox's statement:
United States Mission to the OSCE
Vienna, Austria
http://osce.usmission.gov
STATEMENT ON CIS SUMMIT DECLARATION ON THE OSCE
As delivered by Acting Deputy Representative James Cox to the Permanent
Council
July 8, 2004
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the information provided to us by the distinguished Russian
ambassador on behalf of the CIS. However, let me make it perfectly clear --
the United States respectfully disagrees with the characterizations of OSCE
work contained in that document.
Over the past few years, CIS states themselves have contributed to the
expansion of OSCE work in the pol-mil [political-military] dimension. The
vast majority of OSCE states has made it clear that greater attention to
this important component of OSCE's contribution to Euro-Atlantic and
Eurasian security does not and must not detract from the unique and vital
role that the OSCE, through its field missions and ODIHR [Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights], play in promoting democratization
and respect for human rights.
As heads of state and government concluded at the Istanbul Summit in 1999,
and as we all agreed last year in the OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to
Security and Stability in the 21st Century, negotiations on which CIS states
took an active part, and I quote: "Respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, democracy and the rule of law is at the core of the OSCE's
comprehensive concept of security."
Furthermore, in those documents participating States declared, and again I
quote: "Field operations and the Secretariat are important instruments in
assisting all participating States to implement their commitments, including
respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law." The United States
stands firmly and squarely behind these statements made by the highest
political levels of our governments.
It is thus unfortunate that some OSCE states have expressed contrary views
about the OSCE, its institutions and its field missions at a time when the
field missions may be asked to undertake certain pol-mil dimension projects,
including channeling voluntary assistance to states to assist them with the
destruction of excess stockpiles of ammunition and small arms and light
weapons (SA/LW).
The United States believes that erosion of the activities of the missions in
key areas of democratization and promoting human rights also could have
negative consequences for the missions' ability to also carry out work on
these important pol-mil questions.
We believe that the review now underway of OSCE field operations and of the
work of the organization as a whole in working groups chaired by the
Canadian and Romanian ambassadors, respectively, should be the vehicles for
debate as to if, and how, the OSCE might be further strengthened so as to
maintain its comparative advantages in promoting stability and security
within and among participating States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov