Speech by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at the 16th Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, Helsinki, December 5, 2008

Esteemed Mr. Chairman,

Allow me to join the words of appreciation to the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Mr. Alexander Stubb, and his entire team along with the OSCE Secretariat staff for the good organization of our ministerial meeting and for the untiring efforts they have exerted to make fuller use of the solid potential set into our organization by its founding fathers.

I don't think I'll make a great discovery by stating that the OSCE has in recent years got stuck at a crossroads. Choosing a further direction will determine the Organization's fate: whether it will eventually be relevant and needed or not. There are those who want everything to be kept as it was in the 90s. In other words, a group of countries positioning themselves as civilizationally the most advanced determine and monitor the movement parameters for the rest. Therefore they demand that all institutions and mechanisms of the Organization be kept intact, like a kind of gold standard. Yet history shows that if these standards do not meet the tasks of contemporaneity, then the teacher of life, as the ancient Greeks called history, consigns them to a museum or archive at best. And this is not a question of somebody's wishes or will – it's an objective process.

It is obvious to us that the present OSCE does not cope with its main vocation – to provide equal and indivisible security for all. Whereas in the early 90s the Organization was capable to stop wars, now it is not in a position to prevent them. The unsanctioned use of force – in obvious violation of the basic principles of the Helsinki Final Act – no longer embarrasses many. Recall 1999 and the 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia, or the military attack on South Ossetia; regrettably, to neither did the OSCE manage to give a proper assessment based on facts and on current member state obligations.

And then other directions of activity likewise evoke doubts. Let us ask ourselves why a majority of the countries accepting the OSCE missions want to get rid of them. The answer is obvious: the presence of the missions is seen as a manifestation of inequality. The same applies to ODIHR election observation activities. Yet the equality of states is the underlying principle of Helsinki.

These glaring contradictions to the letter and spirit of Helsinki have to be removed, as do the visible and invisible dividing lines; especially in a situation where a truly collective unification of efforts by all states is required to find answers to the challenges of globalization.

The Russian Federation is against the OSCE dying down. We propose saturating its agenda with unifying and forward looking themes of key significance to the present and future prosperity of all its member states and their citizens. It is this spirit that imbues our proposal that the OSCE join in the realization of President Medvedev's initiative for a legally binding European Security Treaty (EST) which would help create a single collective security space for all states of the Euro-Atlantic area.

I devoted to this issue my remarks at yesterday's meeting of the heads of delegation. The text has been circulated; so I will not repeat myself. I am grateful to all colleagues for the sincere interest shown in this our initiative and will only note one more aspect of the "added value" of our proposal. The point is that the situation in the Euro-Atlantic area traditionally exerts great influence on conditions in other parts of the world. Concluding a European Security Treaty will have a positive significance for states situated outside the Euro-Atlantic zone as well. I am certain that putting the job of ensuring stability in our region on a firmer basis will help avoid perceptions that a threat might emanate from us for external partners. In addition, we will set them a good example of civilized construction of interstate relations in a vast and diverse region.

We will continue the work on a European Security Treaty, taking into account the suggestions voiced yesterday as to the forms in which the OSCE could make its contribution to it.

An imprescriptible part of our proposals regarding the content of the Treaty is restoring the viability of the European conventional arms control regime. We are convinced that agreements in this sphere, in conformity with the changed realities, would meet the interests of all states of the OSCE region, creating a basis for the proper level of predictability, trust and security on the continent. We stand for the return of their initial purpose to arms control instruments – "greater security with fewer arms." If, however, you consider them only from the viewpoint of deriving unilateral advantages and solving questions having no relationship to arms control, then a further erosion of the existing regimes will become inevitable.

Speaking of the CFE Treaty, the draft "package solution" based on so called parallel actions to get it out of the deep crisis so far rather resembles a plan of carefully outlined Russian actions in exchange for quite amorphous promises from NATO. This disbalance has to be removed by fleshing out all elements of the package with specific content not allowing different interpretations.

Russia presumes that saving the CFE regime through rehabilitating the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty and taking other measures to enhance its viability cannot be the exclusive prerogative of Moscow and Washington. The other states parties should also have the possibility to make their contribution. We welcome the similarly oriented ideas voiced by Germany.

An important part of the efforts to strengthen the military-political component in Europe is the activities of the OSCE Security Forum.

The Forum can be credited with the noticeably enlivened dialogue. Sharp, but useful discussions took place on the situation in Transcaucasia, primarily in connection with Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia. We regret that our proposal for convening the Russia-NATO Council to discuss this situation, made at the height of the war unleashed by Georgia, was essentially blocked by one delegation.

Over the last two or three years, Russia had raised the question of the danger in heavy weapons supplies to Georgia and drawn the partners' attention to the fact that these supplies were contrary to the obligations assumed by states within the framework of the OSCE. Now, after the severe August lesson voices are again being heard in some countries in favor of massive military aid to Georgia and a quick restoration of its military potential. We are again urging everyone to treat our warnings with the utmost seriousness and to strictly follow the obligations set out in the respective OSCE documents. We will continue raising these questions, particularly at the Security Forum.

We consider that the practice of frank discussions ought to be extended to a broader range of problems, both of a local and a pan-European character.

For the Forum to be able to make a contribution to improved European security that answers its purpose, it is necessary to make an unbiased overview of the existing norms and documents for their conformity with present day realities. There is also a great need for elaborating new confidence-building measures in the military-political sphere – the appropriate Russian proposals have been submitted at the Forum.

We hope that the decision to be made by us today, aimed at reinvigorating Forum activities, will facilitate moving in this direction.

Russia is a supporter of active use of the OSCE format in meeting such a common challenge for us all as international terrorism. It was in our organization that the segment of civil society was added to the public-private partnership in this field. In conjunction with a number of partners we initiated inclusion of the question of combating the narco-threat in the OSCE political agenda. Our decisions at this meeting should enable us to more effectively continue joint work on these themes next year.

The OSCE could play a useful role in forging interaction within the second, economic and environmental basket. We ought to be realists and not try to lay upon our organization tasks which it cannot shoulder and not to stage competitions with specialized structures. All proposals to include any new similar themes in the OSCE agenda should be examined from the viewpoint of availability of the respective "added value" and expert potential.

Of everlasting significance are the OSCE commitments in the human rights domain. They apply equally to all participating states. We regard the protection of national minority rights, advancement of tolerance, especially in interethnic relations, and the inadmissibility of the heroization of Nazism and the related attempts to rewrite the history of Europe as relevant issues.

I would like to draw your attention to one urgent humanitarian matter. The Georgian leadership has long ago cut off gas supply to South Ossetia. On winter's eve it's hard to designate this as anything else than a manifestation of humanity. We reckon that the OSCE leadership and institutions should act urgently to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe that may occur as a result of such actions by Tbilisi.

It is our deep belief that the OSCE's effectiveness is ever more strongly affected by its incomplete institutionalization. We feel it's important to start agreeing on an OSCE Charter at last, to extend its Rules of Procedure to the work of the executive structures – institutions and field missions – and to regularize election observation and NGO participation in OSCE meetings in a civilized manner. It is necessary to assess the performance of its field presences based on analysis of their compliance with the provisions of paragraph 41 of the Charter for European Security and to revise the OSCE Staff Regulations and Rules in the part of appointing heads of field missions so the procedure is more transparent and in line with the choice of a receiving state.

All of this will help strengthen the rule of law in the activities of our organization, its interstate nature and ensure in practice the equality of all participating states.

Recent events also call for a more attentive look at information circulation within the OSCE and at the presence of "filters" that make it accessible to a part of the participating states only. We are worried by media reports that, just before the attack on South Ossetia, OSCE observers had reported about the preparations of Tbilisi but their reports were not conveyed to all member states for some reason. This is absolutely unacceptable. We hope that the internal investigation will be seen through to the end.

Mr. Chairman,

The task of settling regional conflicts is written down in the OSCE mandate. Obviously, their successful solutions can really help reinforce security in the Euro-Atlantic area. But here also the OSCE needs uniform standards – we suggest that their list be included in a European Security Treaty. We welcome progress in the Nagorno Karabakh settlement after the Moscow meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijan Presidents with the participation of the Russian President. Advancement is also quite feasible in the Transnistrian settlement. Of key importance is agreement between the parties in conflict, and it needs to be encouraged in every way. This applies equally to possible further work of the OSCE mission in Georgia and to the presence of OSCE observers in other areas of the South Caucasus.

December 5, 2008